exile360

Administrators
  • Content count

    16,643
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About exile360

  • Rank
    exile

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.malwarebytes.com

Recent Profile Visitors

106,528 profile views
  1. You're most welcome and yes, the latest 3.0 release has a lot of fixes in it. There are still some issues that have been reported by some users which we're still working on, however it's been getting better with each release and we continue to find and fix all the issues we can as quickly as possible.
  2. Greetings Nerius and welcome Yes, there should be an option under settings somewhere which disables checking for and downloading program updates when checking for database updates. I cannot recall exactly where it is in 2.x, but I'm pretty sure it's under update settings and I believe it uses checkboxes to configure the options.
  3. By the way, as far as this site goes, I just tested using IE as I have it configured and each and every one of those pop-ups was blocked. I understand what they're saying about "good pop-ups", but I'm of the personal opinion that the only good pop-up is the one that I specifically allow. Whenever I come across a site that I wish to allow pop-ups for I either configure it to do so via the block notification in IE or I simply right click on the button/link and choose "Open in new tab". If that option is not available and I don't want to whitelist the site completely then I use the "Allow once" button/option in the pop-up blocker notification which temporarily allows the current website to display pop-ups without permanently whitelisting/allowing them. Either way, it's worth the trouble in my opinion to never see any pop-ups that I don't want.
  4. Currently we can't block actual pop-ups because we don't use any browser plugins, we're hooked directly into the network stack which is at the lowest layer of the network connection. The disadvantage is that we can't block individual pop-ups like this (though we can obviously still block the sites the pop-ups lead to if they are malicious) but the advantage is that our blocking method is truly universal meaning it isn't browser dependent (works with any and all browsers) and also works for any other program which connects to the internet meaning other apps like Skype, for example which was infiltrated by malicious ads serving exploits/malware a while back, are also protected by our website blocking module. That said, if we were to develop something to deal with sites like the one you describe where it won't allow you to leave the page (similar to tech support scam sites and sites that attempt to force you to install plugins etc.) it would have to install a plugin within the browser in all likelihood meaning browsers like Edge which do not allow the installation of plugins would not be compatible with it and therefore would not be protected by it (though our regular web blocking would still work as it does now of course). Personally, I most often use Internet Explorer for the riskiest sites I visit because as long as it's fully patched it's actually less vulnerable these days to attack than Chrome or Firefox, if only because they now hold a higher market share and are targeted more frequently. The reason I use IE isn't only that though; it's also because I have it configured to block all cookies by default and to prompt me to allow once, allow always, block once or block always cookies when a site tries to install/save cookies on my system and I have the pop-up blocker turned up to its maximum setting (meaning it's configured not to allow any pop-ups unless I specifically allow a website to display them via the notification that gets displayed at the bottom of the browser/screen when pop-ups are blocked) and so far I have not come across any website which has been able to defeat or trick IE's pop-up blocker. I also use Adblock Plus for Internet Explorer along with Malwarebytes of course. I do have Chrome and Firefox installed and do use them for certain things, but whenever visiting unknown or potentially risky websites, Internet Explorer is now always my first choice (IE11 on Windows 7x64 SP1, fully patched).
  5. If you want missed scans to run as soon as the system is on again you need to edit your scheduled scans and enable the Recover missed tasks option under Advanced. As long as the system is available within the set number of hours the task should run immediately when it can.
  6. Hehe, well thank you. I'm glad to help and to provide info when I can
  7. I agree with your assessment. I'll recommend to the product team that all telemetry data be optional and that we provide a means to turn all of it off for users/customers.
  8. No, it's nothing like WOT. Basically it's important for us to know what OS the software is installed on and what AV (if any) the system has installed. The reason we want to know this info is for testing and compatibility. For example, if we were to discover that the majority of our users are running Windows 8.1 it would be important for us to prioritize testing on that operating system as well as fixes for issues that impact that operating system. If we discovered that most of our users are running Malwarebytes alongside Norton Antivirus products then we'd prioritize fixing any issues that might exist which are specific to compatibility with Norton. Things like that, basically. It helps us to know the environment where Malwarebytes is running so that we know how best to spend more of our time on fixes and testing internally. I hope that helps to clear things up. Also, while we do collect such system-specific info, we do NOT collect any identifiable info like your IP address etc. because we do not want to track specific users or anything like that because frankly, that would make our software spyware which is something we're absolutely against (we'd have to start detecting ourselves as PUP if we ever did anything like that ).
  9. You're welcome. Yes, it's important to know the risks with these things. A lot of users believe that these registry cleaners are perfectly safe, and honestly most of the time that's true, but all it takes is one bad detection/deletion on the part of a registry cleaner to break something (I can't tell you how many times I've seen users show up on help forums with broken software because a registry cleaner removed something it shouldn't have). I agree completely that the potential gains really don't outweigh the risks. Don't get me wrong, there are rare occasions where a leftover registry entry from a piece of software that's been removed can actually cause issues (usually a "file missing/cannot find file" type dialog/error on system startup), but those situations are pretty rare these days and can usually be fixed by hand with the assistance of an experienced helper (and we're always here to help if something like that does come up, so there's no need to rely on a registry cleaner to try and "automatically" fix such things). Yep, it's a useful tool, especially for systems that have been running for years. I've seen compressing the registry make a real difference in system startup performance on older systems where Windows has been running for a really long time without being formatted/reinstalled. In fact, this very conversation reminded me that I hadn't done it in a really long time on my current system so I went ahead and used the Tweaking.com tool yesterday and I can definitely see the difference. My boot time is just a little bit snappier now, which is always a plus .
  10. Yeah, generally if you aren't comfortable around the registry I suggest shying away from using registry cleaners. While they may be rare, I have seen cases where even the "safer" ones (like the one built into CCleaner) have accidentally removed a key for a piece of software that needed it, thus breaking the software (usually fixed by reinstalling whatever software got broken, but if it happens with a critical system component or driver, it could theoretically render the system unbootable; not a likely scenario, but it could happen) which is why I recommend checking on the entries to make sure they belong to software no longer installed on your system before removing them, even with CCleaner. The app I link to in that post compresses the registry files/hives themselves which simply removes empty space in the file (registry hives are basically just large databases/lists) so no actual keys/values/data gets removed which is why it should be safe even if you aren't comfortable digging into the registry. In fact, Microsoft themselves have a KB article explaining how to perform the same registry compression/optimization task manually; that tool from Tweaking.com just makes it easier.
  11. Yep, I too use RegScanner and/or SystemLook on occasion for the same purpose (like after uninstalling something and wanting to eliminate any leftovers in the registry). One more thing I'll add which I didn't mention previously is the rare use of a registry compression/defragmentation utility such as the one mentioned (by me ) in this thread but I only do that maybe once a year; six months at the most (it's not something required frequently but can definitely help after many, and I mean MANY program installs/uninstalls/registry changes etc., especially for boot times and application load times).
  12. We do have at least a couple of features in the works which should help with this. The first, which should be included in one of our upcoming releases in the near future, will allow you to choose the priority of scans and thus to control how Windows handles resource allocation (including CPU, which is likely the culprit behind the drop in framerates during gaming) for Malwarebytes when scanning. The second is a sort of Gaming and/or Silent type mode which should enable users to temporarily disengage all scheduled scans and notifications so that Malwarebytes doesn't interrupt any fullscreen application when in this mode via tray notifications or pop-ups and doesn't use resources on scheduled scans while gaming but that feature isn't yet set for any particular release that I'm aware of as there are other features and fixes prioritized above it so I can't give any ETA on if/when that functionality will be implemented.
  13. Hello, As explained via private messenger, I've requested that one of our Support technicians assist you with this, however in the meantime I think I may be able to at least offer some insight into what appears to be going on. When the RAM and CPU usage jumps up like that it's most likely due to a scan being kicked off, probably from the scheduler. That said, a scan shouldn't take hours to complete, only minutes in most cases so it's probable that something else is going on here that's causing Malwarebytes to get hung up when performing scans. In the meantime, just for now until a Support tech arrives to assist you further, I can only suggest that you access the Scan Schedule tab under Settings and delete any existing scheduled scans to see if that eliminates the spikes for the time being. Once a tech is able to fully diagnose and hopefully resolve the issue for you, you should then be able to re-schedule your scan(s) without any problems.
  14. Greetings, Currently Chameleon when used as a standalone tool for installing Malwarebytes on infected systems in incompatible with our latest version which is 3.0 (it's no longer in beta and we've actually released several RTM builds of 3.0 now, including several point releases and patches) so it still downloads the older 2.x build. That said, 3.0 does include the same self-protection capabilities in 2.x which utilize the Chameleon driver, it just doesn't include the renaming scheme used for dealing with older rogue malware (no longer found in the wild at this time as pretty much everything is ransomware and exploits at the moment) that the Chameleon standalone build uses.
  15. Most of them behaved as this one does now, however I do recall that a later version of 2.x (2.1 I think?) did actually change it so that after a set amount of time (seconds) it would revert to the scan selection page after clean scans so that it didn't hold up the UI/scanner from being used for new scans when nothing had been detected.