SCR4514
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Posts posted by SCR4514
-
-
26 minutes ago, pfeerick said:
Because as new malware exploits are found it wants to check if anything was missed by files the real-time scanner cleared with the old definitions? The full scan is also much more through than the real-time scan, hence why it is more resource intensive. However, I don't feel daily scans are needed... weekly or even bi-weekly/monthly scans should be fine depending on the usage of your machine. However, that is just a personal opinion.
In other words it failed to detect the infection and now will only be resolved with a scan? Maybe.
-
I have no intention of running any one specific program that will utilize so much of my system resources at the expense of all others. The minimal time saving of the scan is not relevant in my opinion. I have a proven full protection suite installed that uses just a fraction of resources that Malwarebytes gobbles up.
If Malwarebytes is in fact protecting my system as claimed why are subsequent scans even necessary after the first scan? I mean if anything gets past Malwarebytes while it is protecting my system then it is in fact a failure.
-
6 hours ago, bdubrow said:
Hi there!
We are actively working on a patch release that will address most of the more popular issues that you may have heard about or even experienced yourself.
Please stay tuned and we'll let you know just as soon as the new version is available!
Will there be a clean removal as there is for v2.x (not just the normal uninstall as that does not remove everything as it did not for v2.x) for this next version when released?
-
You're welcome...
Let me know if I can do anything else.
-
10 hours ago, Ried said:
Thank you SCR4514. Can you please send us the mbamservice.log?
Attached.
-
Just finished installing beta 3.
My results on:
Windows 7 - Sp1 Professional x64
CPU: i7-4790 3.6 GHz Turbo to 4.0 GHz
Ram: 8 GB
Hard Drive (spinner): 459 GB With 49 GB used - 7200 RPMMethod of Install: Clean
Boot Prior to v3.04 install: 50001 ms
Boot After v3.0.4 Install: 80124 msShutdown Prior to v3.0.4 Install:11408 ms
Shutdown after v3.0.4 Install: 14606 msScan for Root Kit: Enabled
CPU at Idle:
Low 1.6% Peak 4.1% Average: 3.6%
In scan: 7% to 71% Average 55%Idle CPU Temp:
82 degrees F.In scan CPU Temp:
Peak 138 degrees F.RAM
Idle: 221 MB
Scan: 426 MB Peak - Average 365 MBFiles scanned: 324899
Time: 3:17
Added Mutual exclusions with Eset Internet Security v10 ..(I do not like to use exclusions in any security software)Scan for Root Kit: Enabled
Boot With Mutual exclusion: 67106 ms
Shutdown With Mutual exclusion: 16029 msCPU Use in scan: Used 14% to 62% with an average of 40%
Temperature peak in scan: 138 degrees F.
RAM: In scan peak 407 MB average 325 MBItems Scanned: 324698
Time: 1:18Manual start of Beta 3 Takes approximately 25 to 30 seconds to appear on the screen exclusions or not.
-
Hi Lisa,
That's good to know. In the mean time I'm forced to go back to v2x. It's just not worth punishing my system for the very limited gain in speed.
Thanks for the information.
-
The latest beta is also pretty heavy on the CPU resources running up to 82% at it's peak.
-
My results. (I made a post elsewhere but made some changes including a clean reinstall and added mutual exclusions in Malwarebytes and Eset Internet Security v10. This lowered the average CPU usage by 11% and the average memory usage by 53 MB during the scan. The scan time was reduced by 26 seconds.)
Mbam Beta v3.03
System Boot
No Mbam Auto start: 55830 ms
Auto Start Mbam: 67828 ms
Increase: 11998 msStarting Mbam manually takes 12320 ms so the above makes sense.
Shutdown
Mbam Not running: 10320 ms
Mbam Running: 12681 msMemory at idle
MbamService: 219 mb
CPU at Idle: 0Memory scanning
MbamService: Average 325 mb - Peak 407mb
Mbam.exe *32: 42 mb
MbamTray.exe *32: 7 mbNormal CPU at Idle
2% to 3% average 2.6%
Temp At Idle: 82 degrees F. Peak: 109 Degrees F.CPU During Scan
MbamService: 25% to 82% Average 54%
Temperature During Scan: 110 degrees F. to 138 degrees F. Average 127 degrees F.Scan
Total Files: 323,672
Time: 3 minutes 21 seconds.
System Operations
No slow down or other problems noted while conducting normal use on the Internet.Comment:The CPU usage is a problem for me. For the duration of the scan the computer is pretty sluggish at best. The temperature increase of 54 degrees F to 138 degrees F. is an unacceptable problem for me. Will this be addressed in a future release? I did not have any CPU temperature issues or excessive CPU consumption in v2.2. The last scan before installing the new beta 2 took 4 minutes 51 seconds. The CPU usage was around 8% and the memory consumption was 157 to 209 MB. The latest beta is exacting a pretty heavy load on resources for a savings of about 1 minute 30 seconds in scan time.
My System:
OS: Windows 7 sp-1 Professional x64
CPU: Intel i7-4790 @3.60 GHz Turbo to 4.0 GHz
Memory: 8 GB
-
Uninstalled v2.2 > Reboot
Ran MBAMClean.exe > Reboot
Installed Malwarebytes Premium v3.03.1245 > Reboot
Install went as expected with no issues.
At Idle:
CPU = 0%
Memory: MBAMService = 223 mb
Memory: Mbam.exe 53 mb
During Scan:
CPU Peak = 82% - Average 50%
Temperature increase = 56 degrees F. to 136 degrees F.
MBAMService Memory Peak = 407 mb - Average 370 mb
Files Scanned: 323,519 in 3 minutes 23 seconds
Last v2.2 scan last night: MBAMservice: 207 mb .. MBAM.exe: 171 mb .. CPU Peak: 9.8% - Average: 8.3%
Files Scanned: 275,283 in 4 minutes, 51 seconds. No noticeable increase in CPU temperature.
Comment: This version is entirely to resource hungry on my CPU when compared to v2.2.x and only gain about 1 minute 28 seconds in the scan time. If I recall correctly there was a option to assist with multitasking by lowering the CPU usage. I never found the need to use it but it sure would be handy in v3.0.3.
My System: Windows 7 Pro - sp1 .. CPU: i7 - 4790 3.6 MHz with 4.00 MHz Boost .. RAM: 8 GB
-
I tend to reset my important passwords on a rotating schedule of about every two weeks. Probably over kill but I feel better.
-
CCleaner is bundled with a PUA in the form of a Google toolbar. Ironic as that may be that a cleaner includes something that needs to cleaned.
Do a search for the "Slim" version of CCleaner that doesn't include the PUA.
-
I think you would be better served by using this. It has 50+ product detections including Malwarebytes. I scan files with that, Quicker and more results.
https://www.virustotal.com/en/documentation/desktop-applications/virustotal-uploader
Thank you for the link. I've used VirusTotal in the past but was not aware of the uploader application.
-
bdubrow,
Thank you for your reply and confirmation.
-
To be clear I'm asking about the Premium version with real time protection enabled. Not the free version or during scans.
-
Has there been any change in the quarantine process in v2.1.4 over previous versions.
Specifically, will Malwarebytes still quarantine what it finds automatically even if "Automatically quarantine detected items" is not selected in "Advanced settings"?
-
Nesivos,
That's very interesting. However I'm not fond of third party memory managers. I'm sure if something needs the memory that Windows would take care of the task. From all I've read Windows 7 is very good at managing the memory It's just something I'm not interested in doing. Perhaps if I have problems in the future I'll take a look at that program. I have a total of 5 GB of useable memory. I guess since I paid for it I might as well use it. I've never run out of memory or received a low memory warning so things are going right. My OP was out of curiosity of what other users are seeing in resources used by Malwarebytes not because I am having an issue.
I just started my graphic software, with 6 tabs open in my browser and my spreadsheet software open. Just prior to opening these programs the readings were close to those in my OP. So it seems that Windows is taking care of business as it should.
mbamservice.exe = 52 MB (VM = 219 MB)
mbam.exe = 45 MB (VM = 27 MB)
mbamscheduler.exe = 9 MB (VM = 4 MB)
So it seems that Windows is taking care of business as it should.
I appreciate your response and information.
Thank you,
Stan
.
-
Jim.
Thanks for the reply and confirmation, I appreciate it,
Stan
-
I'm wondering if the consumption of memory I'm seeing is the norm.
At idle:
mbamservice.exe = 127 MB
mbam.exe = 26 MB
mbamscheduler = 3 MB
Total = 156 MB
Measured with Windows Task Manager on Windows 7 sp1 x64
Thanks.
-
I have strong feelings about a company like YAC but I would be banned from this forum for life if I expressed them. With that in mind I hope the MB legal folks do what I can't say.
-
Just wondering, why would someone by a product to protect there computer and then disable it from starting with windows. If that is what your going to do you should have stuck with the free version....
I don't have an always on connection to the Internet so running Malwarebytes at boot is not necessary. When my computer connects Malwarebytes starts and it stops when I disconnect. There are many different ways people use their computers and many different reasons why people set them up as they do.
Perhaps the free version would have covered my needs, it did for many years. However, because I used the free version for so long I felt the need to pay my dues to, in a small way, encourage further development of the program.
-
David, Thank you for your very informative post. You answered questions that I didn't have a clue how to ask.
-
To me I think the opposite. A lot of people want a security suite that does the work for them but the problem is I find these are the people more likely to get infected. It's good if it does stuff automatically but people tend to get lazy. I like to regularly go into my settings and have a look and run things manually to so I know I'm not just relying on the automatic stuff.
As to the design itself, I really like it. Malwarebytes had a good simple design before version 2 but it was very simple and as mentioned it didn't really feel modern - while some may like this some people may think an old looking program may have old looking protection. 2.0 and upwards had an okay design but it wasn't as sleek as the upcoming design looks. It seems to flow a lot better especially without the extra stuff on the bottom. I'd probably replace the smiley face with a tick as most have suggested as that seems standard practise with all security programs
I can assure you that I am as far from lazy when it comes to the security of my computer as you are assuming that I am. I am very proactive when it comes to the security of my system. My point was that if the software is running as it should then the interaction with the UI would be limited.
If it doesn't work as it should and I have to keep checking on it to be sure it's working as designed then I don't trust the software and I would be rid of it. Please read my last paragraph again, it's most important to me that Malwarebytes puts it's main priority on the operation of the program not what it looks like.
I do believe that if there is an issue with the operation of Malwarebytes short of a complete crash it would let you know either through the tray icon or a pop up. If I am wrong on this someone please let me know.
To each their own if you feel insecure with a particular product then check on it. I honestly do not believe that Malwarebytes would design a product with automatic scheduling of updates and scans as well as web protection if they wanted you to regularly check on it to see if it's working. If that were the case by the time you check on it and discover that it's not working as designed it's probably to late.I also doubt that Malwarebytes would be in business very long if their product was so inferior that you had to regularly check to see if the program is operating correctly.
-
You're welcome EugeneB I'm glad it worked for you.
I tend to agree that removing the start with windows check would indicate that you do not want the program to start. However, I sort of understand MB's thinking as well.
Not all users of the program take the time to inform themselves of the dangers of the Internet. So in essence MB has taken the steps to protect them even if they accidentally set the program to not start at boot.
I am very aggressive in determining what starts at boot. In fact the only program that starts, other then the required Windows system files, is my AV. I do not have an "always on Internet" because I use a cellular connection. When my computer detects a connection programs start on an as needed basis when there is no longer a connection they stop. It's not a plan for everyone but it works well for me.
Getting Pretty Sick of MWB
in Malwarebytes for Windows Support Forum
Posted
That's what I did after having a disastrous experience with v3. I soon realized the MB just isn't the program I purchased my life time license for. It's grown to complex and duplicates protections I already have licensed software for and have zero issues with.
I wish that MB would produce a light version without all of the complexity or at least be able to disable it and use the parts you need. I have found something along those lines but my life time license expenditure for MB was a waste in the end as I am now paying for the new product I use. My choice of course.
However, I am ever the optimist and will be checking back to see if there is anything I feel may be of use for me in the future.