Jump to content

exile360

Experts
  • Content Count

    24,343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by exile360

  1. Greetings, If you still wish to install the software you have a couple of options. First, you can change how PUPs are handled so that rather than blocking and quarantining PUPs that are detected in real-time, you can instead have Malwarebytes prompt you on what to do. To change this, open Malwarebytes and navigate to Settings>Protection and under the Potential Threat Protection section use the drop-down menu for PUPs to Warn user instead of the default selection which has them treated like actual malware/threats. This will cause Malwarebytes to display a prompt/notification dialog whenever a PUP is detected in real-time asking you what to do. You'll have the option to allow the item once (useful for when you are running an installer), ignore always which will add the item to your persistent exclusions (useful for an application that is already installed), or to have the item quarantined (useful for any PUPs that you do not wish to allow onto your system). This will apply to all items that are detected as PUPs by real-time protection, and for scans it will mean that anything detected as PUP will not have the checkbox next to it selected for removal by default, though it will still show up in the list of detections. If you select the option for Malwarebytes to ignore all PUP detections then no PUPs will be detected at all by real-time protection or scans, so I would highly recommend selecting the 'Warn user' option if you do decide to change how Malwarebytes treats PUPs system wide. Another option would be to temporarily disable the Malware Protection component in Malwarebytes when running an installer that Malwarebytes detects as PUP. To do this, simply right-click on the Malwarebytes tray icon and click on Malware Protection: On and click Yes to the User Account Control prompt. Once you are done installing the PUP application, I would suggest then performing a Threat scan with Malwarebytes by opening Malwarebytes and clicking on the Scan Now button found on the Dashboard tab, allowing the scan to complete, and as long as the only items detected are components of the PUP application that you installed, click the empty checkbox at the top of the list of detections then click Next, and when prompted on what to do with the remaining detected items select the option to always ignore them and they will be added to your exclusions so that none of those items will be detected in the future by scans or Malware Protection. Now you may re-enable Malware Protection by again right-clicking on the Malwarebytes tray icon and clicking Malware Protection: Off and it will then re-enable it, or you may use the switch provided for Malware Protection on the Dashboard tab in the main UI. I hope this helps, and if there is anything else we might assist you with please let us know. Thanks
  2. By the way, excluding embedded content this way used to work with previous builds of the extension, so whatever is causing this has to be a change in the final build.
  3. Right, I just used that as a simple example because it was easy to replicate it. Embedding content is a very common practice so when the blocker shows a specific site as being blocked, provides the option to create a temporary or permanent exclusion, but requires a different site to be whitelisted it seems to me that it is not working as intended, or at least not as would be considered intuitive by the user.
  4. OK, I figured something out. The blocked page is an embedded video stream being displayed on a different site. If I exclude the actual site I am viewing from being blocked for malware then the video loads even though the block itself was showing the source domain for the video as the site being blocked. This is really weird behavior in my opinion. If you want to test and verify all this behavior yourself, here is a site where you can test it (no pornography; it's a Disney video): http://sockshare.net/watch/XvjJ3Pve-buzz-lightyear-of-star-command-season-1.html
  5. OK, after excluding it from every category so that it shouldn't be blocked for any reason the block still persists. It must be an issue with Iron not liking the browser extension or vice-versa.
  6. OK, I just did all that and the issue persists. Maybe it's a problem with Iron. I click the checkbox to exclude the site and while the check appears in the box, nothing else happens. I click the link to continue to the site anyway and the block page appears to reload quickly, but only loads the same block page again so nothing changes; I still can't reach the site. I'll try excluding it completely and see what happens.
  7. Yeah, I don't expect it to specify every reason for every block when there may be multiple reasons, but once excluded from one type of blocking it definitely shouldn't show the site as being blocked for that very reason afterward because that doesn't make any sense and that's my only point as far as that goes. For everything else, I couldn't get the option to exclude the site permanently or during the current session to work in the block page and the only way I could get it to show up at all in my allow list was to add it there manually.
  8. Yep, agreed. My point was simply that because it's been available for download via the Google web store the entire time, it makes little difference as far as access is concerned, but I would have preferred they put up this new version as a last beta just to note to everyone that it hasn't gone through testing yet and is still not fit for use in production environments just to have that awareness there for any would-be users of it that maybe aren't comfortable running untested/non-final code.
  9. I see, but then why does it always show that the site is blocked for malware/Trojan, even when the malware exclusion is present? Is that just the default whenever a site is blocked for multiple reasons; i.e. go with the more severe reason no matter what? If so, I get it sort of, but for cases like this where the user might try to exclude the site, the block page/redirect needs to reflect the actual reason for the block at that point (i.e. show that it was blocked for advertising/being an ad server rather than continuing to show the Trojan/malware block page).
  10. Right, and as you can see by the first image I posted, it is being blocked for malware (Trojan) activity, meaning a simple malware exclusion should have sufficed. Additionally, as mentioned, the controls in the actual block page to continue to the site anyway and checkbox to exclude the site do not function.
  11. Yeah, I guess in this case there is little difference since everyone had access to the beta the entire time anyway, but still I guess I'd just feel a lot better if it had some indication that this current build is a beta/test build rather than everything indicating that it is the final release knowing that it hasn't really gone through all the same testing that the previous betas were given over time by so many users.
  12. That used to be how we did things. It was a pivotal part of our release process. No untested code was ever to be published as a final release product. Each build had to go through a full round of testing prior to being released, and if any change (even minor) is made to the code (for example, fixing a last minute minor bug or adding a last minute feature/change) then the resulting new build had to go through the entire full testing process prior to being released because we were burned too many times by builds going live with seemingly insignificant changes that resulted in sometimes catastrophic failures and issues due to unforeseen consequences to those changes in the code. I understand that public beta testing is not necessarily a requirement for Malwarebytes product releases and that it may be an optional tool utilized when they are seeking a wide range of test systems, variables and product feedback, however I've always found it to be invaluable in helping to ferret out those elusive bugs that no one in QA ever seems to find until a drove of customers/users start hitting the Support channels with widespread reports of the issue. Public beta testing helps to avoid this by having the product tested on a larger diversity of systems and configurations rather than a number of relatively pristine VMs and test systems.
  13. Nope, that doesn't work and neither does the 'I want to continue to this site anyway' link. I had to add the exclusions manually to get them into my allow list.
  14. I just wish we would have been able to actually test this version of the extension in beta before it was actually released as the final build/version, because it appears to work very differently from the builds we were testing before it went final and multiple bugs which were not present in the last betas have already been discovered and reported in this final release. Kinda defeats the purpose of beta testing if you are going to make any changes to the code in the final release version because you're basically pushing forward with a completely untested build (I'm sure it was tested by QA internally, but still, that's a minuscule amount testing/systems compared to the full public beta).
  15. I was gonna say, I never saw any prompt to enter my email address so I was wondering how they would get it.
  16. Greetings, Please try running ADWCleaner to see if it is able to detect and eliminate the issues. If the problem still persists then please follow the instructions in this topic and then create a new topic in the malware removal area by clicking here and one of our malware removal specialists will assist you in checking and clearing your system of any remaining threats. Please let us know if there is anything else we might assist you with. Thanks
  17. I just tested again; both exclusions still remain in my allow list yet I still get blocks:
  18. Right, the entire purpose was to test exclusion functionality so I found a streaming site where I knew I could reliably reproduce blocks by the browser extension and that's when I discovered that exclusions weren't working.
  19. The first was openload.co and the second was entervideo.net.
  20. Greetings, Thanks for the feedback and for testing the beta If you do run into any issues or if you have any questions please don't hesitate to let us know. Thanks
  21. Greetings, I suspect this may be due to the fact that (I believe) exclusions are a setting pulled from the policy. I could be mistaken on that however, and someone from the Malwarebytes staff may know better.
  22. Yes, unfortunately that's very true. On Amazon you'll also frequently come across scalpers who will buy up stock of a limited and popular item where the demand outweighs the supply and they will jack the prices up to astronomical proportions. There are also a lot of counterfeit goods on there including fake electronics, fake clothing and pretty much anything else you can think of. It makes it very difficult to shop with confidence with all of these scams going on. I still shop on Amazon regularly, however I generally only buy from Amazon directly (or at least when Amazon are the ones fulfilling the order, meaning it's coming from their warehouses) or when the seller has been around for at least a number of years and has a large number of ratings which are consistently high.
  23. I do have one more thought. Please try disabling just the Ransomware Protection component in Malwarebytes and let me know if that makes any difference or not.
×
×
  • 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.