Jump to content

nukecad

Honorary Members
  • Content Count

    384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nukecad

  • Rank
    True Member
  • Birthday 02/26/1960

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cumbria (UK Lake District)
  • Interests
    Beer, Beer, and did I mention Beer?

Recent Profile Visitors

2,962 profile views
  1. If it's a cookie logger as I described above then it wouldn't save anything on your computer for MB to find. However just in case it was something else you should follow the instructions and post the logs as suggested in Exile360's post above. One of the experts will then check that your computer is clean for you.
  2. "Someone"? - This wouldn't have been an online 'tech support' would it? You have described exactly how they scam you. They show you what is on your computer (and should be on your computer) and then claim it's malicious and you should pay them to clean your computer and protect yourself. It's a scam; there is nothing wrong with your computer. David H Lipman has a collection of examples of these scams, take a look at this post: https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/245095-hijacked-web-browser/?tab=comments#comment-1306224 PS. A 'cookie logger' is a script file that collects the cookies on your computer, that's all it does. It does not save itself to your computer. It's used to possibly steal your login details for a particular forum. You would have to click on something (usually an image) in a hackers forum post to launch the script. The script could then collect the cookies currently on your computer. If you have used the 'Remember Me' button' then with a bit of cookie editing he could use that cookie to log in as you on that forum.
  3. That's a pretty old article. Yes it's still in development but not due to be released; here's a couple of articles from August 2018: https://www.windowslatest.com/2018/08/23/enable-the-uwp-file-explorer-on-windows-10/ https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-finally-adds-new-features-to-the-uwp-file-explorer-in-windows-10-version-1809/
  4. OK as I'm in the UK I'll answer this. Certain 'newspaper' are more full of advertising than they are news. (What they consider news is also debatable). The UK Sun 'newspaper' is one of those that mainly exists on advertising and 'paid for' content. Not many people in the UK regard it seriously as a source of news. More a source of 'daytime TV' reviews and unsubstantiated rumor.
  5. I'm more interested in where and when you are getting these CAPTCHAs ? In your screenshot that does not look like the Malwarebytes Forum so I'm not sure why you say you are getting them 'when posting'. If it's on some other site then you would have to talk to the admin at that site about their use. CAPTCHA's are a means of filtering out spambots from real people, they are a anti-spam/security measure and not meant to be easily circumvented. They are most often used on sites where it is not a requirement to be a member to make a post, so when a non-member posts something they get checked with a CAPTCHA. If you become a member of that site then they will stop being shown to you. (on that site).
  6. Why are you getting a CAPTCHA when posting? I never do. Are you trying to upload something unusual, or giving multiple weblinks? PS. in your screenshot you have ticked a box that does not contain any actual traffic lights - that's a street sign attached to the support pole. Is it just a translation problem?
  7. I guess we'll have to put up with it, it doesn't take that long to cancel the trial, reinstall, and put thing back to how we want. It would be interesting to know how many disable the trial, how many let it run for the full period and don't buy a key, and how many purchase a key after trying it. I doubt if there is any reliable way of evaluating that though.
  8. Cheers exile360, But I'm not sure about that answer. I don't see it as a licencing check issue. TBH there should be no need to check if you are already a Premium user - because if you are then you would not have the betas/stand alones, they would have already been removed when you became a Premium user. It should be quite simple to do the same as was the practice in the past and offer two installers/updaters. The full Premium, real time, version which could remove the legacy software on install, if there is any legacy software to remove. Or A scan only version, with the free trial as an opt-in after installation/update (if the user wants to have a trial). If the opt-in was taken then simply run the installer for the full version (with a time limit for registering a licence), thus removing any legacy stand alones and betas. This would prevent the unwanted uninstalls of the betas. (and stop the threads here that ask why they have got a trial they never asked for and how to stop it). The method being used at the moment seems to be a marketing decision, not a technical issue. It may also save the devs a bit of work as there is only one installer/updater, but I'm not even sure about that. For myself I'm not to bothered about this forcing of a trial, apart from the fact that I don't realy want it and it uninstalls things that I do want without giving me a choice. PS. I do have a full valid licence key, but have chosen not to use it (yet) in order to be in the beta testing programme.
  9. I use MB3 free version as a weekly scanner, I also use Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit Beta, (and the Firefox browser extension beta). I've just installed the MB3 application update to 3.7.1.2839. And once again it's started a free trial of real time protection. I understand that this is a marketing tactic so that people can try the new versions real time protection, even if they have had a trial of a previous version. Which is fine - apart from the fact that once again it has removed my MBEA beta. Which means that I now have to manually de-activate the trial and reinstall MBAE beta - again. Isn't it time that we were given the option of having the trial or not, before it uninstalls our existing beta test products? If you keep doing it as currently then you will eventually lose your beta users, rendering the beta testing programme useless.
  10. I've no problems downloading or running it on Win10 64-bit, 1809, 17763.316 here. I suspect it may be just the Windows Security Centre. Check in particular the App & browser control (where the SmartScreen settings are) for any blocks. Or you could try disabling SmartScreen altogether, see Solution 2 in this article: https://windowsreport.com/app-cant-run-windows-10/ Sometimes SmartScreen can try to be too smart, it can be a particular problem with Anti-malware products that need to access deeper levels of the OS.
  11. Most are blocked as PUP's (Potentially Unwanted Programmes). You mention CCleaner by name. The 'Standard' CCleaner installer contains an offer to also install either Chrome or Avast Anti-Virus. This offer is pre-ticked so you have to be careful to untick it if you want to avoid getting an unwanted install of one of these programmes. (There have been occasions where the offer has not been shown at all and the offer installed anyway, I've had one of those myself). Which is why MB3, and some other AM/AV products, warn you about it and/or block it - depending on your settings. If you download the CCleaner 'Slim' or 'Portable' versions they do not contain that offer so you shouldn't get the warning. You might have to wait for a week or so after the Standard installer is released before they are available. You can download the CCleaner 'Slim' or 'Portable' versions from their 'builds' page: https://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/builds
  12. You might also want to look at the Malwarebytes browser add-ons. They can block some ads and clickbait as well as malicious websites, tech support scams and so on. They are available for both Chrome and Firefox, look in the 'beta' sub-forum here or in your browsers add-ons menu.
  13. It could probably do with a defrag now if you haven't already. Edit. Did you also run disk cleanup or storage sense to check for old Windows Update files? CCleaner no longer removes those.
  14. If you play with the settings you'll see that it is being found under Ads/Clickbait. Temporarily turn off Ads/Clickbait protection and the notification disappears. It doesn't seem to make any difference to the displayed page though, so just what it's finding? Edit- It's probably detecting the 'share on twitter, facebook etc.' icons at the bottom of the thread, I couldn't see them before because Adblock was also blocking them.
  15. It's the old GIGO problem. And let's face(book?) it, there's a lot of G on the web these days.
×
×
  • 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.