Jump to content

Tinstaafl

Honorary Members
  • Posts

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tinstaafl

  1. On 4/14/2017 at 4:31 PM, dcollins said:

    I'd recommend checking out the following thread where @exile360 explains why av-comparative tests need to be taken with a grain of salt. Not that they're entirely false, just that they don't tend to use real world scenarios.

     

    Then I suggest that you actually visit the site and learn what is going on there, rather than making unsupported claims.  They have a test section devoted to "Real-World Protection Tests".  The March 2017 test results are posted here: https://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/

    "This section contains full product long-term dynamic test reports. These tests evaluate the suites “real-world” protection capabilities with default settings (incl. on-execution protection features). It is our aim to do these tests rigorously. Due to that, these tests are time and resource expensive, so only products chosen for the yearly main test-series are included."

    The March 2017 test report states: "The results are based on the test set of 329 live test cases (malicious URLs found in the field), consisting of working exploits (i.e. drive-by downloads) and URLs pointing directly to malware. Thus exactly the same infection vectors are used as a typical user would experience in everyday life. The test-cases used cover a wide range of current malicious sites and provide insights into the protection given by the various products (using all their protection features) while surfing the web."

     

  2. I have been following AV-Comparatives test reports for years.  They have several distinctive tests, from the file detection test, the real world detection test, malware cleanup, performance, retroactive, etc. Very interesting stuff ...

    I have also been a fan of Malwarebytes for many years.

    I think the direction that Malwarebytes are currently taking as far as malware detection reflects well the direction that malware has taken in recent years.  I believe that the real world test at AV-Comparatives would reflect that the majority of exploits are web based now, and Malwarebytes is well positioned to contain those threats.

    At the same time, I feel it would be negligent to ignore the so called "flat file, dormant code" that malware can be distributed as.  A prudent PC user should keep a signature based file scanner running as a baseline detection scheme, along with layered defenses that are signatureless and behavior detection oriented.  The files that we download, the email attachments we save, all could contain dormant malware code.  Why should we wait until this executes to deal with the threat?  Better to scan the files and quarantine the known threats, at least!

  3. This does sound strange, and I have installed and uninstalled MBAE several times without any adverse effects.

     

    However if this was me I would just restore my system from a backup disk image that I took before making any major changes to my system. Trying to figure out what may have happened would not be a very productive use of time.

     

    If any recent image was not available, the second best thing would be to use Windows 7 System Restore.  You mentioned that the problem persisted after doing a restore.  You may need to either go back to an earlier restore point, if available, or undo the restore point that you used and reboot. Then continue with the method below.

     

    After highlighting the chosen restore point in the list, Look for the button "Scan for affected programs" and click on that.

     

    You will get two lists. 1-Programs and drivers that will be deleted, and 2- Programs and drivers that might be restored. The message there states that the items in the 2nd list may not be restored correctly and may need to be reinstalled.

     

    I recommend taking a close look at this 2nd list and reinstalling everything in it if necessary.

     

    Good luck!

     

    Reference: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/11238/using-system-restore-to-recover-your-windows-7-computer/

  4. Just wanted to add that I am running MBAE Free, version 1.08.1.1044, on Windows 7 Professional SP1, 32-bit. Have been running 1044 trouble free, even with RET-ROP detection enabled. No false detections yet on any of my browsers, Chrome 46, Firefox 42, and IE11.

     

    Only ended up here because I was trying to figure out why 1045 was being pushed (prompted to update today) and what it fixed.

     

    Ran a google search on RET-ROP, and now I think I will keep this feature enabled!!!

     

    Is there any other benefit to updating to 1045 besides just unchecking this troublesome detection?

  5. Hmmm... well now I cannot get it to crash again on 1011.  Maybe it was content related and something updated the page element that was creating the crash. Hard to tell, there are like nearly 100 articles on that Verge home page, so I have no idea what might have changed.

     

    But it definitley did crash on 1011 earlier. Like I said, it was a rare thing that occasionally caused a crash, and just so happened to do it consistently on this one site today so I dug into the details of the Mozilla crash log.

     

    If I can find another site that causes same error, I will try the 1014, which I assume is "beta"?

     

    Thanks again!

  6. Update: have uninstalled, rebooted, and re-installed MBAE 1.07 and still getting the same crash in Firefox, normal or safe mode. 

    In Tools; Advanced; have disabled: "Use Hardware Acceleration". 

    In about:config I have also disabled this option: "layers.offmainthreadcomposition.enabled"

     

    This crash is limited to just one known website at this time, otherwise Firefox is performing well. No problems with Chrome 43 or Internet Explorer 11.

     

    Additional crash output from the Firefox crash dialog:

     

      Problem Event Name:    APPCRASH

      Application Name:    plugin-container.exe
      Application Version:    39.0.0.5659
      Application Timestamp:    55934d06
      Fault Module Name:    mozalloc.dll
      Fault Module Version:    39.0.0.5659
      Fault Module Timestamp:    55933a83
      Exception Code:    80000003
      Exception Offset:    00001aa1
      OS Version:    6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
      Locale ID:    1033
      Additional Information 1:    0a9e
      Additional Information 2:    0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789
      Additional Information 3:    0a9e
      Additional Information 4:    0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789
     

  7. Firefox Crashing thread: mbae.dll; EXCEPTION_STACK_BUFFER_OVERRUN;  signature: mbae.dll@0x423d

    I have been troubleshooting an ongoing crash problem with Firefox 39.0 on Windows 7 SP1 32-bit. It only seems to crash certain web sites,
    mostly the more modern ones such as Flipboard.com, qz.com, or theverge.com. Not having any problems with Chrome, but Firefox is my
    preferred browser on Windows ...

    Today I was able to reproduce the error consistently both in Firefox Safe Mode (no addons, graphic acceleration disabled), as well as
    normal mode when going to www.theverge.com.

    I submitted a crash report to Mozilla at: https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/58590532-24de-468b-bdef-a951e2150722#frames

    I was surprised to see that the crashing thread was mbae.dll.

    I disabled my MBAE protection and the website worked ok in Firefox, no more crashes. Re-enabled MBAE protection and the crashes started
    again, just like flipping a switch on/off.

    I could not find any related threads. MBAE has not indicated any errors, and seems to be running just fine.

    Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit version: 1.07.1.1010
    Firefox 39.0
    Avira Free 2015
    Windows 7 SP-1 32-bit Pro
    Intel Core i3-3240
    4 GB ram
    Intel HD graphics 2500

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.