daTaBeAst

Thank you so much, Gonzo. I shall allow the timeframe suggested and repost if further assistance is needed.

Greetings, I have been receiving "Website blocked due to a suspicious top level domain" for the following; https://abc7ne.ws/ (with whatever subdomain info is after the final /) Today the link for the block was https://abc7ne.ws/32u1yIQ I am assuming this is a shortened URL and the TLD for https://abc7ne.ws is https://abc7news.com but I have no way of knowing for sure and I need to access this frequently for my job. Is this block a false positive? Any info is greatly appreciated!

Hi Wide Glide, Thanks so much for your reply. I had forgotten about MG providing a download, but was not aware of the other sites you mentioned providing the download as well, so thank you for the links. More to the point; the links you provided are not provided on the MB download site, and the only link that I can see that is provided is to the CNet site. Although, as you have indicated, the CNet site has a dedicated page for MalwareBytes, that does nothing to change anything; again, I really do not understand why MB or any anti-malware company would link to a site with downloads containing malware even though the malware is not included in their download. It just seems counter-productive sending someone to any site with known issues of which I have mentioned within my first post as well as it seems to promote that site which provides convenience to the download of the malware. The fact that CNet provides download portals for those that choose to include malware within their wrappers, plus the fact that CNet is aware of the malware, to me and again to others, is an issue. I would think it most appropriate for Malwarebytes as well as any/all reputible software vendors to remove their downloads and links from such known sites. I appreciate and understand the fact that you would rather have my concerns addressed by staff and I look forward to a response.

I have been meaning to bring this up for some time now, and seeing that nothing has changed re downloading from CNet, I just have to ask this, mainly because I don't get it, and this really chaps my a*#! Why does MB choose to use CNet as a trusted download site? It is a known fact that CNet allows download portals of which some of those portals use a download wrapper and some of those wrappers include code which is known malware (lately more do than do not). CNet is aware of this, this has been a known issue to them, yet they do nothing about it. I for one do not want my clients going to the CNet site, let alone downloading anything from it. This makes me curious as to why MB would have any association with CNet whatsoever. Depending on the situation/client, at times, upon a client purchasing MB from a retailer, I used to instruct them NOT to install the contents on the CD that they just bought and I used to have them go to the MB site and instructed them to download the program from there and then use the key that came with their newly purchased CD for their new install, thereby unlocking the free version and giving them the Pro version. That was a way of saving them time, as it saves them from having them update to a new version, which more times than not is needed. That method worked for many years for my clients, and it still may work, but I no longer implement those instructions because of the crap that one can catch at the CNet download site. Additionally, if the client has not bought the program, I will not instruct them to download the free version, nor will I download it for them because there is nowhere else to download the free version, except for the CNet site, and I flat-out refuse to land on their site using my own computer, and I will not go there using a client's computer. So, there goes the possibility of that person ever buying the product. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all indicating that there is anything included with the MB download at CNet, I'm just curious as to why the best anti-crapware program (that being MB) on the planet would elect to have any association with CNet and don't those who are in charge at MB see a bit of a conflict of interest with having people download anything from CNet, or for that matter doesn't anyone see a problem with people just navigateing to the CNet cite? Again, silly me, but I would not and do not promote or include links (within correspondence/instructions) that would take one to any site that is known to include crapware in even one download. Although the malware may not come directly from CNet I feel, as do many others, that if they want to be considered reputable, CNet is obligated to clean the crap up, and get rid of those that include malware within their installers/downloads as well as police their own site for these types of abusers. Am I missing something?