Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by brmwia

  1. Never mind on that point... My bad here.. i had the top level folder excluded. Duh! Still, your claim that the scan is so fast excluding by file type isn't warranted doesn't hold water in my opinion. Once I removed the folder exclusion, it took 40 minutes to scan these folders and I can tell you there are many people that have 10 * the content I have. I don't know how you define "brief", but 40 minutes doesn't fit my definition of brief. I think my results makes a stronger case for exclusion by file type. Where MBAM makes the argument against exclusion by file type because it claims you have seen malware files renamed to .jpg, I would submit it would be far safer to exclude all my media content (mp3,flac,mkv, avi) by file type rather than exclude by folder and chance that a file other than (mp3,flac,mkv,avi) containing malware somehow made it's way into one of these folders. As I have previously stated, you are looking at this from one size fits all perspective and a very biased position. While my position is also biased, I can guarantees you I am far from an isolated case. You have said you have not had many requests for this and I can see why as you guys try to squash any such requests for it and few people will debate the pros/cons with you. I would submit if you put it to vote to the user community, you may see different results.
  2. Just for grins, I tried, as suggested, right clicking a folder to scan the contents. I scanned my top level folder which contains sub folders of mp3's which has 7000+ files to see how fast it was. 4 seconds! Now I see why! It never scanned anything! MBAM is not recursively scanning sub folders! This is safer than file type exclusion? Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware www.malwarebytes.org Database version: 7457 Windows 6.1.7600 Internet Explorer 8.0.7600.16385 8/14/2011 7:59:29 AM mbam-log-2011-08-14 (07-59-29).txt Scan type: Quick scan Objects scanned: 0 Time elapsed: 4 second(s) Memory Processes Infected: 0 Memory Modules Infected: 0 Registry Keys Infected: 0 Registry Values Infected: 0 Registry Data Items Infected: 0 Folders Infected: 0 Files Infected: 0 Memory Processes Infected: (No malicious items detected) Memory Modules Infected: (No malicious items detected) Registry Keys Infected: (No malicious items detected) Registry Values Infected: (No malicious items detected) Registry Data Items Infected: (No malicious items detected) Folders Infected: (No malicious items detected) Files Infected: (No malicious items detected)
  3. Why not simply right click on said folder and choose Scan with Malwarebytes? Here is why. In a environment where multiple profiles are used, as an administrator I want to be able to scan the entire pc, but have it not waste time scanning music/video libraries (mp3, flac, mkv). To me the solution is even simpler... give us the ability to exclude by file.
  4. I saw nothing there to indicate that.
  5. I agree with you on the quick scan. IMO the claim a quick scan will catch any malware infection is horse hockey. I also agree torrents are generally for obtaining pirated wares. However, my example of torrents and news reader was to point out there is software out there that lets the user decide where to save files. In fact you would be hard pressed to find any software that creates/updates files forces you to save in the files in a designated folder. Either way I find it laughable a staff member would state some malware obtained in any manner is less of a priority to them. I would also point out its the claim that staff has made about Malwarebytes is only looking for malware and not viruses is bit misleading. Their statements would have one believe anything an AV program catches Malwarebytes would not and vice versa and it simply not true. I also believe it is naive of Malwarebytes to think that malware can't exist outside the common locations a quick scan checks. Al in all it would be interesting to see a poll from user's if they would use file exclusion if the Malwarebytes had it. Up to now, from what I see, we are getting a very one sided view/opinion.
  6. If I configure a program like Excel/Word to save my files in D:\Data a Quick scan is going to find malware in that folder? Forgive me for doubting a quick scan can find any infection on the system. If a quick scan can find and remove any infection on the system, then by definition it must be scanning the entire system. As far as caring about how users are infected, that was not was Exile360 said. I quote "so setting our priorities on checking such would be pretty low on our list of priorities". Yeah, right... put that on your web page to help market your product and see what happens.
  7. I'm not able to catch what you mean by "regardless of whether the location the file itself is in is contained in the Quick Scan or not". In any event you catch and remove it from memory, but how do you remove it from a folder that is excluded from the scan? While, I can see why you don't condone certain activities, flat out telling people you don't care if they are infected by something obtained from said method is certainly a bit bold and most likely would put a serious hurt on sales if you were market your product in that manner. I would expect your customers would expect your priority is to keep their computer safe from all malware no matter how it was obtained(I know I do). There have been times I have purposely downloaded content hoping it had malware for the sole purposes of testing/comparing scanners, be them virus/malware/spyware... whatever you choose to call it. Obviously MBAM is only interested providing protection for how it thinks people should use a pc and thus fails to meet the needs for many user's in doing so. Certainly that is your choice, and thankfully user's like myself have other options. As well.. it's hard to recommend a product to other people that is lacking in basic functionality.
  8. While exclusion by folder is there for what you state, you can not prevent it from being used to exclude a folder containing other files. I would submit for what you are trying to achieve in the example you present, it would actually be better to exclude the file not the location. What if malware decides to take residence in the excluded folder/location? What about programs like news readers and torrent gui's that allow users to set up specific locations for downloads. Is your quick scan is going to catch malware in those locations. In my experience with MBAM, only a full scan gets those. I still maintain I would rather have the ability to exclude by file for this exact reason. MBAM's logic for not having this feature presume there is one an only one model for hop people stores file and that presumption is not valid.
  9. If you don't want to have people doing full scan then remove it from the product. I've yet to have an AV product find an pic/video file disguised as a virus. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not a common occurrence in any event. Even if your argument was a valid reason how can you then justify excluding by folder. Excluding by file type is surely no worse. Give people the flexibility rather than enforce your opinions over user's needs.
  10. I saw a thread on this from back in 2009 where the feeling apparently was that Malwarebytes was a smart enough product to not need file exclusion. I disagree. I work on a fair amount of PC's that need cleaned and it's a major PIA to watch this product needlessly scan avi,jpg, png, gif and other files when doing a full scan. Number one reason, I won't run the paid version and can't get clients to run a full scan on a regular basis. Anyone who has ever worked on other people's PC's knows people store files in the craziest places and is very cumbersome to set up folder exclusion a clients PC because of this. Also excluding by folder does not work well as many time multiple file types can be in one folder. If you can give the user the ability to exclude by folder, which is damn near useless IMO, how difficult could it be to exclude by file type? Seems to me this it's pure stubborness on behalf of developers not including this feature. Just get on with it and provide what people want.
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.