Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by exile360

  1. Great, thanks. You wouldn't have any images or screenshots handy would you? I only ask because I'm not familiar with how any of those programs look currently and it would help the Devs a lot to have images of the concepts that you're trying to convey. It's not a problem if not as I'm sure someone from the Product team can locate them, however it would save a lot of time if we had them up front. Thanks
  2. No, it shouldn't block the excluded site regardless of what other sites/domains/IPs or hosts/blocks of IPs are blocked by Malwarebytes. If a site you have excluded continues to be blocked, then usually either closing and reopening your web browser, clearing your browser's cache, or clearing your DNS cache resolves it. This is because once a site has been blocked once, the Windows DNS caching system, and often the caching system built into many modern browsers (especially Chrome and Firefox in my personal experience) will cause subsequent connection attempts to fail even though Malwarebytes isn't actually blocking the excluded site any longer (which can be verified by checking your logs in Malwarebytes as it logs each blocked connection attempt whenever it occurs). I hope this information is helpful, and I apologize if it is unrelated to the issues you are describing as I'm not a Developer or Researcher so I'm just speaking from my own personal experience and what I've learned of Malwarebytes behavior in Windows throughout the years.
  3. Greetings, If possible, could you be a bit more specific? I ask because the current UI in Malwarebytes 3 has been modernized quite a bit. I cite the following UI concepts currently implemented in Malwarebytes 3 as examples: Flat - virtually the entire UI is flat/uses flat, solid shaded controls and buttons just like most modern apps and OS interfaces (Windows 8/10 Metro, Android etc.) Touch - the bulk of the UI is touch-friendly, including the large solid shaded flat controls mentioned above as well as the use of on/off switches and checkboxes through the UI to make it more accessible to touchscreen devices Web - the majority of the UI is laid out in such a way as to resemble a website/web based interface including the controls I mentioned above as well as the use of clickable links, similar to a standard website which is the design direction most modern apps are moving in today Beyond that, was there anything that you find to be specifically outdated/lacking in modern aesthetics? Please let me know and I will share your feedback with the team for consideration. Also please keep in mind that I am not trying to be argumentative here, however I was there when the team was working on the design for Malwarebytes 3 and I recall that the primary driver behind their current design choices was to modernize the UI so that it would fit with the types of interfaces and controls used on other modern software and operating systems. Also, just FYI I'm personally not a fan at all of the plain, flat, touch-friendly look and much preferred the look of Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.x, however I also hate the look of things like Android, modern apps and Windows 10 for the same reason (I prefer applications to look like applications, not boring, flat, dated looking websites and I cite this article as an example of my reasoning because to me, there is nothing "modern" about most modern day interfaces, and while some may claim that it somehow conserves resources to load simpler looking UIs, that is patently false as it is no more of a resource draw to load/display a rounded/tinted/shaded/gradient filled/3-D looking button/control/banner etc. than it is to load a flat, single colored, borderless square or rectangle and with modern GPUs, multi-core CPUs and the scale of RAM in the vast majority of systems, the last thing we actually need is lighter software that won't take advantage of our faster, better, more power efficient hardware, but maybe that's just me.
  4. If you wish to continue using Driver Booster then you should exclude its detections. You may do so by performing a scan and then right-clicking on the entry for the Driver Booster detections and selecting the option to exclude/ignore it and it should no longer be detected by future scans.
  5. Good, I'm glad that all seems to be working normally now, but please don't hesitate to let me know if the issue emerges again. I definitely hear what you're saying regarding having your security apps watch each other/watch out for each other, however I think both ESET and Malwarebytes do a pretty decent job of protecting themselves (both have various self-defense mechanisms built in) and with both products on the job, the chances of an infection even getting through to attempt to compromise either product is extremely low, at least in my opinion (I obviously use Malwarebytes and I have used ESET in the past and still recommend it as one of the top AVs out there).
  6. You're welcome, we're glad to be of service. If you need assistance with anything else just let us know. Thanks
  7. It worked back then the same way it does currently. It will scan the other locations you select, however the specialized checks in the rootkit scan look primarily at the current boot drive and hidden system partition as well as the other areas on the system where rootkits are known to install themselves. The other locations you select are still scanned, however they are checked with the standard malware detection engine (just like performing a normal non-rootkit scan), so this is why it still checks all those other locations and takes longer than the rootkit scan alone.
  8. Sounds good, I hope it goes well and I look forward to hearing from you, hopefully with good news.
  9. Yes, that's your browser's process so it should be fine. You can also verify the file and location by checking the Reports tab in Malwarebytes or by clicking on the bell shaped icon at the top right corner of the main Malwarebytes window and clicking on the most recent web block entry listed there and it will show you the details about the block, including the process that was blocked and where it's located as well as the specifics on the site it was trying to connect to. As long as this block happened while you were browsing the web then it should be fine and just means that it blocked a bad website or malicious advertisement on a webpage you were viewing. This is very common and is nothing to worry about.
  10. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll submit it to the team
  11. Ah, I see, so it was the anti-spyware component that was being disabled then, not the antivirus? If so, then you should be good, but if your protection still isn't working please let us know.
  12. If the program making the connection was your web browser or a peer-to-peer program such as a Bittorrent client, Skype/an instant messaging program then you should be OK. You can find out more about some of these situations in this support article, however if the program was some kind of document from the web or from an email message or was some kind of software crack, video game cheating tool or something else that might have come from a less than entirely legitimate source then it is possible that it has some kind of malicious functionality built into it and your system could be infected. If you believe that to be the case please let us know and I'll provide instructions on how to seek free expert assistance in checking and cleaning your system of any threats.
  13. Greetings, I did notice a couple of items in your logs so we'll see if one of those may be the cause. First, the log shows that Windows Action Center Integration for Malwarebytes is set to default, and while this is supposed to allow Defender to work, it's possible that for some reason it isn't so please open Malwarebytes and toggle the Action Center setting on and then off again just to make sure it reads and loads the setting properly, then restart the system to check and see if Windows Defender is now working or not. If that failed to resolve it, then please try uninstalling and reinstalling Malwarebytes to see if that corrects the problem (just uninstall it normally via Programs and Features for now; a clean uninstall should not be necessary). You can download the latest version from here. Please let us know how it goes and whether or not the issue is now resolved. Thanks
  14. Greetings, It was most likely just a web block and there shouldn't be anything to worry about, however you can check by opening Malwarebytes and going to the Reports tab and checking the most recent entry listed there and double-click on it to view the details. Find out what the site was that was blocked and what process was being blocked. If it was your web browser being blocked then you shouldn't have anything to be concerned about, but if not then definitely let us know and we'll help you to check your system for threats.
  15. Sounds good, hopefully those exclusions resolve it, but if not then please move on to testing the various protection options I mentioned and let us know how that goes. Hopefully we can find a fix for this.
  16. The first one; exclude it from all modules. That's the setting you should use for AV exclusions for the best results.
  17. Greetings, I'm sorry that you're experiencing performance issues with both programs running, but hopefully we can find a solution to the issue. To start, if you haven't already, I'd recommend excluding ESET from Malwarebytes. I saw that you mentioned excluding Malwarebytes from ESET but didn't see anything about excluding ESET from Malwarebytes so that's worth a try if you haven't done so already. To do so, open Malwarebytes and navigate to Settings>Exclusions and follow the instructions under the Exclude a File or Folder section in this support article and exclude the program folder for ESET which should be located under C:\Program Files or C:\Program Files (x86) as well as its data folder which should be located under C:\ProgramData. You should also verify that you have excluded Malwarebytes files as listed in this support article if that wasn't the list you were using for your exclusions in ESET just to make sure that everything is excluded that can be. Next, if that does not help or if you already had those items excluded, please try disabling individual components in Malwarebytes to see if we can determine which component might be causing the issue. Begin by right-clicking on the Malwarebytes tray icon and clicking each of the four protection components listed one at a time and testing to see if the performance issue is resolved. If disabling any individual component does not resolve the problem then open Malwarebytes and navigate to Settings>Protection and below the Startup Options section toggle the Enable self-protection module setting to Off and see if things improve. Please let us know how it goes and if any changes to these settings eliminates the issue and we'll go from there. Thanks
  18. Yep, that's a good idea. The only potential issue would be if the original BIOS contains vulnerabilities and/or bugs that need to be patched since it can't be written to/updated.
  19. exile360


    Cool, thanks Rakesh
  20. Hehe, I pretty much have no life. Being social isn't a driving force in my life. I spend most of my time alone and I'm quite content with that existence and have no desire to change it, but I'm definitely an outlier.
  21. Yes, just open a new post in that area I linked to with the domain and IP and they will investigate and respond and remove the site from the block list if it is a false positive.
  22. By the way, while not related to this precisely, it is still pretty cool as it has to do with cloud and systems management, I thought you might find this interesting. They are leveraging Amazon Alexa Home to provide access to cloud data from the managed business product for those customers.
  23. I have no idea as I'm not a Developer, I just know that the functions and APIs used for scanning and file analysis in Windows are very different from the machine learning/AI models and other functions used in the scientific projects managed by OpenACC. It's not something that was designed for AVs on a single system scale, though certainly for the machine learning components leveraged on the server side used by the Research team such technology would apply, but I don't know what the scale of their work and data set are there, so it would depend on that. The whole point of technology like GPU compute is to make massive workloads that are too large for a single CPU/system scale vertically so that you can apply multiple specialized processors (the GPUs) to those large data sets and workloads to substitute a setup with many PCIExpress GPUs for a massive set of systems/servers as it's more cost effective and GPUs are better at working with certain types of operations/functions and calculations, but that technology doesn't work for every type of workload because of the limits to the capabilities of GPUs compared to x86/x64 CPUs. This is actually a subject I've been learning a lot about lately as I've always been into hardware and over recent years the whole mining thing with GPUs, the emergence of big data and various machine learning models and the specialization of AMD/ATI and NVIDIA in the compute side of things have brought these technologies more into the mainstream so I read and hear about them a lot. It's just that when all you have is a single system of files to analyze by an engine designed to function in a single CPU environment using standard APIs and protocols, it doesn't translate well to the kind of specialized work and more massive data sets that GPU scaling was designed for. Basically it's not the kind of workload that this technology was designed to help with if that makes sense. But again, on the cloud side where the Research team is analyzing massive sets of data from users and resources like VirusTotal for classifying known and unknown files as threats or clean using machine learning algorithms it absolutely makes sense, and they may well be using such a solution for that work (I don't know as I'm obviously not on the Dev/Research team).
  24. Yep, I knew what you meant. Such setups are more of a specialized scenario though I think and not really a common use case, but I do still see the value in adding detection for other threats to each product/engine as it does simplify things and help to keep from spreading malware to other systems and environments. I don't know if they will ever implement such functionality, but they may as time goes on as they expand their portfolio of products into more platforms.
  25. OK, yes, that's very similar to the high contrast theme in previous versions of Windows. I figured that was the idea but wanted to make sure. Basically dark windows and controls with light colored text. Thanks
  • 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.