hake

I have not yet taken the plunge to replace MBAM2 with MBAM3. I am waiting to see that MBAM3's reported teething issues have subsided before migrating people who I support who use MBAE Premium over to MBAM3 (some of them live 50 miles away from me). Is there a time limit on MBAE Premium user's eligibility?

Many months ago, I installed MBAE Free on a Windows 7 laptop belonging to a friend who lives in a care home. EMET 5.2 is also installed but browsers are strictly omitted from EMET's protection list and Java is absent from the system. Yesterday I noticed that the MBAE icon was absent from the system tray at the bottom left of the display. Task Manager showed that the MBAE service and mbae.exe were both running but i was unable to verify if MBAE protection was active. I was not able to make the MBAE GUI appear. Has MBAE recently been modified to behave this way when EMET is installed?

MBAE 1.9.1.1291 displays its GUI after updating. This confused and alarmed a few users for whom the name Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit is not one they are over-familiar with. I received several phone calls from people I support and I had to reassure them that the behaviour was not sinister and most definitely NOT malware.

I now have a comprehensive handle on the release of MBAM3. The issues I wrote about above are now understood and can be worked around. It only remains to get confirmation that future standalone MBAE versions will not expire after 6 months.

Does 'Perpetual Beta' mean that a Beta version will in future not cease working after 6 months as we have been accustomed to but will continue to function perpetually? I notice that MBAE Beta version numbers 1.9.1.1266 and 1.09.1.1280 differ in the second part of the version number, i.e. 09 as compared with 9. Is there any significance in this?

The evidence is that MBAM3 and Outpost Firewall have significant incompatibilities. Remove Outpost and MBAM3 behaves as one would hope. In my particular case, I am sticking with Outpost as I value its capabilities to enable such things as DNS protection. I am looking for another firewall though. It seems obvious that the cessation of the development of Outpost means that it will never be tweaked to accommodate MBAM3 and subsequent versions.

MSE is not and has never been installed. Windows Defender is installed but 'turned off'. The AV is Avast 12.3.2280 Free. I have found a PUM peculiarity. One PUM has been found during the threat scan and I elect to 'ignore it always'. At the next threat scan, it is listed again. This works properly in MBAM2. Apart from that MBAM3 works great on one of the Windows 7 systems, notwithstanding Outpost Firewall Pro and Avast. I know what is installed on the two Windows 7 systems since I installed each. Is Avast redundant with MBAM3 Premium installed and working in real-time? Knowing Pedro's recent history, should I expect Panda Security to be a problem?

I have attempted to install MBAM3 over the old MBAM2 (Free), MBARW and MBAE (Premium) on two Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit systems. One succeeded, one did not. On the one which did succeed, I found that immediately after installation that trying to start MBAM3 from the desktop caused the system to hang so I had to switch the power off. On restarting, MBAM3 sprang to life. I was able to customise the settings to my liking and run a threat scan. On completion of this, MbamService.exe tripped Agnitum Outpost's Firewall Pro 9.3 System Guard following which I set Outpost to 'allow' MbamService.exe to modify all categories covered by System Guard except for 'Dangerous Activity'. I have no qualms about allowing MBAM3 such trust. This appears to have done the trick and Outpost no longer wakes up when its cage is rattled. The other Windows 7 system on which I attempted to install, no amount of restarting of the system would allow the system (or MBAM3) to run so I needed recourse to System Restore. What a pity that the MBAM3 installation procedure does not do a System Save before doing the actual install. I don't expect that Outpost Firewall Pro 9.3 is the problem since no Outpost alerts have been generated. I have used Outpost for many years On the strength of my admittedly brief observations, I am sceptical that MBAM3 is completely ready for general release. I certainly would be anxious to hear the telephone ring right now in the anticipation that my wife's two sisters (my wife is NOT called Marge) might be in trouble with a failed MBAM3 installation over the existing MBAM2, MBARW and MBAE (Premium) installations. Are there any MBAM3 system diagnostics report generators available to enable data to be submitted to Malwarebytes?

But what about the subscription for MBAE Premium which I paid on 27 October 2016? How can I use it to help pay for a year's subscription for a 3 platform package of MBAM 3 Premium? I am clearly not going to receive value for paying for MBAE Premium now that all installations of MBAE will shortly become Premium by default.

I have a few users of MBAE Premium with MBAM v2 Free. As it happens I have also just renewed the 3 platform subscription for MBAE Premium. For the sake of some sort of continuity, what happens to MBAM v2 Free? Is there a MBAM v3 Free? Also, I have a couple of old PCs with pre-SSE2 processors which won't run MBAE v3. I need to ensure that my users continue to receive uninterrupted MBAE service. I will review the MBAM 3 situation and will want to be able to transfer my MBAE to good use with MBAM v3 Premium in the near future when I have better digested the implications of the new all-singing all-dancing product.

MBAE beta 1.09.1.1275 installer plays nice on pre-SSE2 processor. MBAE itself behaves unobtrusively.

I expect that you will eventually cease MBAE support of our old hardware. I respectfully suggest that Malwarebytes considers inhibiting the final pre-SSE2 processor supporting production version of MBAE from pointlessly seeking further version updates when installed on a system with a pre-SSE2 processor. This will allow pre-SSE2 users to continue to receive benefits from using MBAE, albeit with gradually diminishing protection (which is still greatly preferable to no protection).

Thanks to you guys for the consideration you are showing to those who use use older pre-SSE2 processor equipped hardware. MBAE 1.09.1.1266 is very satisfactory. I would point out the inconsistency that while the installed program runs, its installer probably has an instruction which requires SSE2 processors to run to completion because it halts with an illegal instruction, according to the error message box. As it is, the installer does just enough to enable the installation to be manually completed. I hope that this pre-SSE2 instruction compatibility makes it through to the final 1.09,1,xxxx production version, i.e. a version that runs for more than 6 months.

Will MBAE 1.09.1.1254 time-out after 6 months? Hope it doesn't. I guess that it is reliable. It behaves that way.

I have to correct myself. The installer/uninstaller mbae-uninstaller.exe for MBAE beta 1.09.1.1254 works properly. I must have got my versions mixed up.

I have attempted to do as requested and my following comments are about what happened. The installer/uninstaller mbae-uninstaller.exe for both MBAE 1.09.1.1261 and 1264 seems to require a SSE2 compatible processor. On my pre-SSE2 processor equipped PC it fails twice with illegal instructions and so is unable to create MbaeSvc among other failings. However, the MBAE beta 1.09.1.1254 mbae-uninstaller.exe does work (almost). It also fails with an illegal instruction BUT it is able to create MbaeSvc although it cannot start it. I do not know the options required to manually create MbaeSvc but at least I can manually start that service. If I edit my hOSTS file to prevent mbae-svc.exe from accessing the Internet to update to the latest production version, MBAE beta 1.09.1.1254 is usable but I guess that being a beta it will only work for 6 months. If the installer executable for MBAE 1.09.1.1261/1264 were to be modified to be capable of running without 'illegal instruction' errors, I could then attempt to check if the actual MBAE software comprising versions 1.09.1.1261 or 1264 is capable of running on pre-SSE2 processors.

Message received. I will do this in about 12 hours time (it's 10pm here) and will then let you know what the outcome is.

Thank you in advance, Arthi, for creating a solution for pre-SSE2 processor users. That will be much appreciated. I guess that you will eventually have to cease support of our old hardware so might you be considering that the final version which does support pre-SSE2 processors will be equipped to recognise the presence of pre-SSE2 processors and so selectively disable automatic updates to future versions of MBAE?

Thank you Arthi. I inferred that the version numbering indicated that 1.09.1.1261 was the successor version to 1.09.1.1254 which I am presently using.

MBAE production version 1.09.1.1261 will not run on pre-SSE2 processors but MBAE beta(?) 1.09.1.1254 can. The version numbers for 1.09 are confusing. I will hang onto the 1.08.1.2572 installer for the time being.

Oh dear! MBAE production version 1.09.1.1261 will not run on pre-SSE2 processors but MBAE beta(?) 1.09.1.1254 can. The version numbers for 1.09 are confusing. I will hang onto the 1.08.1.2572 installer for the time being.

Works fine on Windows XP SP3 with pre-SSE2 processor. Same installation issues as for dot rev 1243. I guess that a clean install needs the to be updated MBAE to be closed first. If that isn't done, the MBAE service is not placed in the service list and the command to start MBAE.exe is also not created.

The GUI opens on starting. I guess this is not intended. IGNORE THIS POST. I MADE A MISTAKE. MBAE 1.09.1.1243 IS OK.

I have installed MBAE 1.09.1.1243 on an old PC with a pre-SSE2 processor (Celeron 3) running Windows XP SP3. It runs. I am not sure that it is entirely problem free. After running the install procedure (over MBAE 1.08.1.2572), I noticed that there was no MBAE service listed and so was not surprised that it did not run at restart. Repeating the installation created the necessary service and on restarting the PC, MBAE 1.09.1.1243 ran as I hoped it would.