• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About exile360

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

106,242 profile views
  1. Much like the others here have stated, I don't scan too often either. I only ever do Threat scans with Malwarebytes, and more often than not that's only for testing or to satisfy my own curiosity on how fast I can make my scans (it's a great metric for testing CPU overclock settings etc. as well as system performance following a driver/firmware update for any number of hardware components which affect data throughput, CPU performance, RAM performance and disk (SSD) performance). As for drive wear and tear, I have a Samsung 850 PRO which is supposed to have quite a long lifespan thanks to technologies such as Trim (mentioned above by Porthos) and other tech built into modern SSDs that give them a much longer life than they had during their early stages of development. In fact, according to the Samsung Magician drive management software, my 512GB SSD has had approximately 14.2TB written to it over the course of its life so far and its condition is still listed as "Good" and as far as I can tell it hasn't slowed in performance at all since the day it was first installed. I too use CCleaner to clear temp/junk files occasionally (about once a week or so usually) and I also use Cleanmgr (Windows Disk Cleanup) to clear the files left behind from Windows Updates etc. Occasionally I will run the registry cleaning portion of CCleaner but I never allow it to remove every "obsolete" or "orphaned" key it finds and check each entry to verify that it's a remnant from a piece of software no longer installed on my system and only check/remove those that are truly "obsolete" (tons of MS Silverlight and .NET entries get flagged by CCleaner but I won't remove them since, to my knowledge, they belong to software still installed on my system, but all those leftover AMD/ATI entries from my old graphics drivers are gone now that I upgraded my GPU to an NVIDIA GTX 970M). As for actual virus scans with AVs, those are extremely rare for me. If I get a wild hair to scan my system I may run an AV scan (along with a bunch of other scans/tools) if I suspect something's going on, but I've never actually found any threats so such occasions are quite rare indeed. That's not because I'm concerned about wear on my drive (installing/uninstalling software all the time would have far more potential to wear out a drive) but because I just don't find it necessary given how strictly I manage my system (regularly using tools like Autoruns after any new software is installed to look for any changes to my startup entries/loading points). I've got things pretty locked down on my system, with many attack vectors built into the OS/network stack crippled and, I believe, any others are covered by Malwarebytes, my firewall (a front-end for the built in Windows Firewall WFP tech with outbound connection filtering/blocking) and the browser(s) and plugins I use. I believe that short of an actual flesh and blood hacker targeting my system, I'm pretty safe from infection (nothing beyond a PUP in over 10 years across multiple systems).
  2. Try disabling self-protection under protection settings. If that doesn't resolve it, then try excluding Malwarebytes and Kaspersky from one another as they may be getting hung up due to their realtime protection components scanning one another during startup.
  3. Thanks for sharing this info I've informed the 3.x team so that they're aware and might share it with the rest of Support as well as use it as means to attempt to track down and fix any lingering bugs should it provide any further insight into the cause of said issues.
  4. I completely agree, this is a great idea . Perhaps something can be done to read the logs and/or quarantine to report on what's been detected or simply implement a new data file which stores this info for easy access to be displayed within the program interface. I'll make sure that the team gets this suggestion. If you have any other ideas for us, please don't hesitate to let us know. Thanks
  5. Are you running any sort of VPN or DNS changing software? I ask because such a configuration could theoretically cause Malwarebytes not to block the site as it might not actually be seeing the correct IP address for the site which is supposed to be blocked (since all connections would be re-routed through and served from the VPN/DNS server).
  6. I'm sorry to hear that you're having issues with the software and I understand not wanting to deal with it any longer, but I did just want to add that I too am running Windows 7 x64 with Malwarebytes running in realtime and I just tried this same test on my own system inside a very large folder full of tons of files and subdirectories and I was able to set them all to read-only and reverse that change as well rather quickly even though Malwarebytes was running in realtime so my suspicion is that there is very likely some other component that Malwarebytes may be conflicting with, perhaps a driver or even a shell hook (since this task occurs within explorer.exe), which is resulting in this behavior. Unfortunately such system/configuration specific issues can be very difficult to track down and while I am not asking that you assist us in troubleshooting, I will be keeping an eye out to see if any other users report similar behaviors to determine if there is some consistent pattern behind it for the sake of getting it fixed. I tried this both on a regular folder with standard user permissions as well as a folder under ProgramData which required admin approval (UAC prompt) to perform the action and both went perfectly fine both ways (enabling the read-only attribute followed by removing it for all objects within the folder). Anyway, while we're sorry to see you go, I totally understand why you might find these situations so frustrating when all you want is the software you purchased to simply do its job and work without interfering with your normal use of your system and other software. That said, if you ever do decide to return to using Malwarebytes, whether the issues have been fixed for you or not, we'll always be here to provide any assistance that we can.
  7. While I have no authoritative or definitive answers for you, I do know that one of the reasons it was important for us to include Invision's privacy policy was because they do in fact use cookies and telemetry of their own on all of the forums running their software (including ours), so we needed to ensure that users were aware of their privacy policy since it impacts them when using our forums, so knowing how Invision handles user data is important for concerned users to be aware of. As for individual account access, I really do not know for certain, though I don't believe they have such access (beyond the same level any normal user/guest would have, anyway). I could be wrong on that point as I don't know a lot about the backend and inner workings of the admin control panel etc., but I believe you need to be an administrator on this forum to access such info, including having a valid admin account and password to access it, with inclusion in that group being exclusively determined by us (Malwarebytes), not Invision and as far as I know, they have no such accounts/access on these forums, though again, I could be wrong.
  8. Yeah, any tactics like those described (telemetry data gathering/harvesting utilized for "tattling" on our users etc.) would absolutely be against who we are and what our mission is. Among other things, one of our goals is definitely the respect and protection of the privacy of our users, both free and paid, and doing anything like that would basically be considered spyware so it's a line I do not believe we would ever cross, and I know that we have never crossed it up to this point. Now that said, specifically on the issue of telemetry, there are certain things that, by default, we do gather, such as threat detections, however that information is only used to inform our Research team of what the current threat landscape at large looks like out there to help them to better focus on the most significant/prevalent threats affecting most users (one of the reasons we recently adopted a far more aggressive policy against PUPs and acquired both JRT and ADWCleaner because PUPs were basically the most common types of threats being detected by Malwarebytes for a long time and, I believe, continue to be to this day). This data we gather is absolutely anonymous and totally optional. If you wish to disable it, you may do so under Settings. Every version since 1.x has included such telemetry as well as an easy way for users/customers to turn it off if they wish via a single checkbox in the software. Our only goal in gathering any data is to make our products better and more effective. It is never to profit from private user information or to "tattle" on them or anything else like that. We do of course validate license keys etc., but that's just standard practice in the software industry and one of the measures employed to monitor and attempt to curb piracy of our own software as best we can (though we do things like blacklist keys; we have never to my knowledge taken any user to court over pirating our software and I sincerely doubt that we ever would). It really all comes down to integrity. We believe that our users'/customers' privacy is a sacred thing to be guarded ferociously against anyone who might attempt to exploit, harass or otherwise abuse any of our users/customers and their private information. We believe in fair play and treating our users with respect and attempting to always put the users/customers first, even before profits (if for no other reason than without you guys buying our software, there would be no profits ). That's also why we've done things in the past such as our pirate amnesty program where we offered anyone who appeared to be pirating our software a deal, either with a steep discount or even a free 1 year license for the paid version of Malwarebytes. Not only did it show good faith on our part, but it actually did result in a very significant number of previously pirated/invalid license users converting to paying customers, and that's something that we're incredibly grateful for.
  9. Hey guys, just one quick thing to add here regarding exclusions specifically in Malwarebytes. When you exclude a folder, it is recursive so it is the same as adding individual file exclusions for every file contained within that folder and any other folders the excluded folder contains. Also note that this only applies to Malware Protection (and also scan detections). Our other protection components do not allow folder/recursive exclusions like that. It's just included in Malware Protection since that's most often used for excluding other security software, such as AVs which goes a lot quicker typically if you can exclude an AVs entire program folder in one shot rather than excluding each EXE/file/process individually.
  10. Greetings and welcome While I do not have any first-hand knowledge of whether the two are compatible, I can tell you that much of it depends on how the ransomware protection in Acronis functions. If it's simply something like a scheduled/automatic file backup/encryption etc. type mechanism designed to protect your files from ransomware by storing clean/protected copies of them somewhere then no, I do not believe it should interfere with Malwarebytes at all. I hope that's of some use to you, at least until someone with more info comes along to answer your question. And thanks for using Malwarebytes to help keep you safe online !
  11. Yes, they are quite similar but there are a few differences. Info on how to exclude anything from Malwarebytes 3.0, including websites and processes from Web Protection can be found here. I hope this helps .
  12. Greetings I thought I should add some info here to try to clear things up as best I can with regards to our RAM usage and other performance metrics. First off, Malwarebytes has several modules that protect against various threats and attack vectors (4 currently; 5 if you count self-protection) so that has something to do with it. Also, we've discovered that keeping as much of our database loaded into memory as possible actually results in better overall system performance, not worse. The reason for this is simply because many AVs/other anti-malware products, in order to seem like they are using less resources/RAM etc. will actually not load much of their database(s) into memory until a new file is downloaded/executed etc. This results in often serious lag when attempting to run a new process in memory (even clean processes) as they end up having to scan the item/load those databases anyway. We avoid eating up so much CPU by keeping our databases in memory so that analysis and detection (if something is a threat) are almost instantaneous. That said, we definitely believe that there are things we would like to do better, including reducing our memory footprint so that our software runs as fast and as light as possible without interfering with normal use of the PC. In fact, this is one key area that we have developers focused on right now. The challenge is to dramatically reduce our RAM usage without sacrificing too much (if any) overall speed/performance of the system and our software. It's not an easy thing to accomplish, but I do believe that through hard work and smart coding, our developers will be able to come up with a reasonable solution to this. It should only be a matter of time. Anyway, I hope this helps. I realize it doesn't exactly fix the issue of high RAM usage in Malwarebytes (as I type this, MBAMService.exe is consuming approximately 340MB of RAM on my system; though thankfully I've got 24GB, so it isn't impacting the loading of other software or anything). Also, while I completely understand what you're saying about older/slower systems with less memory installed, any modern system with an adequate amount of RAM wouldn't really benefit in any way if we did reduce our memory footprint, but they could be impacted it we increased our CPU footprint, especially when analyzing new processes being loaded into memory. As others have stated, the only time RAM usage is a problem is when you actually run out of it and Windows must page processes to disk via the paging file. Having a certain amount of free RAM really doesn't do anything to improve the performance of a system (the only real exception being technology such as SuperFetch in Windows Vista, which MS actually toned down in a major way in 7+ due to users complaining about it eating up so much RAM, many not realizing that all it was doing was loading up the most recently/commonly used processes/data into memory to improve the load times/performance of said software once the user decides to run them).
  13. Greetings andrewsmart I removed your email address from your post to protect you from receiving spam etc. by posting your email address in public. If you wish to contact us via email, you may do so by filling out the form on this page and one of our Support technicians will assist you as soon as possible.
  14. Greetings Yep, we don't scan ISOs. The thing to remember here is that, even if an ISO contains malware, it cannot infect a system until it is extracted/unpacked/installed on a system. The same is actually true of archives. As long as a threat is within such a container it isn't capable of being active. That said, we'd naturally attempt to detect any threat which might be installed on the system, regardless of its source. Also, there are ways to test ISOs and such, including installing them inside a Windows instance running within a virtual machine to protect the host/live system from being infected. As long as your install a copy of Malwarebytes Free inside the VM so that you can scan it after installing the software, you should be able to determine if the ISO is clean or not. That said, if what you're most concerned about is content downloaded via Peer-to-Peer (P2P) software such as a Bittorrent client etc., then also be aware that there are other risks besides malware infections if the content you're downloading is pirated/does not include licensing that allows sharing/using it in such ways. Please refer to our Copyright Policy for additional details on some of the potential risks associated with the use of pirated content if you need more info on that aspect of things at all. Note: I am NOT in any way attempting to insinuate that you actually are pirating anything at all; I simply want to make sure that all of our bases are covered just in case any of the content you're using/dealing with might be pirated so that you may be better informed and take whatever measures you deem necessary to best protect yourself and your system. I hope this information was helpful. Please let us know if there's anything else we can assist you with or questions about the software that we can answer for you.
  15. By the way, as far as our own software goes, yes, if we see a user running a pirated copy of any of our paid products on their systems we'll ask them to either remove it and install the Free version (for products which have one such as our flagship Malwarebytes product) or purchase a license if they wish to continue to use the paid features before we will assist them. That said, it's obviously up to the user whether they wish to continue being assisted by us or not at that point. We can't really force anyone to do anything they do not wish to do. It's their system(s) and their risk; we just want to make sure that we inform them of the potential dangers of piracy and attempt to protect our own intellectual property. Again, we're not the internet police, but we definitely don't condone piracy either, but at the end of the day it is up to the user to decide what they are or are not willing to do/risk.