Jump to content

mynorgeek

Honorary Members
  • Content Count

    274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mynorgeek

  1. So I take it that next time you conduct expected maintenance, knowing that this non-malfunction has taken place, you'll kindly notify your users in advance? That would be the professional way of handling it, and would alleviate a lot of concerns.
  2. Even though I posted two logs as requested, you still need to reproduce the block in order to fix it? MB-Clean removes all of my settings, reverts everything back to default, doesn't it?
  3. Please elaborate... is this a legitimate detection or a false positive?
  4. Malwarebytes www.malwarebytes.com -Log Details- Protection Event Date: 11/15/17 Protection Event Time: 4:20 AM Log File: 68702ab8-c9ff-11e7-a888-00ff8671970e.json Administrator: Yes -Software Information- Version: 3.3.1.2183 Components Version: 1.0.236 Update Package Version: 1.0.3261 License: Premium -System Information- OS: Windows 7 Service Pack 1 CPU: x64 File System: NTFS User: System -Blocked Website Details- Malicious Website: 1 , , Blocked, [-1], [-1],0.0.0 -Website Data- Domain: smtp.suddenlink.net IP Address: 208.180.40.68 Port: [50188] Type: Outbound File: C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office14\OUTLOOK.EXE (end)
  5. Malwarebytes www.malwarebytes.com -Log Details- Protection Event Date: 11/14/17 Protection Event Time: 3:03 PM Log File: 1850dfd8-c990-11e7-80e8-00ff8671970e.json Administrator: Yes -Software Information- Version: 3.3.1.2183 Components Version: 1.0.236 Update Package Version: 1.0.3256 License: Premium -System Information- OS: Windows 7 Service Pack 1 CPU: x64 File System: NTFS User: System -Blocked Website Details- Malicious Website: 1 , , Blocked, [-1], [-1],0.0.0 -Website Data- Domain: smtp.suddenlink.net IP Address: 208.180.40.68 Port: [60965] Type: Outbound File: C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office14\OUTLOOK.EXE (end)
  6. Malwarebytes tarted blocking smtp.suddenlink.net about 5 days ago with v3.2.2.2018. I had to exclude it. Today I installed 3.3.1 and tried removing the exclusion, but it gets blocked again, so it's excluded again. TY -Website Data- Domain: smtp.suddenlink.net IP Address: 208.180.40.68 Port: [60965] Type: Outbound File: C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office14\OUTLOOK.EXE
  7. I understand that you don't have time, but you did post a rather lengthy response to which I replied. Please be advised that there is absolutely zero anger coming from me. Zero. Just wanted to be clear that there is no "heated" posting coming from me, Ron. And I am at a loss to understand your "he said/she said contest" remark. Don't see any he said/she said anywhere, so let's toss that out. I would appreciate a reply to my question... I think it is a fair one. I'll repeat... --> Here's a simple question... has Malwarebytes ever achieved good results with MRG Effitas? And if so, were you or anyone from Malwarebytes chiming in about the good results being tainted? Or, if the answer is no, Malwarebytes has never achieved good test results from this outfit, then is it, in your opinion, fair for users to question the effectiveness of your software? Thanks
  8. Interesting that you "don't speak for the company" but then you reference using "our product". Whatever. Let's not turn this into a you-know-what-kind-of-a match. I have seen a lot of security program developers get shitty with users who ask questions about test results. And they always claim some version of what you just claimed... the test was tainted. The implication there is what, by the way? That the testing organization doesn't like you, or that you have not paid them their "fee" for giving you high marks? Why exactly would these testers have vendettas against the programs that produce failed results? Here's a simple question... has Malwarebytes ever achieved good results with MRG Effitas? And if so, were you or anyone from Malwarebytes chiming in about the good results being tainted? Or, if the answer is no, Malwarebytes has never achieved good test results from this outfit, then is it, in your opinion, fair for users to question the effectiveness of your software? My chief concerns with MAB3 is that in addition to the poor test performance, I have experienced lots of problems with the software, on machines that are otherwise very stable. Simply put, rather than anxiously looking forward to installing the latest version upgrade, I am very reluctant to upgrade, because with MAB, if it's not one thing, it's another. I've been a user for many years, so I have some history of my own to fallback on with Malwarebytes. Thanks
  9. Why not say what's on your mind instead of invoking two 8 year old threads? An official response to the test results would be preferable to an insinuation.
  10. For the amount of problems it has been causing, a user needs to look at that as well when deciding if its effectiveness is worth keeping it on one's machine. And by problems, I mean quirkiness, protections suddenly not working, upgrades going bad, etc. I also run MBAM alongside of ESET NOD32 AV as a complementary protection, and I will not even consider upgrading until I see a lot fewer issues on this forum. The day may come when I pull MBAM from real-time protection duty and relegate it to simple on-demand scanner status.
×
×
  • 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.