sman

Details can be checked in http://www.trusteer.com/support/end-of-support-for-windows-xp ..

Is it Sales gimmick or real change?? http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-windows-10-edge-so-secure-they-dont-need-our-emet-anti-zero-day-shield/

As of 12th Jan'2016, Trusteer Rapport retires support for Win XP (SP3).. Another nail in the coffin for XP users..

When literally all AV's give 'Rescue disk' option. Spyhunter's method of modifying 'Bootloader' for loading/running before other startup items, impede/impact normal Boot process/loading of drivers etc ?? Tks. in advance..

How to secure BIOS from being tampered? Will password protection suffice? Tks. in advance..

Tampering with Bootloader, is unheard off.. Never have I come across that with any security product and just to read this practice, runs shivers down.. Which other product does that?? If every product/installer starts to do that with every software installation on the system, only mayhem will remain..

Thanks! Gonzo, you could'nt have put it better.. I'll bear your views in mind.. Thank you..

Gonzo, thanks for your views.. But, it's time to take notice, when the views are echoed all around, corroborated by experts.. A sort of 'Doomsday prophecy' on Windows is hanging around, popularity/no popularity.. I even came across Dell abandoning traditional AV's for it's latest product, signs of changing times/approach.. AV protection is unreliable and I intend to try out my options, seriously.. Just my views.. Thanks once again..

Of late, becoming increasingly uneasy with the lot of noise on Windows, AV's vulnerabilities.. The recent discovery of 'Moker' malware by Ensilo, which seems to have all deceptive/remote unhindered access/damaging capabilties, particularly in Windows, makes me more wary of Windows.. Seriously weighing on abandoning Windows, if I can find ways to run my Windows apps / trading tools outside Windows? I can do Trading in HTML and it's only the question of analytic tools (even on this, If stick with the tools in Trading Terminal, should do but as I look for further analysis, puts me on hold,) Just my views..

Here, the discussion in the Wilder's forum on the 'An experiment in AV evasion' in http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/av-evasion-using-cloaked-malware-exploits.378810/ .. itman, Aug 13, 2015 #1

The 'Bug Bounty' programme launched just a few days back by MWB is clear signal, for identifying/acting on vulnerabilities, before they become a real problem.. Here is another look into 'An experiment in AV evasion' in http://www.securitysift.com/pecloak-py-an-experiment-in-av-evasion/ ..

Marcin's post makes reference to vulnerabilities as per Tavis Ormandy and no reference to Ensilo's Vulnerability (which seems the crux of PCWorld's article, to sum up the vulnerabilities of AV).. No reference is made to CVE by PCWorld nor in Marcin's post, and even in MWB's Hall of Fame, CVE is linked to only one induction.. The 'Bug Bounty programme' of MWB is also not linked to CVE.. The bigger picture and of serious concern is the very security product which is supposed to safeguard the user, is prone/vulnerable to be a attack vector by itself.. That 'the vulnerabilities will allow ...even to defeat the anti-exploitation defenses of third-party applications' as per PCWORLD article, is what would like to know, as to how safe the user is?

I'm happy, that you have taken note of it.. There is but a lot of noise/attention on it by the IT world, even a explicit reference to 'Malwarebytes' by PCWorld very recently in http://www.pcworld.com/article/3020327/antivirus-software-could-make-your-company-more-vulnerable.html ..

Here is another article on the vulnerability in ..http://blog.morphisec.com/security-products-its-not-a-vulnerability-its-a-feature/ depicting a grim picture..

@NKCGroup you seem to have your problem resolved.. It's about @edgardo's issue, which is what needs a Screenshot of what he is talking about, as there is no clarity as to the specifics of the problem?..

Better attach a Screenshot of what you are talking about..

W/o waiting for MBARW to notify for Beta3, went with direct download and tried the upgrade, had to face problems to get it right.. - Disabling Avast and trying over the top, did not work this time and met only busy flashing cursor.. - Stopping MBARW protection, did no good. likewise stopping it's services in Taskbar.. - Uninstall and attempt at direct /fresh install also met only flashing busy cursor.. Then, direct/fresh install in 'Safe mode with Networking' only did the trick.. (though did said, 'Unable to start the service', on normal boot, it was fine..) Hope this helps..

How CVE is released and when security products will be patched is not going to stop hackers in taking advantage of the vulnerability, which has been posted in Github as an 'Open source'.. As can be seen, the report that Mcafee has already patched it's enterprise edition, is a pointer to the vulnerability.. The question, now is, in case of any fallibility Will MBAE protect from it? Tks. in advance PS : if needed, this topic may be moved to MBAE section..

i did the first test with FF & then Chrome.. I did a re-check now, but with browsers in reverse order, Chrome then FF and comes up that 'Avast is Not Vulnerable' .. In fact, CHIP also mentions about this tool in http://www.chip.de/downloads/AVulnerabilityChecker_86729921.html.. However, concerns still persist on the first test..

I found it first in http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/11/anti_virus_trips_up_windows_defences/ ..

My AV, Avast, seems vulnerable as per the AVulnerability checker tool in http://breakingmalware.com/vulnerabilities/sedating-watchdog-abusing-security-products-bypass-mitigations/ .. Now, how serious is this threat and MBAE protection? If needed, this topic may be moved to MBAE section.. Tks. in advance.. PS : This tool was tested in Avast and test reports, it is vulnerable..

Hi exile360 I see no reference in this Technet article on 'UAC' https://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/cc709691(v=ws.10).aspx, about overriding of UAC.. As far as I understand, the article says about 3 requirements for privileged access/run, an administrative token for applications (with 'Run as Administrator' option), local Administrator login/authentication, user consent to UAC prompt.. These requirements seem to be mandatory, for any administrative activity.. Citing the example of 'Disk cleanup' run, emphasizes on user consent & UAC.. On consent at the time of installation will do away with UAC/user consent later, effect on startup-items and overriding UAC, no reference is made.. No clarity as such.. Sorry, I'm at sea now and need help to get it right.. Tks in advance..

Fine with 1189 build.. Hope post#15 is not meant for any other build?.. PS : It would help, if user's are notified of build updates (just like Beta2 notification for MBARW), to keep up-to date..

MBAM is not running, so no room for doubt.. The failure seems to be a freak occurence, as subsequent boots have been normal and chances of repeat not in my control.. BTW were the logs helpful, in getting at the cause of failure? tks.

Extended support ends on 11th Apr'2017..