remember

OK, what I want is somebody to explain to me how MBAM3.0 is the only security solution I need for my PC, as long as it targets only a limited array of file formats, doesn't perform repairs, definition older than 3 months old are not retained, etc. I have the feeling that I am being fooled....

Hi Aura, Do you remember "Mamutu" from Emsisoft? (behavior blocker) . What about PC Tools ThreatFire? From their description: " Unlike antivirus software that uses virus detection database for online or offline scanning, a behavioral-based detection tool uses a set of rules to identify suspicious or malicious activity in Windows. The default action by a behavioral-based detection anti-malware program is to prompt the user for action while it halts a process or file." It seems like every five years or so, the signature-less antimalware is in vogue; even though each and every attempt to use it instead of a classic AV failed. Now, let's be honest: HIPS and Behavior blockers are not new concepts discovered by MBAM; you have solid players on the market with years of experience and yet none of them would claim that a signature-less solution is a viable one; but all of them would incorporate either HIPS or Behavior blockers in their programs . To build a solid antimalware solution requires more than putting together a Malicious Website Blocking (which is at least questionable, look of the amount of FP on forum) an Anti-Exploit and an Anti-Ransomware (beta). What about a typical virus which is not an exploit or a ransomware item?

Dear exile360, Thank you for your detailed and defensive explanation. As I said before , MBAM would refuse to participate in any testing , claiming that is somehow different, and you just confirmed that. Have you recently seen the latest versions of major AV's providers? ALL OF THEM have Malicious Website Blocking, Anti-Exploit and Anti-Ransomware. Yet , most of them have huge signature database , updated hourly, sometime more that 800MB!!! And they are in business for more than 15 years.... Of course the new MBAM 3.0 can claim to be alpha and omega, the only thing you need on your PC and at the same time to refuse to be tested, if this is the desired business model. Unfortunately, the educated users cannot be fooled so easily. Just my opinion....

OK, which part from Marcin's posting would suggest that Malwarebytes 3.0 is not an antivirus???? "With the launch of Malwarebytes 3.0, we are confident that you can finally replace your traditional antivirus" So, replace it with what? With a pdf. reader? No! With a firewall No! With Malwarebytes 3.0 which is supposed to protect you as AN ANTIVIRUS! If it looks like a duck and quack like a duck, it is a duck.

I doubt that you ever see MBAM in AV Comparatives test; Because MBAM 3.0 works differently than a traditional AV, this would be the excuse not to participate, the same like Webroot.

see here: "With the launch of Malwarebytes 3.0, we are confident that you can finally replace your traditional antivirus, thanks to our innovative and layered approach to preventing malware infections using a healthy combination of proactive and signature-less technologies" Marcin

has anything to do with: Malwarebytes Raises $50 Million Investment from Fidelity https://press.malwarebytes.com/2016/01/21/malwarebytes-raises-50-million-investment-from-fidelity/ did they put pressure on you to prematurely release a fully flagged antivirus?

MBAM 3.0 is a totally different animal.

Hi Aura, Ok, I understand now "It means that Malwarebytes will be set to register in the Action Center " But, just registering in the Action center doesn't mean is compatible with some other AV's (Avast!, as per OP); means just that: it is registered in the Action Center.

Hi Aura, What exactly do you mean by " Malwarebytes 3.0 installs in compatible mode alongside Defender"?? What is "compatible mode" and how do I install a software to be compatible with another software???

Asking questions...... Could this happen with MBAM free version????????????? No!! So, why do you ask?

You did not get it! What I am advocating is NOT to install and run (an pay) multiple security solutions, when one of them has high level of performance , 100% in AV test in the last year. You will accomplish NOTHING adding another security solution (MBAM) on top of this one, other than running in conflicts , more or less visible. MBAM was designed for a niche market, to cover zero days in the past, where most of AV's performed poorly. Now you have AV's with 100% detection on zero days (see AV Test) so running an yearly subscription for MBAM is a waste of money and PC resources (high RAM). Hence the desire to transform MBAM 3.0 in a fully flagged antivirus.

I pay for ONE comprehensive insurance policy ONLY ; I do not pay for multiple policies ,just in case one will not cover something.

Are you willing to pay $25/year for an antimalware which will catch "something" once every 5 years? That "something" should be in your quarantine, send it to Virus Total and see how "malicious" it was.

Hi garioch7, Emsisoft has a detection rate of 93.7%. I used MBAM premium and an antivirus for years, on multiple PC's (to be more specific , 3 pc's) . In several years I NEVER got a detection from MBAM , regardless of the style of browsing. Some PC's are not even in my house, and when I have a chance to check the MBAM's quarantine, is.......empty. Running an AV and MBAM Premium is a strategy of the past; that's why they try to transform, miraculously, MBAM from an antimalware to an antivirus. I tend to agree with BD: "always you should only have one security solution"

Hi, Bitdefender has constantly 100% detection rate in AV Comparatives and in AV Test. What do you expect to achieve running MBAM in real time with an AV with 100% detection???? (other than running into trouble)

"In fact, I'm pretty sure it does offer that protection..." "Pretty sure" is nice, unfortunately, no , doesn't offer outbound protection.

Typically, a firewall needs updates to solve incompatibilities; even though PC Tools Firewall Plus has been discontinued, the latest version (7.0.0.123) works good on Win 7/64 and is compatible with all AV's I tried so far; I would say PC Tools Firewall Plus is the best user friendly firewall on the market . Windows Firewall doesn't offer protection for outbound connections; in fact will allow ALL outbound connections, so has ZERO value from a security point of view. A Firewall is a must in any layered security approach.

First thing first: Defender is not an firewall. A good free firewall is PC Tools Firewall Plus (only version7.0.0.123), just google and you will find it. Before install it, disable windows firewall.

Nothing can be done at this time; V3.0 is a beta version, so is very likely to have problems for months. Install the latest stable non beta, and stay with it.

"Rootkits,Ransomware,Browser/Program exploits" should have been addressed by the main AV, which MBAM was supposed to complement. Rather than "evolution" I would say is "competition" : with so many AV performing at 100% in tests (including zero days) there is no need to run (and pay) for additional software. The trick is, once MBAM 3.0 is declared a fully flagged antivirus , will have to participate in AV test / AV comparatives; up to this point MBAM had a valid excuse: was not an AV. Time will tell.

Hi, 7 years ago I stated that is not feasible for MBAM to be just an additional layer of defense and the best would be to transform it in a fully flagged antivirus! The idea was vigorously denied , by Marcin and some other users / moderators. Today MBAM3.0 is being announced with big fanfare!