Jump to content

anon743

Honorary Members
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

anon743 last won the day on May 25 2022

anon743 had the most liked content!

Reputation

3 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

1,029 profile views
  1. Still on XP (SP3) and running on legacy version 3.5.1. The exact symptoms described on the following threads have returned again. In other words, definitions updates failed and "check for updates" appeared instead of "Downloading/Applying" etc, as well as the "Red Triangle" warning: https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/278282-resolved-legacy-3512522-sudden-red-triangle-your-updates-are-not-current/ https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/230995-malwarebytes-not-updating/ The last successful definitions update operation was on Monday Sep 25. After that the Update package version is stuck at 1.0.31231 Before this latest incident, the same issue happened again a few weeks ago, but was fixed the next day after such issue was discovered. Did MB change server settings such that version 3.5.1 now cannot establish a connection and such? Or, the server is temporarily down for whatever reason? Can someone please investigate and issue fixes? Thank you
  2. CaptainCrash, what Imari said is correct. Back then the license key formats were confusing and if you still have the two-part key then things are likely to be more problematic. I also remember that, some 6-7 years ago, lifetime license keys were not too emphasized by customers until after MB scrapped this key scheme. As a result many customers rushed to online vendors like eB to get as many as possible. I too have once approached an eB vendor but eventually didn't go ahead, upon learning that the lifetime keys being offered were of the two-part format. It's a pity that I couldn't obtain as many one-part keys when I had the chance. I still have a few, but all of them have been assigned to different machines (one per mach machine, no repeated use). I do believe the v2.2.1 key that I'm still using on my old XP desktop should transition to v3.5.1 without issue, as I was once forced-upgraded to v3.x and the same key was validated under v3.x. Having said that, newer versions of the MB software employ even stricter license management policies to the dislike of many (even if they're following the license policies). I just hope one day MB would re-introduce lifetime licenses to all potential customers at a reasonable price. I'll be transitioning to v3.5.1 in just a couple of days, after I've taken note of the previous v2.2.1 user settings etc. Hope v3.5.1 won't mess up my XP systems in the long run......
  3. As member janonrawr has mentioned in his post, "I do not like the resource usage of 3 or 4" which I must agree on version 3. Having briefly tried out v3.5.1 I ended up reverting to v2.2.1 for a more stable system on my side. But given this circumstance, if eventually I (as well as many others) am forced to migrate to v3.5.1 then God knows how the entire desktop computing experience can be seriously hampered (esp. since I still need to maintain an older OS). Meanwhile cryptz's comments regarding update server change/deprecation/etc. are highly credible. The information provided (via the process "hacking" routine) does not (and should not) lie. Seriously though, if customers' experience on newer versions (say, at least 3.5.1) were that positive then why would some insist on sticking to the older version? Also the way on how MB has evolved and changed in its products, has not resulted in the liking of many, such as no more lifetime licenses but instead subscription-based purchases. And then there are further issues with even newer versions which I'd rather not discuss here (as I don't want to sway off topic).
  4. No offence but these kinds of quarantine false alarms do happen from time to time. And this dates back to even older MBAM versions such as 2.2.1. When I did a manual scan, sometimes the results would see a few applications (or some of their modules) being flagged. I would have to identify them, exclude them permanently, or add them to the safe lists and such. That said, not only MBAM has these types of false alarms. Other AV/firewall security software from other vendors would occasionally do that as well, with Norton (NIS) being a primary example. That's why you need to check your virus software periodically for any accidentally quarantined (or deleted) software components, and to set new exclusion rules to prevent such instances from happening in the future.
  5. Thanks for input. By now I see quite a lot of folks here still swearing by v2.2.1 even though they're running on relatively more modern systems (7SP1/8.x/10) that allow for newer version software builds with minimal compatibility issues, and there have to be reasons for that. To me, this old MBAM version being a compact one (ie. for yearswithout sagging a lot of system resources) was the selling point, and because many of us are already running some other major AV/firewall systems, MBAM 2.2.1 has for years served as a good top-up protection module for added system protection. treenz, maybe you can consider migrating to the next major legacy version, v3.5.1, to see if things may improve at your side? Bob (MB admin), I need to be straight with this. The clause regarding older (EOL'ed) client MBAM software versions not guaranteed to receive definitions updates, sounds very absurd to me. When you look at other companies and how they deal with older legacy software versions on security software, those companies would mostly guarantee that paid subscribers (who need to stick to such older versions for maintaining their legacy operating systems) will still be able to receive protection updates (despite having no application updates on those legacy send-off versions). Examples include Avast and Kaspersky where they actually provide links to such legacy send-off software versions, complete with instructions, disclaimers and such. So why can't MB take an effort to provide similar treatment to the loyal customers, remains a question. Maybe they didn't want to try enough?? Perhaps one possible reason, is with the people (and their mindsets), who only yearn to move things to the newest, the baddest etc. etc. without considering any legacy compatibility and such. It's a one-way street now. This whole twitched tech trend is not just about "progress" but also greed, and such. And with that, the losers are always the customers.
  6. Thanks for your honest feedback. By stark contrast though, your other colleague seemed to have made a ridicule out of my situation. Not amused with that at all! I'd also like to give credit to the other members in this thread who've come up to report the issue. Bob, may I also ask you to take the comments and observations of members cryptz, ggeinec and janonrawr into consideration while investigating the issue? As we speak (5-25) the problem has still not been rectified.
  7. Let's wait for member Anjoland to submit some logs to you first, see if you find any similarities whatsoever. What I don't understand is that, why is the client not allowed to download the database packages? Is there anything to do with permissions on the servers etc.? And is there a way to manually download the definitions updates as an executable so that the user (client) can manually install it? BTW the other admin has suggested that I reset the Winsock stuff. Would this really work? I'm not sure if I should go ahead as doing so may cause problems to the rest of the network connections etc.
  8. Thanks very much for your input. So this is not an isolated problem after all. Except that, you were able to update the definitions database to 5.19.8 while I could only go up to 5.19.4. Now, can you refer to tetonbob's post and submit some log data for his reference? Read his post again and locate the "logs" folder as indicated (folder path may vary depending on Windows version). You should be able to find a bunch of logs in the .xml extension. Choose the ones that are revenant, ie. those from May 18 onwards to the very recent day, copy them out to another location, pack them into an .rar archive, then attach it here in your next reply. Regarding AdvancedSetup's posts and advice, now that you've responded, I think that may sound a little too generic, and thus to hasty to point to a corrupted Winsock and such (after all, I haven't done anything at all to change any networking properties etc.)
  9. Can't uninstall NIS as it's a very messy matter. If I do, then I won't be able to keep the existing version (v21.7.xx) as, as of the events of March 2020 Norton LL has force-upgraded (read: hijacked) every legacy (older) NIS/NS version to the most current one (v22.x) which has been giving me problems since this version's inception years ago. Which is why, I need to try hard to keep version 21.7.x at work. But then the Intelligent Updater fiasco happened (see previous post for links)... I can try resetting Winsock etc. though. I'm not sure reinstalling MBAM 2.2.1 would make things worse. Anyway I hope tetonbob will get back to me since I've submitted the logs he has requested. Let him determine if the Winsock thing is messing up things, connections etc.
  10. How would doing such resets affect my computer and my other program applications? I may try, but I'm just not sure, as the defs update was working properly prior to the 19th... BTW I've temporarily disabled Norton Smart Firewall and Antivirus Auto-Protect, but still to no avail. Speaking of which, I'm having problems with NIS since March 24 as I cannot manually update my virus definitions. (I cannot run Live Update due to other unfavorable circumstances regarding Norton LL's other issues) See this thread for more detail https://community.norton.com/en/forums/problem-intelligent-updater-file And it's not just me. Some other enterprise customers are affected as well https://community.broadcom.com/symantecenterprise/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewquestion?ContributedContentKey=1a43324e-c548-437f-af2a-1b83ea1262ee&CommunityKey=1ecf5f55-9545-44d6-b0f4-4e4a7f5f5e68 The NDSPCIIO.SYS seems to point to driver resources related to NEC monitor, which I'm indeed using and is also USB-connected. Just checked and my monitor is still being recognized.
  11. Can you explain what you mean by "Windows 7 without the SHA updates?" I believe most of us still running on w7 should have already had the SHA2 update patches installed. Please advise.
  12. I agree on the resource usage regarding version 3. Was forced to update to v3.x some years back so I tried it but the program gave me other issues; it just wans't a pleasant experience. Eventually uninstalled it and reinstalled 2.2.1 which is more compact (and simple) and doesn't consume much system resource (which is crucial esp. on older system hardware). No comment on version 4 though as I will not foresee myself even trying it. Even with a (slightly more) modern system like w7 I'll probably remain in legacy 3.5.1 for a plethora of reasons.
  13. Sorry I wasn't in front of the desktop for the past 18 hours or so. Anyway see attached archive for the logs between 5-16 to 5-24 Note especially the log protection-log-2022-05-20.xml where I find the following crucial lines ********************************************************************* <record severity="debug" LoggingEventType="1" datetime="2022-05-20T19:55:32.250000+08:00" source="Scheduler" type="Update" username="SYSTEM" systemname="PC1" code="Unable to access update server" last_modified_tag="c0416241-740b-47a5-8832-397e912f4ae2" message="Failed" fromVersion="2022.5.19.4" name="IP Database" toVersion="2022.5.20.3"></record> ********************************************************************* Please compare it with protection-log-2022-05-19.xml and the ones after 5-20. Thx mbam_logs_220516_220524.rar
  14. Ah yes, if I remember correctly even the final legacy version for XP/Vista has been EOL'ed but that defs database updates are still being supported. Truth is, it's not uncommon for customers running on (and still managing) legacy systems to stick to an older AV/security software version (regardless of brand) that has been EOL'ed. By that I mean no more program updates are available (ie. use at own risk), but any valid subscriptions are still honored and as such definitions updates are (and should be) still supported.
Back to top
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.