Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Steve1982

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Do you guys use some of the common and widely-used ad and tracker blocking lists like EasyList or do you compile your own list from scratch? While Malwarebytes managed to eliminate a decent amount of ads it wasn't able to get rid of YouTube ads. I'm also seeing sponsored ads at the bottom of items on eBay, etc. It would be nice to have the option of adding our own block lists.
  2. Hi, I noticed that the AdwCleaner cloud update server(s) are frequently down/unavailable, especially over weekends. I confirmed the issue from multiple PC's in multiple networks so it's not a problem with my network. AdwCleaner then resorts to using the local copy of it's definitions which is the copy that comes with AdwCleaner when you download it, so it's severely out of date. Two suggestions: 1) Can someone please look into the reliability/availability of the AdwCleaner cloud update servers? 2) Should the cloud update fail, it would be nice to have the option to use the definitio
  3. Thanks @1PW over the years I always found it funny that, when I went to scan my MABAM executables at VirusTotal, the majority of the time I'd find your upvote there already. It happened so often that eventually I'd be suspicious of the file if it wasn't there. 😂 The world has become a lot more tech savvy so I think a lot of people would actually know how to use hashes. The problem with code signing will always be that any bad actor with a couple of hundred dollars and some time on their hands can get their malware signed. So the real test of file integrity via code signing is verifying th
  4. A digital certificate does not prove that the file you downloaded, came from the site you downloaded it from! It simply proves that the file was signed by the holder of the certificate. What part of this is so difficult to understand? Yes, digital certificates are a very important verification, nobody is disputing this. A file hash on the other hand is just another way to validate chain of custody to me, the end user. The two compliment each other. They offer similar, but slightly different forms of verification. Stop harping on spoofed websites, it's a distraction and merely one of many
  5. Apologies if it sounded like I was coming at you personally, not my intention at all. I did read the article. Let's just say that the reasons provided in the article are not compelling at all. Hashes aren't supposed to replace digital signatures as a means of verifying the integrity of an app. Period. These aren't two competing concepts, they complement each other. You can - and should! - have both. Hashes are more a chain of custody check to me personally. Also, the example provided of a web site being compromised therefore the posted hashes can also be altered to match the fingerprint o
  6. Yep I'm aware if this but I'm referring to something else ... a popup that has a summary of all the real-time detections, scheduled scan detections, and a bunch of other summary information for the month all on one screen.
  7. Me, the OP, users who asked for it over the years on the forum ... basically anyone who thinks that providing more ways of verifying a files authenticity is a good thing, not a bad thing? If a poll was conducted I'm sure most users would be in favor of it. Your reasons for not postings hashes is simply not compelling enough. We all use VirusTotal. We all check the digital signatures. Let's move beyond that. I (and many others) would like to compare vendor provided hashes too. If you don't want to, you don't have to. Forget about the users level of experience ... it doesn't matter and it's
  8. One of my PC's recently gave me a monthly summary in a popup when I opened Malwarebytes, and then just a few days ago it did it again. None of my other PC's running Malwarebytes have given me this popup and they're all configured more or less the same. Any idea why? Is this something that need to be activated somewhere. I quite like this feature and would like to see it on all my PC's. In fact, it would be nice to see it on demand.
  9. So how are we doing with this suggestion ... it still pains me to see this universally recognized "not good" color used to relay "all is well" 😉
  10. This happened to me recently with one of my lifetime licenses. In the end I opened up a ticket and they fixed it for me. I too a little while though so you may have to run in trial mode for a bit.
  11. Not fake it, or match it. Just sign it using a corporate identity that looks something like "MalwareBites".
  12. Nobody is recommending you rely solely on hashes as a security measure. I wouldn't recommend relying solely on a VirusTotal scan either, even if it's digitally signed. This is especially true of brand new files containing zero day exploits. So once again, posting a file hash on the vendor site (and on their Twitter feed in case their site is compromised - good suggestion there by "anti virus") is just another tool in the toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less.
  13. In addition to VirusTotal I also use this service from Kaspersky: https://whitelisting.kaspersky.com/advisor What I like about it is that it tells you how many people using their AntiVirus have downloaded and installed the file you're scanning, and if they trust the file or not. What's more, the number of people rating the files are usually much larger than VirusTotal and it is pretty especially handy with new files.
  14. Notes, but a digital signature is not bulletproof either. For one thing, getting executables signed is trivial and while it may not match the Malwarebytes signature exactly it will be good enough to fool most (especially if you have the backing of a state actor). Also, I would say it's far more likely someone would just hijack the download. Why setup an entire web site if all you want is for the victim to download the malicious file? Especially when the web site makes it easier for you by not publishing a hash. If they published the hash .... well then you're going to have to put in some extra
  15. While it may be possible for bad actors to get access to Malwarebytes' entire network and have free reign to do as they please, it is far more likely that someone with a compromised DNS is trying to download the setup file and is served an infected file from another server entirely. In this scenario the bad actor doesn't need to have compromised Malwarebytes's servers, they just need to have compromised the user's DNS settings (or their router). Verifying the integrity of a file you download from a site is paramount to staying safe online. For the price of 10 seconds worth of work Malwar
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.