Jump to content

popescu1

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About popescu1

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

722 profile views
  1. Hi MysteryFCM, The same IP (62.76.184.176) was declared as "malicious" on Jan 13, 2015 , see: https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/topic/163484-hxxpoptimakompru/?p=929356 and https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/topic/163484-hxxpoptimakompru/?p=929402 I double checked myself and I reported again 1 day later (on Jan 14, 2015) Now, the IP is not malicious and "This will be unblocked on the next update" I do not understand anything......
  2. This is not what a paying customers is expecting "There is no time for it"; once I paid for a product I expect that product to be maintained and delivered to me in an working shape. If the approach is "cooperative", let's find together the malicious items because "we do not have time" , the product should be free
  3. I do understand that "an IP block can be removed or re-added based upon status" But is MBAM job to determine the change in the status ( that's why we have multiple updates per day) and not waiting for an user to signal it as a FP. Is not enough to initially create a huge database, block everything and wait for users to complain. I understand that is difficult, but either do it right or do not do it at all and leave this job for a better equipped player ( the AV, for example)
  4. Is hard to believe that you will remove the detected item to make a favor the user...so, yes, the detected item will be removed because was a false positive I am not confusing anything; I was referring strictly to Website blocking , which is determined by a match in the database and not an active mechanism This was required multiple times on the forum but was never implemented; while Web protection can be disabled, the icon will change the color and any other ulterior problem will be "masked" by this change in color; in addition , you will get that nagging message "protection dis
  5. Hi David, Thank you for your answer! While the explanation provided is on academic level, the result is a fact of life : MBAM has way too many FP"s blocking websites and IP's , most of the time not confirmed by ANY other AV on Virus total. Just having a zillion of sites on your database and waiting for customers to report FP's is not a feasible option. In addition , MBAM has a strange way to create a database, sites as those mentioned here being ignored: http://malwareurls.joxeankoret.com/normal.txt I used , for a while MBAM with NOD32; I never had a FP from NOD 32, while I had over 12FP'
  6. Hi, Over 80% of sites /IP reported here as "false positive" are, indeed, false positive and "will be removed on next update" Why so many? From where did you get the initial database with so many FP's??? I browse various forums but I NEVER seen any other Antimalware with so many FP. To make things worse, the "web protection" cannot be disabled , even though ads insignificant value to overall protection.
  7. MBAM will not block most of the sites from this list: http://malwareurls.joxeankoret.com/normal.txt NOD 32 will block ALL OF THEM. Judge yourself....
  8. For AdvancedSetup from Firefox ... if you don't like the software and how it works, you have a choice, go use something else ... no one is forcing you to use this product Marketing at its best.
  9. 9 from 10 false positives "website blocking" reported are , indeed, false positive and "will be unblocked on the next update" see: https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/topic/163039-9410251169/?p=925749 I see no reason to have both my AV (NOD32) and MBAM scanning websites , MBAM being known for a poorly design and maintained malicious website database ("in house" database :blink: )
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.