Jump to content

exile360

Experts
  • Content Count

    28,960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by exile360

  1. The trouble is that one vendor's signatures are not the same as any others so it would require integrating their full AV engine, including its drivers, DLLs and any other components needed to decrypt, read, understand and use those signatures, as well as their cleanup/remediation engine which is also most likely proprietary, and this would also mean, as I mentioned before, that Malwarebytes would cease to be compatible with most other AV products. So yes, I can suggest it to the Product team again if you wish, however it's been suggested many times in the past including by me back when I
  2. OK, please open Malwarebytes and go to Settings>About and verify that it shows the following numbers for both version numbers circled in the image below: If it does but Web Protection still isn't working then please do the following and hopefully it will correct the issue: Download and run the Malwarebytes Support Tool Accept the EULA and click Advanced tab on the left (not Start Repair) 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 instal
  3. Oh, Malwarebytes does already have signature based detections, it's just not the primary layer. They also have cloud technologies, machine learning, threat structure heuristics to detect similar threats/files from known malware families, install pattern based heuristics, common spoofing method heuristics (fake MS digital signatures/certs/version info etc.), as well as all that behavior based stuff we've been talking about. Here's a good breakdown of the technologies implemented in Malwarebytes Premium at the moment (I pulled this info from this page, but it applies to the consumer versio
  4. Bingo, and Malwarebytes already has those technologies (and much more) to provide protection against both known and unknown threats as well as common attack vectors (exploits, malicious scripts etc.). Unfortunately, if even Google, who no doubt has more access to newly created web content/files than most other organizations can't accurately classify all items as malicious or safe, what hope does any security company with limited resources have? Don't get me wrong, the filtering in Chrome (as well as in IE/MS Edge) is great, and has been tested and proven to do quite well against a slew o
  5. Yeah, that wouldn't exactly be legal, even if you're doing it to proven criminals. Malwarebytes does assist law enforcement though in attempting to capture and shut down criminals when they can, and they're always working with service/hosting providers to help them clean out the bad content from their servers (at least for the hosts who aren't known for ignoring abuse reports and permitting malicious/illegal content on their servers). Unfortunately the bad guys are really good at covering their tracks and they'll often use anonymous servers and infected systems belonging to legit users a
  6. The trouble with that is A what happens when the user downloads/runs something new on the PC during the training period that isn't necessarily safe? and B what about the kinds of users who regularly download "free" stuff from the web (like games, browser plugins, registry cleaning tools, driver updaters etc.)? I think an anti-EXE is very much like a HIPS in that it requires a decision as to the safety of a file/action on the part of the user whenever the product encounters anything it hasn't seen before, which means users will either be paranoid and end up blocking things they shouldn't,
  7. You're very welcome, I'm glad to be of service
  8. Very much this ^. While there are some other motivations such as corporate and government espionage and terrorist cyber-attacks/cyber-warfare, the vast majority of threats and attacks are motivated by financial gain. The days of playful college students/hackers creating viruses just to see how annoying they can be and how many systems they can infect just for the fun of it are over. It's all about $ now, so for an attack/threat to be profitable, it must be dynamic enough to have sufficient shelf life that they don't have to waste additional time/effort/manpower on it every time an AV vendor
  9. Actually it does target those types of threats, however it does so in a more proactive way. Rather than relying on actually having seen a threat in the past as a signature approach would, Malwarebytes instead uses the much more proactive and more effective method of generically detecting the exploits that attempt to use such infected files (scripts, infected documents, as well as file-less malware for which there are no traditional signatures). That is not to say that there's anything wrong with using an antivirus, and you're more than welcome to of course, but just to be clear, there ar
  10. No idea, your guess is as good as mine, but my guess would be that maybe it's because they weren't happy with the results of the test using their own engine. That's just speculation though, as I have no first-hand knowledge about them as I've never tried their products.
  11. You may if you wish, however before you do I'd suggest reviewing the information in the controversies section of their Wikipedia article as it may have bearing on their trustworthiness.
  12. Greetings, Your best bet would probably be to contact Malwarebytes Support directly via one of the options found on this page. They should be able to assist you promptly with getting the license you're after in time for the sale offer to be valid. Please let us know if there is anything else we might assist you with. Thanks
  13. Yeah, if it's anything like a HIPS (which this definitely sounds like based on your description), I doubt they'd choose to go that route. It's too hard for normal/novice users to know what to do when presented with a decision on whether to allow or block something, so anything that requires that level of knowledge and interaction and could potentially block something the user is trying to do or use could create a large number of support tickets and turn off a lot of users who just want a set-it-and-forget-it solution to security.
  14. I don't know, I've never used it. Yeah, but the trouble is they may be using an AV that doesn't register with Security Center/Action Center which MB couldn't detect, so in all likelihood if they did try to go this route they'd be forced to take the safest approach which would be to have it off by default and allow users to turn it on if they wish to, but the fact of the matter is that most normal users don't alter any settings so they'd not only never turn it on even if they really needed to, but they wouldn't even be aware that it exists as a feature. This is the same reason they rem
  15. Yep, such is the nature of these kinds of tests, and it always has been. It's difficult to set up a consistent, repeatable test that truly replicates a real-world infection scenario, so these testing organizations just do the best they can with the tools available to them. Unfortunately that means that much of what they are testing are only a fraction of the various products' capabilities and are more relevant to the more traditional and much less effective (in the real world) detection mechanisms such as basic signatures and rudimentary file heuristics. I don't envy their responsibility, a
  16. Greetings, Back when I was employed by Malwarebytes I made this very suggestion (my preference was for Kaspersky at the time as they had the best track record back then for consistently high detection rates and I was familiar with the product having used it for quite some time at that point), however I think one of the main things holding them back (aside from the associated cost, of course) is that adding a full third party AV engine would really bloat the product, transforming what is currently an installation with a footprint of less than 100MB to one of several hundred MB's and it wou
  17. Greetings, If you exclude the Synology application via the instructions found in this support article under the section titled Exclude an Application that Connects to the Internet does it work then?
  18. Unfortunately if you're seeing nothing but a black screen then it's difficult to troubleshoot. Are you at least able to see and access the BIOS (the screen that shows up before it tries to boot into Windows)? If not, then the issue could either be something with the hardware such as a bad connection to the display, a bad graphics card, a motherboard issue or any number of other problems related to hardware. At this point I would suggest contacting your system's manufacturer as they will have info on how to access the system's BIOS or to attempt a system factory reset (assuming it has a
  19. Did the button look like the one circled in the image below? If so, that's normal and you can click on it:
  20. By the way, judging by the comments in this Forbes article things aren't looking so good for the platform at the moment, with not even Microsoft being willing to support the OS with native versions of its own Office suite of applications (it instead uses an emulator and only runs 32-bit/x86 Windows code even though the CPUs themselves are actually 64-bit/x64 architecture meaning they'll take the associated performance hit that comes with such emulation as well as being limited to only 4Gb max RAM access for any Windows software they run). That's not to say that it's impossible, but unless
  21. By the way, I did find this Pastebin entry which appears to list the same entries so it could be related (perhaps it was shared there by one of the Malwarebytes Researchers/Developers, or perhaps it's a commonly used set of exclusions for several security apps or something).
  22. Yes, that file is a normal part of the Malwarebytes installation. I don't recall exactly what its purpose is, but I suspect it has to do with common whitelisted files that are known to be safe and should never be detected as threats.
  23. Right, but that's just like WinRT, right? It's used on devices like ultra portables and tablets, which again, show extremely low~non-existent numbers. By the way, just in case you were curious, Windows 7 still holds close to a 42% market share while Windows 10 still has yet to overtake it, currently around 32.3%, though thankfully the much more vulnerable XP is now down to less than 5%, close to the same amount as the latest version of Mac OS X.
  24. Greetings, Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Windows Mobile only have an extremely minuscule part of the current market share for mobile platforms/devices? Assuming I'm interpreting the data correctly, it appears to be only just over one-tenth of one percent: Mobile OS Market Share If you were referring to something else please let me know. Thanks
  25. Greetings, It may be worth trying the current beta version of Malwarebytes as the primary change it includes is an improvement for Web Protection and it is at least possible that it could correct the issue, or at least I believe it's worth a try. If it doesn't end up working to resolve the issue and you wish to return to the normal/RTM version you can simply uninstall and then reinstall it to revert to your previous build. If you wish to install the beta, simply open Malwarebytes and navigate to Settings>Application and scroll down to the bottom and enable the option to install b
Back to top
×
×
  • 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.