sman

Yes, these limitations are there and it seems only all it's modules have been integrated into a bundled single all-in-one pack .so, definitely does'nt have some of AV features to be called a 'replacement'..

It would've been apt. to state that with v3 AV's are no longer needed rather than as replacement for AV's, as replacement means 'take over the original functionality atleast on par and in toto'..As for instance anti-phishing is not part of the v3 package which are covered by AV's.. (this as per PCmag review in https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2455577,00.asp)..

The question has relevance in light of MBAM statement that v3 can replace a traditional anti-virus, as per https://blog.malwarebytes.com/malwarebytes-news/2016/12/announcing-malwarebytes-3-0-a-next-generation-antivirus-replacement/

Not worked for me.. and it's abt 'Tampermonkey' 'Greasemonkey' scripts and getting lists.., which is not easy to get the hang off.. Better, one can go with 'Brave' browser which kills ads but where then the browser gets it's revenue is unknown and probably data mining could be one.. But still 'Brave' is good to go for..

Website revenues are thru' ads and if everyone starts using ad blockers, ultimately free services will end up to 'premium'.. And use of ad-blockers can be checked by Websites and deny access unless, ad-blockers are removed or site is uncovered by ad-blocker.. So, ad-blockers are no good now-a-days..

@kuyenmotdivad Good.. soft & pleasing.. For archie lovers, an oldie.. Archies - Sugar, Sugar Lyrics Sugar, ah honey honey You are my candy girl And you've got me wanting you. Honey, ah sugar sugar You are my candy girl And you've got me wanting you. I just can't believe the loveliness of loving you (I just can't believe it's true) I just can't believe the one to love this feeling to. (I just can't believe it's true) Ah sugar, ah honey honey You are my candy girl And you've got me wanting you. Ah honey, ah sugar sugar You are my candy girl And you've got me wanting you. When I kissed you, girl, I knew how sweet a kiss could be (I know how sweet a kiss can be) Like the summer sunshine pour your sweetness over me (Pour your sweetness over me) Sugar, pour a little sugar on it honey, Pour a little sugar on it baby I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah Pour a little sugar on it oh yeah Pour a little sugar on it honey, Pour a little sugar on it baby I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah Pour a little sugar on it honey, Ah sugar, ah honey honey You are my candy girl And you've got me wanting you. Oh honey, honey, sugar sugar .. You are my candy girl ..

http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/07/yet-more-reasons-to-disagree-with.html#.WY6ird9h3IU

http://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-group-accuses-hotspot-shield-of-snooping-on-web-traffic/

the source is "thehackernews.com/2015/track-online-users.html" which is not one palatable here, but the article is a shocker for sure..

though the language is foreign, amazed by this cutie..

Wow..

What a performance..

With no say, it seems one has to draw his own inferences, on the roles/needs..

We all know the need for MBAM/MBAE complementary role with AV's 9even though AV's do claim complete protection and with some liike Comodo. Norton etc. offering refund/compensation in case of infection while use of their protection).. So, when these very AV vendors offer IoT protection, where does MBAM/MBAE fit in here? Can it still play the complementary role with IoT products too?

Ok.. I'll take up the query with a fresh thread, if it is felt so?

The threat on topic can affect all Windows systems protected by standalone AV's / IoT products, so when it is about MBAM/MBAE mitigation of the threat, the role of MBAM/MBAE under IoT is what is to be defined (since IoT vendors, the very AV vendors, say the protection is complete and this when the standalone AV's too offer complete protection with refund/compensation on infection.).. so, it is relevant to define MBAM/MBAE role in protecting/mitigating the topic threat under AV/IoT environment.. Tks..

Silence is golden but not always.. MBAM/MBAE complementary role with IoT security products esp. under the topic threat (keeping in view AV claims of complete protection and refund/compensation in case of infection during use of their product) is a grey region and needs to be defined..

can't find that old thread on Windows account discussion.. It was here it was suggested for 'local account' use and risks with Admin account and the relevance with MBAM feature additions.. Yes, we all know AV protection alone is not sufficient and need to be complemented with MBAM/MBAE.. But, what about in case of IoT security products by these very AV vendors, and MBAM/MBAE complementary role? In fact, even standalone AV products like Comodo, Norton etc. do offer refund/compensation in case of infection while use of their AV product & offer viability.. As the core issue is about protection even under OS vulnerabilities on topic, the complementary security beef up of AV/IoT protection is what it boils to and looked for..

It is here that earlier discussions in the forum , assumes significance.. it was about something about MBAM privileges / feature suggestions maybe prior to version 2 or so in the forum, where some limitations were discussed.

So, if UAC vulnerabilities are patched , well & good but creators update is expected in Autumn and expected to address many of the UAC vulnerabilities.. until then?

another UAC bypass mode .https://threatpost.com/fileless-uac-bypass-uses-windows-backup-and-restore-utility/124579/ gets more curiouser and curiouser..

windows UAC bypass (esp. in win 10).. https://threatpost.com/windows-uac-bypass-leaves-systems-open-to-malicious-dlls/119468/ this only adds fuel to fire..

Hmm. with UAC the admin rights seem protected, but as far as I remember, there are ways to bypass UAC (there was some earlier discussions on MBAM/MBAE user privileges, where this aspect of Admin rights was explained and about some limitations. i dont' remenmber when.