• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About smipx013

  • Rank
    Regular Member
  1. Until someone from Malwarebytes Admins confirms they are all false positives then its best not to assume......... Even though its pretty likely :-)
  2. same for me. Chrome outbound and also svchost outbound to same address and various ports. Is this s bug in the runes or what?? or...... is there some kind of massive zero day attack going on / botnet etc???? Cheers, Paul
  3. OK that's fair enough - I hadn't fully appreciated that. I guess then that a reboot daily would be a good idea for folk constrained by RAM. I just need to test now to see if a full "restart" brings it back down or if a "shutdown" is sufficient (a.k.a. fast startup / hybrid shutdown). Thanks John. Paul
  4. OK thanks AdvancedSetup. I still don't really understand why mine is taking (now) 375Mb while some folk only see around the 190Mb mark. It has steadily crept up from 317Mb over the past 24 hours. Its not running a scan. Could it be due to the database not being defragmented or deduplicated when it updates? Thanks Paul
  5. Oh - OK. That's going to cause some issues with my customers for the following reasons: 1. Cost of having to purchase, install and maintain 3 separate tools. Many of these users are pretty clueless when it comes to malware and the cost of at least £50 per year on top of an antivirus will be hard for them to swallow. 2. The specification of computer needs to be quite high to run AV + MBAM + MBAE so good pretection will rely on mid to top end equipment. Many customers have machines that are already "average" in terms of performance. In many cases I already have them take off Trusteer Rapport due to the massive perfomance impact it has on machines for little or no extra protection (so long as they have a good AV and MBAM) I appreciate that for most people on here it will not be an issue but if you look at the population as a whole it really will be. cheers, Paul
  6. Not to labour a point to death but here is another example of a potentially misleading article from the marketeers. It suggests that MBAE protects against a certain threat - I am sure it does and have no gripe with that. It makes no mention of MBAM and therefore one might rightfully conclude that MBAM will not protect you from this threat. A previous comment in this thread told me that if Malwarebytes "knows about it" then both MBAM and MBAE will protect me against a threat. If that is the case then why doesn't the article mention that MBAM and MBAE BOTH protect against the threat?? Article:
  7. So there reamins one question that I have never gotten an answer to quote: What I'm really keen to know is what has a direct effect on the amount of memory Mbamservice uses. Why are some machines only 190Mb while others are 400Mb? Its not a criticism I'm just interested to know. Is this something that a Malwarebytes employee is able to share? thanks Paul
  8. true... but as I mostly use it to troubleshoot processes I prefer to have the admin features from the get go. :-)
  9. Thanks everyone and thanks AdvancedSetup for the comprehensive overview. What I'm really keen to know is what has a direct effect on the amount of memory Mbamservice uses. Why are some machines only 190Mb while others are 400Mb? Its not a criticism I'm jst interested to know. With regard to my own machine - I guess its a case of "just like Gardeners - who's own gardens look a right mess but the one's they do for money look lovely :-) "You are right that a lot of the tools are throwbacks to older times and also back when I was tweaking and installing (jellybean / EPM / AccessGain). already removed: AccessGainDriver EPM Jellybean The BITS error seemed to be a one off. Not seen it again. The "Code Integrity is unable to verify the image integrity of the file \Device\HarddiskVolume3\Windows\System32\efswrt.dll" seems to be rather common on the forums with no real fix. Ran and SFC and a DISM and no issues found so will monitor this. The 7031 and 7023 errors seem to appear on a good proportion of computers I see through the door. I suspect this is a bug in the Microsoft code and am ever hopeful that they will fix it. I suspect it is to do with permissions on accounts when they are switched from Local to MS accounts and then switched back to local. the other programs like PSP9, HDTach and Diskmon I do need and plan to keep running in compat. mode as they are useful, I use them a lot and work just fine (they simply need to be run as administrator to work with the access rights I want them to have). I thought if you replace the standard task manager with ProcessHacker it needed to be run in admin mode so you don't get a prompt every time you want to look at "all processes" and process threads/tokens but I may well be wrong on that. thanks Paul
  10. Hi there, My system has 6Gb RAM (4 usable as SSD turbocache takes 2Gb) and I was using Firefox, IE, Word and Outlook and noticed that my system was becoming a bit sluggish. Looking at Process Hacker I wanted to see what was going on and saw my RAM was up to 70% usage. Digging deeper I could see that (of course) FF was the biggest consumer by far (10 tabs) but I also noticed that mbamservice.exe was consuming 420Mb RAM. I thought this was a bit high (I am on the latest release). Is this normal/within the acceptable range? I already removed MBAM using the mbam-clean and reinstalled but it seems to be making no difference. I also have Avast 2016 "Free". Thanks Paul
  11. Hi, I am a fully paid up user of MBAM but wanted to know if MBAM has any protection against Locky or does one have to try the Anti Ransomware beta. If this is the case then are we going to end up in a situation where we have to have and AV + MBAM + MBARW + other programs for future issues? If the latter then why is MBAM not incorporating Anti-Ransomware technology? Sorry for being a bit thick on the subject. Thanks Paul