Jump to content

lock

Members
  • Posts

    388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lock

  1. What is the amount of "slowness" considered normal to be introduced by MBAM??? I installed MBAM premium on various combinations (only MBAM, MBAM+MSE, etc) , but regardless I can clearly see a significant impact on browsing, compared with any of top three antiviruses (I tried Avira, ESET and Bitdefender free) The difference is significant. A PC with MBAM only is 2-3 times slower than a PC with the said antiviruses. MBAM and MSE even more. Any personal experience???
  2. Sounds a little bit SF.... ...this file can be "fed" to the engine...the engine to learn about this file, understand it's good, and adjust it's behavior ... Are you serious????
  3. Whitelisting it doesn't solve the problem on long run; yes , that particular file will not be detected anymore , but any other similar one will be again detected with 94% which will decrease the user confidence in this Machine Learning technology. For a piece of software which may be downloaded in thousands of PC's no developer will modify something in 10 min and release it in the wild without extensive in house testing. You do remember the incident from 2013 : "It saddens me to report that at around 3 PM PST yesterday, Malwarebytes released a definitions update that disabled thousands of computers worldwide."
  4. One user reported a FP generated by Machine Learning / Anomalous 94% I was surprised about 94%. If would have been 50% , that may be a FP , but 94% means totally wrong. So how trustworthy is this system??? Another surprise came from the developer who answered that this would be fixed in 10 minutes an a new update was released with the "fix" Clearly the "fix" was not done in the "complex mathematical pattern recognition" , impossible to do it in 10 min, but rather in a "white list" associated with this Machine Learning / Anomalous. I do not see at this point any value being added by Machine Learning / Anomalous detection; maybe is a premature mechanism at this point.
  5. If the backup is done with a software (Acronis, for example) , the resulting file (backup) may be impossible to get encrypted by ransomware.
  6. Did you have any antivirus running in parallel with MBAM ? If yes, what antivirus?
  7. What you will get (most likely) is the all known answer " no antivirus can offer you 100% protection" and "MBAM is not an antivirus" However, I tested Ransomware protection myself by disabling all other shields and executing "wanacry" ; after only 4 files encripted , the Ransomvare protection stopped it. In theory, this doesn't matter, the Ransomware protection it is not based on a signature.
  8. ....in order to preserve license. I got that. But what if I do not format but restore an image (Acronis) , image in which MBAM is already there???
  9. MBAM is NOT AN ANTIVIRUS , so running it alone is not recommended.
  10. Well, this is the only "shield" of MBAM I was able to test. I disabled all shields except the "Ransomware protection" and I executed "wanacry" . After encrypting 4 files, the ransomware was blocked , to my huge surprise. I have been using MBAM ever since.
  11. Kaspersky releases so called "patches" See here the amount of changes from one patch to another. https://support.kaspersky.com/13617#block0
  12. There are no bugs to be "worked out" . Kaspersky routinely issues new updates to their product so is very likely that MBA will be incompatible again at a certain point. Not to update Kaspersky to the latest 2019 only to accommodate MBAM is a bad idea.
  13. An advice coming from a Product Support Service Engineer of MBAM is supposed to be like that...
  14. I am pretty sure , with the right number of exclusions, everything is compatible with MBAM. Now you have a malformed MBAM , "running good" side by side a malformed Kaspersky.... and you believe that you enhanced your PC security...
  15. Hello, Devin Collins is the "Product Support Service Engineer" on Malwarebytes , and this is a paid position.
  16. I had 5 lifetime MBAM licenses (I lost 2) , I still keep track of 3. Using MSE and MBAM for 5 years now, never got a "substantial" detection from MBAM , other then "Web shield" (most of the time FP) and some insignificant registries (which did no harm). I suppose these are also classified as "remediation" , hence the high activity on the map. All the significant detections were done by MSE , prior to MBAM. In this situation is very difficult to "have faith" as long as I do not have any proving facts.
  17. "The heat map" is just another way of MBAM self proclaiming its own efficiency. Is a waste of time; as long as MBAM is not tested by a third party in a controlled environment, this "heat map" is equal to zero. Who knows what exactly is being mapped? Maybe is just how many times MBAM updates...
  18. February 2018 AVTest Kaspersky 100% April 2018 AV Comparatives Kaspersky 99.6% MBAM ...[anytime]....[anywhere]... ?????????
  19. let's review: Antimalware + Web protection+ Exploit Protestation + Ransomware protection + (Adw cleaner) + (WFC) So, what exactly is missing from being an antivirus??????
  20. Few years ago I suggested to MBAM upper management to "lease" the engine from a well known antivirus company (Bitdefender, Avira) and to make MBAM a fully fledged antivirus. I received an angry answer saying "we do not intend to transform MBAM in an antivirus " . Now , slowly slowly , MBAM is getting there.
  21. I suppose you mean WFC. You are not going to have "problems" . WFC doesn't suspend an application till you will make a decision, but simply will block the request. Some applications will "shoot" request after request if a path has been blocked and you will have 20 requests in 2 sec. One more thing: WFC it is not recommended for inbound requests, this are still handled by Windows firewall.
  22. Most likely not for home users but rather for business environment. WFC is not as friendly as it looks; the firewall is still the Windows firewall which DOESN'T suspend a program pending an user decision, but will rather block it, which is extremely inconvenient. Also WFC is recommended only for outbound connections.
  23. Hi, Are you going to integrate WFC anytime soon into MBAM? Just heard the news you bought it...
  24. This is the problem, many users who bought the "life time" licenses did not keep the "proof of purchase" because at that time MBAM sold ONLY lifetime licenses , so was no confusion. This happened many years ago; I doubt you keep "proof of purchase" for something which was in the range of $20 ,for all your life. The process is easier than you think (see ESET) . When you input your license, MBAM should ask for creation of "My account" with full info. If the license is "validated", automatically should be included in "My account". Just hopping that somehow in time, the user wouldn't be able to provide "proof of purchase" and the license will be canceled , doesn't seem to be ethical.
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.