Digerati

That makes perfect sense. 1000s of new malicious code hits the "wild" every day. But when a program update is officially released and announced, IMO my installed application should alert me to it almost immediately - certainly not weeks later. And certainly, it should alert me to the new program update when I manually tell it to check for one. It should not be telling me I am current and no updates are available when I know that is not true. It is almost like Sylvester, with yellow feathers sticking out of his mouth, claiming he does not know where Tweety Bird is. He is lying right to our faces. Only with a security app, it is very serious.

Yeah, I don't know if they just need to buy more bandwidth or server space, or just change the policy, but users need to feel confident their security is protecting them - especially since more and more "new" threats occur every day, with many being "zero-day". It does not matter if they really are fully protected, if confidence is lost (and it is for many) then they will move to other options. Thanks.

Please note I clearly stated above when I click "Install Application Updates", I get, "No updates are available". That's my complaint. And this is not a new complaint, BTW. It has been this way since 3.x was first released with the typical reason given being to prevent swamping the servers. If you are saying once users finally get fully updated to 3.2.2 they will always be offered the latest update when they click that button, then great. But of course how would users know that if they never knew 3.2.2 was out there? I note when I look here, 3.2.2 is not listed and the notes that are there for 3.2 just released Aug 22 don't address the issues I brought up.

FTR, I am not able to change my avatar either, not with Pale Moon, Chrome or Edge. I do not even see that Profile Photo icon. Another oddity is when I go to Account Settings, if I click on "Edit Profile", I get an error stating, "You are not allowed to edit this profile". Yet I was able to update my "4" line signature that contained images Photobucket was holding for ransom but, of course, could only have 2 lines now.

The logic and policy for the way the updates are distributed is flawed and unacceptable - especially for a security app. Are the servers really that busy (inadequate?) that roll-outs need to take many days, or even weeks? I am not buying it and do not accept it as standard procedure, or as an acceptable security practice. Here it is, a full 2 weeks after the release of V3.2 and I still have not been offered the update. I am still at 3.1.2.1733 and when I manually tell Malwarebytes to "Install Application Updates" it incorrectly and falsely reports I am "Current" and "No updates are available". This is very frustrating when I know it simply is not true! And it is very misleading! Yet I can visit https://www.malwarebytes.com/ (or other download sites) and download the full package with the latest build, no problem. I am a paying customer and I feel, as a paying customer, the concern is all about getting new customers, not supporting me. What sort of confidence am I suppose to get from my security program when I know it is out of date? Am I really supposed to tell my elderly friends and clients (who I convinced should buy this program) that it is okay their security is outdated? When, for years I've been harping at them to keep Windows AND their security programs current as their #1 user responsibility for "practicing safe computing"? I have been a long long time supporter (and buyer) of Malwarebytes (since my ComputerCops/CastleCops days working with many of the founders). And I really like the program and think it one of, if not the best out there. But this unacceptable and severely flawed update distribution policy is making me reconsider what I use, and what I recommend my clients use. I should not, and certainly "normal users" should not have to constantly check the website for new updates because the program itself is incapable of keeping itself current.

Not just that but the computer needs to be set up in a normal "default" configuration. That is, Windows needs to be fully updated and running with the default settings as set by Microsoft - that is, as Microsoft intended the computer to be configured - just as Malwarebytes should be running in the defaults configuration as the developers at Malwarebytes intended. I don't remember any problems with V2 where the protection was disabled or with features that just did not work at all. I only seem to remember minor issues that were quickly addressed. Or maybe I was just lucky but V2 did not create disappointment right out of the gate, as far as I remember. But you are absolutely correct that many problems are user caused. Contrary to what some seem to think, the default settings are best for the vast majority of users. Some seem to think their systems are so unique, they need special settings. I suspect only 1 or 2% of the 1.5 billion Windows systems out there fall into that extreme uniqueness category, if that many. This really depends on the user. Even the best security solution can easily be thwarted if the user opens the door and lets the bad guy in. I've been using MBAM since its inception from way back in my CastleCops days. And now I use MB3.x. I use the premium version on my two main systems (because I already had lifetime licenses of MBAM) and I use the free version on my other systems. And MBAM/MB has NEVER found anything malicious. The worse case is it found a few PUPs that were not unwanted at all. And for the record, I used MSE on my W7 systems and now use WD on all my systems (which now all run W10). That in no way is a criticism of MBAM/MB but rather a testament to me and "practicing safe computing" - that is, good "user discipline". Keeping our systems updated and avoiding risky behavior is the #1 method of avoiding being compromised. But that does not suggest to me that I don't need Malwarebytes. Badguys can be very clever. While I feel I am very clever too and can spot cleverly presented socially engineered malicious threats, I might slip up one day and be fooled. Also, if you have other users of your computer, users who may not have the safe computing discipline you do, having a second scanner running in real time might very well be good idea, if not a life saver.

I agree with using W10's integrated anti-malware solution, Windows Defender. Note it is a full anti-"malware" solution, not just protection against viruses. As long as you keep Windows updated, and you are not "click-happy" on unsolicited downloads, links, attachments and popups, you don't partake in illegal filesharing and you don't visit illegal pornography or gambling sites, Windows Defender (in W10 and W8.1 and MSE in W7) is more than adequate. Regardless your anti-malware solution of choice, you still need a 2nd scanner on hand just to make sure you (the user and ALWAYS weakest link in security) or your primary anti-malware solution did not let something slip by. And Malwarebytes Free is great for that. However, if you like Malwarebytes and want to use (or already have) the premium (real-time) version of Malwarebytes, it plays along side other products including Windows Defender just fine - without causing conflicts or hogging resources. I use Windows Defender and Malwarebytes Premium on this system and my notebook. All you have to do is in the Malwarebytes main page, go to Settings > Applications tab then scroll down to Windows Action Center and ensure the "Never register Malwarebytes in the Windows Action Center" radio button is ticked. This will keep Windows Defender enabled while Malwarebytes runs in real time too.

As long as this excuse (which I totally agree with) is used in all circumstances, then I am fine with it. I am referring to MSE/WD. People cite poor results in laboratory tests as their justification for calling MSE/WD lousy, or their favorite as great when clearly laboratory tests are totally synthetic. It is my experience (except in these synthetic tests) when people say MB isn't what it used to be, they are not talking about its detection ratio, but rather the program's stability and the developer's response to issues. MBAM2.0 was, IMO, rock stable. I cannot recall seeing problems with disabled protection, nor did I see weeks and even months passing before problems were resolved. But that's exactly what's been happening with MB3.x. MB3's biggest problem is the stellar reputation MBAM2 created. It was impossible to top. But sadly, it was not even equaled. Pushing MB3 out before it was thoroughly beta tested before the holidays really hurt their reputation. More complete testing surely would have found these disabled protection problems. And you can tell it was rushed because it was not even finished! For example, many of the "More Information (?)" buttons were non-functional. That's inexcusable (especially for a paid product). Then failing to quickly resolve these issues, was again, totally uncharacteristic for the company, and a let down. That's what it means to me that Malwarebytes isn't what it used to be. AFAIK, people are not complaining that they are getting infected. They are complaining that they no longer have confidence in the product. IMO, it is once again a stellar product. But when it comes to getting burned, people have long memories. It will take some time before that reputation is back to where it should be.

Thanks. I've been raising these concerns because I'm a hardware tech and I try to keep this, my main computer, as most of my clients keep theirs in terms of Windows and security configurations. I've recommended MBAM to most of my clients (and friends and family) for years. I bought licenses for all my family and most of my friends and clients bought licenses too. So like them, I wait for the updates to come to me on this machine. But unlike most if them, I know this 3.1 is out there, yet keep wondering when I will be offered it. At the same time, I spent 24+ years in the military so I know very well how to "hurry up and wait". So that's what I'll do, and advise them to do the same if they ask. I appreciate this insight. If possible, at least for those following this thread, it would be nice to know when things are back to normal. Thanks again.

Thanks for your reply and of course, the logic makes sense - though I note the explanation given earlier was to prevent a burden (basically a self-induced DDoS) on the servers - not to prevent swamping tech support and to help detect bugs that made it through beta. My concern is this is now 8 days and on this, my main computer, when I ask MB3.0.6 to check for application updates, it is still telling me "No updates are available". It does not seem to me you would still be awash with tech support requests - especially if your 3.1 beta test period was long enough. And from reports I am hearing, and with what I am seeing on my other systems is that 3.1 is working great. So MB3.0.6 is, in effect, blocking my efforts to get current. Fair enough. But then how long should users be expected to wait for the upgrades to "come naturally"? 8+ days does not feel "natural" to me.

I accept that updates need to be metered to avoid swamping servers. But it has now been 8 days since V3.1 was released for consumer consumption!!!! But more importantly, when I manually ask 3.0.6 to check for updates, either from the system tray applet or from the "Dashboard", it reports I am "Current". I'm NOT current!!! If I go to the Settings > Application tab and click on "Install Application Updates", it reports "No updates are available". That is NOT TRUE!!! I find this very frustrating knowing a major upgrade for my security program is available, but I'm stuck sitting in an out-of-date status and I cannot update it unless I manually go out to the Malwarebytes website and click on the readily available update. An update I would not know about if I did not subscribe to this forum. I know for a fact, most Malwarebytes users have no clue V3.1 is available, more than a week after it came out of beta. That's not right! If metering is still needed 8 days after release, Malwarebytes needs to expand their update distribution network - perhaps adding a mirrored server (or two or three) on the other side of the globe from their primary distribution network to handle more paying customers in all time zones 24/7. We (as technical and security advisers) hammer into the heads of our clients (and friends and families) to keep our operating systems and security apps current. This essential user discipline has been even more illustrated this last week with the WannaCry ransomware threat. And yet, our Malwarebytes application will not let us update Malwarebytes to the most current version or even inform us an update is available! . An update which, by the way, fixes issues with the Ransomeware Protection feature of Malwarebytes. I've been a very long time user and supporter of MBAM (since my early CastleCops days when I knew several of the Malwarebytes founders). Without exaggeration, I have probably recommended MBAM over 1000s times to posters and clients. But the premature MB3.0 roll-out fiasco and subsequent problems and excessive delays trying to fix the issues that should have been fixed BEFORE MB3.0 was pushed out the door before the holidays has really tarnished Malwarebytes. I have not been recommending MB3.x. I have been REALLY happy with 3.0.6 with no problems in several weeks. But not being able to update to 3.1 from within the program, knowing a major version update has been available for over a week (especially in the middle of a major global ransomware crisis) is not helping to restore the stellar image Malwarebytes had with MBAM prior to MB3.0, or my willingness to readily recommend it.

I wish. I know they are aware of it. That's about all I know. I am sure it does not help that it is only affecting some users. Did you uninstall completely before installing the latest?

I have not experienced any of these problems since I upgraded to 3.0.6.1469 with component package 1.0.75. So it has been a few weeks. If you are not to that level, see https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/197059-malwarebytes-306-cu3/.

I am not aware of any single program that "works" on ("runs" on) multiple OS platforms like that. But simple copy and paste (drag and drop) does. That's what I use most often. For me, losing years and years of my personal data files would be more tragic than losing my OS and all my installed programs. Rebuilding my computer from scratch would be time consuming, but not hard. But if I lost all my data files, that would be be bad. I keep all my data files somewhere under Documents. It is just a simple matter of dragging a copy of my entire Documents folder (and its 127 sub-folders and the 1000s of files within those folders) to a backup drive (or in my case, by networked backup server/NAS down in the basement). I can then access those files from any other system networked on my network. It may not be a very pretty backup solution, but it works.

This is really becoming sad. I was about to bite the bullet and try MB3.x again - but I think I will stick with 2.2.1.1043 even longer - until 3.1, or maybe 4.0!

V3.0.6.1469 is also what is offered from the main MB page here.

Hi old friend. For me, I would see some of my settings change to off - but always malware protection stayed on and that's good. So it was mostly an annoyance for me to keep seeing the warnings which I could have put up with if it only happened at boot. But I was getting the warning several times a day. So I just rolled back to the old version. I think part of the problem is users really cannot be sure which screen is right - the one reporting protection is on and active, or the one that says it is off. So again, confidence has been shattered.

Okay. I understand and that is not good. But note that Web Protection is a different feature than real time "Malware protection" - the primary component. But still, confidence is shattered. I rolled back to 2.2.1.1043 and will remain there until all these issues are totally resolved. And for sure, I am NOT recommending anyone install the new version - something I have never done before since the product was first released in 2006. I have had many dealings with many of the developers over the years, since my days on the staff at CastleCops. I have total confidence they will get this sorted out right. So hang on.

That is counter to what Malwarebytes is telling us. Their claim is real-time protection is, in reality, enabled. It is just being reported as disabled. How did you determine it really was off? If you are correct, then I agree that is REALLY SERIOUS - especially since the faulty V3 is still being offered for download.

I don't think anyone is happy with it. They are just putting up with it - for now. It is important to note the warning is basically a false positive as protection is running. It is just being reported as not. Rather than keeping it disabled, I recommend you go back to 2.2.1. That still provides outstanding protection and considering you have multiple users of your computer, I think it important to keep protection enabled.

Thanks Nick and Devin. Becky noted that some will still get the Rea-Time protection disabled noticed on reboot. I can easily live with once after a boot (since I never reboot unless some update require it). Are you saying you still get the notice several times throughout the day?

Nick, where did you see it fixed this problem? I ask because the Release History for today's V3.05 makes no mention of real time protection issues. It seems to me that would be something particular they would mention.

Sweet! Thanks for the heads up!

As requested by (with how-to and where-to instructions) Becky here.

Good test but I note that only reflects the scenario of a small group of users - that is, first time users of Malwarebytes who never had pervious versions of MBAM/MBAE installed before, and installing MB3.0 in an artificial environment too. I believe the vast majority (or at least a huge percentage) of MB3 installations are by users upgrading - not first time buyers. A test where MBAM 2.x (and perhaps MBAE too) are already installed and up and running when MB3 is installed would more accurately reflect real world scenarios. A sterile, synthetic, controlled environment of a VM demonstrates how it should work. But that is theory vs real-world and they rarely jive. One of Windows greatest assets is it is very customizable. In fact, of the 1.5 billion Windows systems out there, virtually every single one became unique within minutes of first use as users setup their unique hardware, user profiles, security, networking, favorite programs and more. One of Windows greatest liabilities is it is very customizable. The bigger the field of beta testers with MB3.0 installed in normal (not virtual) environments, the better. I did not conduct such a comprehensive test as Ron did, so for all I know the remnants that were left behind were not from MB3.0, but from a previous version that were not cleared out when 3.0 uninstalled the previous version. I should have been more thorough. Further testing is required. That said, a whole lot of attention (and flared emotions ) is being focused on a minor issue that has nothing to do with the functionality of the program - issues that clearly deserve top priorities.