Jump to content

exile360

Experts
  • Content Count

    23,239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by exile360

  1. What's the model and manufacturer of the component you need the driver for? I'm guessing Soundblaster by your reference to SB but wasn't sure.
  2. Ah, understood, thanks. If you open Malwarebytes, does it show all of the protection components as being enabled/on (look at the upper right side of the Dashboard tab)?
  3. OK, and if you click Show processes from all users in the Processes tab, does MBAMService show up?
  4. Well, the process for the tray is called mbamtray.exe and should be launched automatically by MBAMService.exe. Make sure both are running, and if not, try restarting the system one more time to see if that resolves it. If it doesn't, go ahead and do the following: Download and run the Malwarebytes Support Tool Accept the EULA and click Advanced Options on the main page (not Get Started) Click the Gather Logs button, and once it completes, attach the zip file it creates on your desktop to your next reply
  5. Yes, it should, at least if you're running the paid/Premium version or the free trial of the Premium version. If it isn't, there could be a problem with its installation.
  6. While I don't have any extensive details about Emsisoft, I checked their site and they don't seem to include any comprehensive exploit protection like Malwarebytes does for one. I'm also not sure if they have anything that would be an acceptable substitute for the recently implemented signature-less anomalous file detection capabilities in Malwarebytes, which use machine learning and advanced heuristics algorithms rather than more traditional threat signatures to detect new and unknown malware (0-hour/0-day threats). Obviously there are going to be differences between the other layers as well, even the ones which cover similar areas/threats etc. but there's no real way of comparing them in-depth without detailed technical knowledge of what's going on under the hood (proprietary information only the Developers of each product would know). I also don't know what kind of self-protection/self-defense mechanism(s) they have, if any, though I do know that the self-protection driver in Malwarebytes, which is based on their former Chameleon technology, is quite robust. As far as general protection from more common threats goes, while they may not have the same level of heuristics as Malwarebytes, they do at least use 2 AV engines according to their site, and while that's no guarantee against newer/unknown threats, it does mean that you should at least get the same or better protection that you got with Norton. I'm also not certain about their policy on PUPs (Potentially Unwanted Programs) and whether or not they are as aggressive against them as Malwarebytes; one of the areas Malwarebytes has been a leader in the entire industry in over the past few years with regards to their intolerance of PUPs. That said, PUPs aren't malware though, so that may not be as important to you as other areas of coverage. With all of that said, you might consider giving the new beta of Malwarebytes a try to see if it resolves the problem. I just asked another use to try it who was having similar performance issues and so far at least it seems to have corrected the issues. If you wish to try it, open Malwarebytes and navigate to Settings>Application then scroll down to where it says Beta Application Updates and turn on the option beneath it to receive beta updates, then scroll back up to the top and click the Install Application Updates button and allow it to download/install the new version, then reboot if prompted to complete the installation process and test and see how it goes. Hopefully it will correct the issues for you as well.
  7. Yeah, when Steam is loading/installing an update it usually takes quite a while to load up/display the first window and tray icon etc. (I use Steam myself) so that's pretty typical, with or without Malwarebytes. Thanks for testing and please do let us know if you run into any issues, but hopefully the beta's got it corrected for you.
  8. Would you mind testing out the new beta to see if it resolves this issue? If so, then open Malwarebytes and go to Settings>Application and scroll down to the bottom of the page where it says Beta Application Updates and enable the option underneath, then scroll back up to the top of the page and click on the Install Application Updates button and you should be prompted to download/install the new beta release. Allow it to download and install and then reboot if required to complete the installation process then test to see if it fixes this issue or not. If you do decide to try the beta, please let us know how it goes. Thanks
  9. Please try the following: Download and run the Malwarebytes Support Tool Accept the EULA and click Advanced Options on the main page (not Get Started) Click the Clean button, and allow it to restart your system and then reinstall Malwarebytes, either by allowing the tool to do so when it offers to on restart, or by downloading and installing the latest version from here Once that's done and you have the latest version of Malwarebytes 3 installed again, if it still isn't working then please run the Malwarebytes Support Tool again as in the above instructions, except this time instead of clicking on Clean, click Gather Logs and then attach the ZIP file it creates on your desktop to your next reply. Thanks
  10. It's also possible that there is some kind of adware program on the computer affecting Edge and this could be the reason for the pop-ups, especially if you aren't seeing them with other browsers. Also, if you're seeing the same kinds of pop-ups when visiting different websites, it's also likely that the source is on your PC and not the web, further implicating an adware infection of some kind. If that is the case, I would recommend following the instructions in this topic and then creating a new topic in the malware removal area containing the requested logs and information by clicking here and one of our malware removal specialists will assist you in checking and cleaning your system of any adware, malware and other threats.
  11. I'd suggesting trying it without Fast Startup just to see how much slower it is. If you've got an SSD you might be surprised at how quickly the system starts, even with Fast Startup disabled.
  12. It sounds like maybe a registry policy or Group Policy setting may be set to prevent access to those settings, or it could be an issue with permission. If it's the former, the info here in reference to the HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main|Enable Browser Extensions registry setting may be useful and for the memory protection setting, this should prove helpful. It also depends on the version of Internet Explorer you're using as well as your version of Windows as the defaults for these settings may differ depending on how Microsoft decided to configure them by default. You may need to either use Safe Mode or run Internet Explorer as an administrator to change those settings; though I would advise not doing any actual browsing while IE is running as an administrator so if you do end up having to do that, just launch it that way, change the settings you wish to change, then close IE and re-launch it to start using it for normal browsing (it's a security risk to run it in administrative mode because it would bypass User Account Control).
  13. Yep, it wasn't the first time and it won't be the last, but at least this update repeating is a thing of the past...for now
  14. Yes, the Chrome version is different from the Windows version, and yes, it's a good idea to have real-time protection in ChromeOS (as mentioned above by plb4333). As ChromeOS as well as the Chrome browser become more popular and as mobile devices like tablets and smart phones take the place of PCs more and more, the bad guys who write malware have begun to target these non-PC/non-Windows devices more and more. The same is true for iOS due in large part to the popularity of the iPhone and other Apple devices, resulting in both Apple and Google having to do far more frequent security updates than they used to, much like what Microsoft does today for its software. Exploits, Trojans, keyloggers, adware, spyware, hijackers, scams, phishing and pretty much all other forms of attack and malware are now targeting these non-Windows/non-PC devices more than ever before, so it's a good idea to use some kind of protection software to help you stay safe. Such devices and operating systems aren't immune any more (not that they ever were, but they definitely weren't targeted nearly as often as they are today).
  15. I think the problem is that there are several causes for this particular issue, and while the Developers have found and fixed several of them over the past few releases, at least one or two remain which have yet to be resolved. Fixing it is a matter of determining what's causing it, which is why we ask for the logs because it doesn't happen on every system and the QA team hasn't had any success in replicating the issue so far.
  16. You're welcome If there's anything else you need just let us know and we'll do our best to assist.
  17. Yes, that's correct. Honestly, the Custom scan pretty much only exists because some users would complain if the product didn't provide some kind of "custom" or "full" scanning capability to check other locations for threats, but the truth is, if a system is infected, the threat is most likely active, and if the threat is active, it will be detected by the Threat scan regardless of where it's hiding. Conversely, the Research team is constantly testing and detonating malware samples and analyzing infected systems to monitor the behavior of threats, including where malware installs itself and hides and whenever a new location is discovered that a threat is found to be installing, this location gets added to the Threat scan by the Research team and these changes happen in database updates so they don't even require waiting for the Developers to build a new version of the product. I personally never use the Custom scan option. To me it's pretty much useless.
  18. When is it turning back on? After reboot, after upgrades or does the setting just never actually switch to off? If it's the last one then something may be preventing settings from being changed, like something blocking writing to the config files that control settings or else something corrupting them so that they fall back to defaults. Also, are you logged into an administrative user account when changing the settings? If not then maybe it's a permissions issue. If changing the setting from an administrative user account didn't fix it then please do the following: Download and run the Malwarebytes Support Tool Accept the EULA and click Advanced Options on the main page (not Get Started) Click the Gather Logs button, and once it completes, attach the zip file it creates on your desktop to your next reply
  19. I don't think Malwarebytes stores any user data in the UK. I could be mistaken, but I believe that all of their servers reside in the US. That said, I do believe they still plan to comply by modifying the installer and default setting, probably in the upcoming 3.5 version currently in beta.
  20. That's great, I'm glad that you found the information helpful. If you need anything else please let us know. Thanks
  21. The item in the context menu isn't the alert, the pop-up you initially saw from your tray is when the block occurred. I think I see what you're saying though, and yes, if a user were to be using their context menu for something like checking for updates and accidentally clicked on that item for the previously blocked site, it wouldn't be a good thing, however as I said, it does alert them to this action with a second notification explaining that the site has been added to their exclusions list so at least they understand what they just did and can quickly take action to reverse it if desired. The flip side, and the reason this was implemented in the first place, was because of issues where a user is visiting a site that they know to be safe or using an application such as an online game or some other Peer-to-Peer (P2P) application that connects to a wide range of IP addresses, which might include some that are blocked by Malwarebytes due to the fact that they are also shared with some malware (since a single IP can be host to many different domains/websites) and so now their game or visit to their site is interrupted because Malwarebytes just blocked it. The trouble is, in order to exclude the site they have to know the exact address or IP, then they have to open Malwarebytes, go to Settings>Exclusions, click Add Exclusion, click on the Exclude a Website option, click Next, then select either Exclude a url or Exclude an IP Address, then enter the URL of the website or IP address exactly correctly (otherwise it won't work, obviously), then click OK, then close Malwarebytes. It's a lot of steps with a lot of room for potential mistakes. The item in the context menu is just one simple click, and besides, even if the bad guys did us a legit sounding name to try to convince people that the site is safe/shouldn't be blocked, if the user believed them, then they'd go ahead and exclude it the hard way if necessary. Having it appear in the context menu does nothing to affect their psychology, I don't think, though perhaps adding a single confirmation dialog/pop-up wouldn't be a bad idea (something like "Malwarebytes blocked the website <name of site or IP address that was blocked> due to <reason for the block, the same as what is shown on the block/redirect page from the Malwarebytes database>, are you sure that you want to exclude it so that it will no longer be blocked?" with a set of "Yes"/"No" buttons. I think that would go a long way to make the feature much more safe/full-proof. What do you think? edit: By the way, I just recalled that they way they actually implemented this feature, the last blocked site stays listed in the context menu of the tray until the next system restart or the next time that you quit/start Malwarebytes. Also note that only the most recently blocked site is ever displayed, so if Malwarebytes blocks a different site during the same session, it will replace the previous entry. You should be able to test this yourself by trying to visit iptest.malwarebytes.com or domaintest.malwarebytes.com, both of which should be blocked as they are test pages for verifying that Web Protection in Malwarebytes is functioning (one tests the IP address block functionality/database(s) and the other tests its URL/domain name blocking capabilities/database(s)).
  22. I'll be honest, I realize that some of iObit's apps are pretty popular. I'm also painfully aware of their overly aggressive advertising tactics, including deceptive ads which reside on several well known/major download sites where the ad looks like the download button for the application the user is trying to get, but because of its location and appearance, they end up clicking the ad instead and unwittingly installing Advanced System Care. I have also personally looked at several of their more popular apps and noticed a pattern of striking similarities to other, better known/more widely used freeware applications from other companies/developers, including tools like CCleaner and Defraggler among others. That was sometime ago though, so it's possible they've made some changes and altered their offerings to make them more unique, however given their history, not just what they did to Malwarebytes and their database, but also to other well known security vendors as well as what I mentioned about the other freeware apps, I personally have a hard time trusting them. But of course the decision to classify them as PUP or not is not mine to make either, and is completely up to Malwarebytes and their Research team, and since I know they aren't anxiously seeking any lawsuits, I'm certain they carefully weighed their decision and didn't come to it lightly when they decided to classify ASC as PUP, making sure that it fit the criteria they use when classifying applications as PUP. Malwarebytes doesn't just target products from vendors they might consider "unfriendly"; they even block ad/tracking servers from the likes of Microsoft and Google with their new browser plugin (currently in beta), so I don't believe for one second that this PUP classification has anything to do with the history between the two companies and I am certain that if iObit were to change their application and advertising practices so that it no longer merited being classified as PUP by Malwarebytes, they would immediately remove it from their detection database without a second thought. I've seen it happen before with plenty of other companies' products, even ones from vendors whose products were once classified as actual malware (like rogue/fake AVs etc.), but after they cleaned up their acts and stopped the malicious/unscrupulous practices, Malwarebytes removed detection for their applications because they aren't interested in using their detections as a means of lashing out at anyone, it's just there for the sake of protecting their users and customers.
  23. It's just like when a threat is detected. Many AVs immediately display an option to restore and ignore the item they just removed. It's a pretty standard practice. Also keep in mind that it is only listed there temporarily. I don't recall how long, but only a couple of minutes or less I believe.
  24. Having it be convenient/accessible was the point. Users didn't want to have to open Malwarebytes and dig into settings just to exclude a website that was just blocked that they're determined to reach. Most users won't right-click on the menu following a block, so unless they're deliberately trying to exclude it, most will never even see it (for example, you're the first user in all the time this feature has been active that I'm aware of who has complained about it being a risk; that's not to say that you are wrong, just that I don't think most users are clicking there unless they're looking for it, which means that it is most likely being used as intended). As for screening, that is a possibility. Just recently (in fact, in just the last released version of Malwarebytes that went live only days ago) a new feature was added which provides additional info on why each website is blocked, for example if it's malware, phishing, adware etc., so adding an option to determine the categories of sites to offer this option for is a possibility. I'll suggest it to the Product team for consideration.
×
×
  • 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.