Jump to content

nweissma

Honorary Members
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nweissma

  1. Even a quick scan consumes 35 minutes for only 55 GB.

    what files can i safely "ignore" ? the biggest culprit is /temporary internet files -- can i safely ignore C:\Documents and Settings\nw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files, or is there a chance that an infected file might hide in C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files ?

    i deleted Temporary Internet Files -- Internet Options::Delete Browsing History::Temporary Internet Files -- but the MBAM scan still recognized it, and scanned it as though i had not deleted it !

  2. [this was not supposed to have posted yet: i hadn't completed it!]

    this question http://forums.malwar...=1 from a different perspective ... i would have expected that the following questions would be next-questions, but i don't see them having been asked.

    where are new infections -- less than 72 hours; less than 30 minutes -- likely to hide?

    some files, such as "temporary internet files," tie up an inordinate portion of the scan -- can i safely add the 'temporary internet files' folder to the 'ignore list' - do infections usually lurk there? what folders should i configure the scan to ignore so as to effect a reduction of scan time ?

  3. related to http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=107845 , i ask how to configure mbam to ignore the incoming and outgoing messages of avast and uTorrent.

    relatedly(?), i came across what appeared to be a relevant configuration option: action for p2p software, under the Settings tab of the Scanner / Main Menu window; mbam offers three options:

    • do not show in results list
    • show in results list and check for removal
    • show in results list and do not check for removal

    if this p2p-results list is relevant, then please define 'results list,' and what are the consequences (indeed, what is the meaning?) of showing "it," and not showng "it," in the "results list" ?

  4. along the same lines(?), mbam is blocking nearly everything related to torrents, incoming and outgoing.

    this started with mbam's paid full version; i had no trouble with malware from any aspect of torrent culturte while using mbam's free version.

    i don't see how to configure mbam to allow these torrent-related url's; the torrent content is adequately monitored by the torrent software (u-torrrent) and by avast, which performs flawlessly.

  5. a recent mbam full scan missed 16 trojans and exploits -- classified as "severe" by safety.live.com -- all in the same subfolder.

    i suggest that mbam offer at least 2 depths of scan -- "quick" versus "thorough"

    the thorough setting would be especially useful for the windows explorer shell menu because i would know, from other sources, where the infection is.

  6. Unless this becomes a false positive report (as in data to research) I will have to move the thread or lock it as so far it has done nothing but waste time .

    We look forward to info we can use to resolve this .

    this is the Company's final response:

    we just don\'t have time to respond to or even read every minor forum thread, we\'d have to employ someone dedicated to it full time.

    I could argue with these guys until I am blue in the face & they are not going to change their position.

    Our traffic is hundreds or thousands of unique visitors every single hour, something we would not have achieved or be maintaining if we were infecting people, sometimes expediency dictates we just let things slide & let time & results eventually speak for themselves.

    Sorry it has been such a hassle for you, not the plan.

  7. This is their response:

    I use the program myself & know for a fact that not only have they blocked entire ranges including many innocent sites, they block many IPs that skype uses for certain countries as well, it\'s called a lack of due prudence, their IP block feature has become such a pain in the ass that I & many others disable it, though I still use their real time monitoring as it is otherwise a very good program.
  8. MBAM real-time recently blocked a certain site, identifying it as malicious.

    i contacted them about it and this is their response:

    There is nothing malicious on our site, some over zealous security programs add ranges of IPs to their block list without due prudence on every IP, it is just pure laziness, for instance one has blocked our thumb server & some, but not all, of our CDN servers but no other server, not the ones that serves pages or any of the ad servers from others that serve the ads, if there was anything malicious it would come from the pages or ad servers, not the thumbs server or CDN servers that only streams video, demonstrating how lazy & incompetent that particular company is.

    Which is a pity as that security program is actually very good in most aspects, but their IP block list is rubbish.

    We hope this response has sufficiently answered your questions. If not, please do not send another email. Instead, reply to this email or login to your account for a complete archive of all your support request and responses.

    Sorry you had a problem.

    Best Regards,

  9. Regrets if this is post is in the wrong forum.

    MBAM has identified IP 69.31.83.184 as malicious. I am told by the "maintainer" of 69.31.83.184 that this IP serves only 2 clients: www.nylug.org == new York Linux users group; and

    thegleasons.org == an Irish organization. This maintainer, a member of nylug, claims that neither of these clients is harboring malware, and that MBAM is comprehensively wrong.

    And he's pissed about it. Comment please.

  10. apologies if this question has been asked before -- the search results were overwhelming.

    Installing a P2P client. Usual dilemma: P2P program wants to unblock ports, MS urges against it. MS's philosophy is that it is safer to open an exception for this program rather than open the port, arguing that if i open the port then the port remains open always, even if the P2P program is not running.

    Please offer a strategy, and an explanation to support it.

  11. i want to visit a site that i am certain is innocuous. but MBAM feels that the server that it uses -- GoDaddy.com -- is rife with clients that spew malware. MBAM blocks it and I cannot load my site.

    If i suspend MBAM and download my site, what could be the consequences? Could one of the renegade clients attach to the loading of my site? how would this be done?

  12. Using your 'hold hosting company to the same standard' logic, you should also block most search engines, social sites, and many others that host display ADS.

    It is often the AD content that is the offending party. Yet, for some, you block only the ultimate IP and allow the site.

    i just want to add my 2 cents. i attempted to visit http://www.aroid.org/horticulture/zonemap/index.html. This site has to be as innocuous as a newborn baby, yet MBAM blocked it, identifying 68.180.151.74 . WHOIS identified 68.180.151.74 as Yahoo. I note also that the page does not load.

    How do I get around this? I don't want to infect my computer, but by the same token MBAM is blocking sites that I need to visit. If MBAM produces the balloon, is it expressly disallowing the site to load? what is the worst that can happen if i suspend MBAM and load a url that i am certain is safe but MBAM identifies as a malicious server?

    I hope you address this.

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.