Jump to content

lemonbird

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About lemonbird

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. -Software Information- Version: 3.2.2.2029 Components Version: 1.0.188 Update Package Version: 1.0.4874 License: Trial
  2. Sorry, in my case I didn't get "Category". I only got -Website Data- Domain: www.freefilesync.org IP Address: 66.198.240.22 Port: [3674] Type: Outbound File: C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe
  3. Now I only get generic info like -Blocked Website Details- Malicious Website: 1 , , Blocked, [-1], [-1],0.0.0
  4. OK, thanks. I do appreciate your answers. BTW, sorry for having been a bit blunt in my first reply. But the fact is I already know how it works user side, I am asking for the reasons behind the behavior. Why not add an Ignore Adware setting, like it is for PUPs, for the users who know what they are doing? Other detection programs allow to exclude several threat types including Adware not just PUPs and PUMs. Besides, I gather that the difference between PUPs and Adware is sometimes rather subtle. For instance, in the specific example I provided (WhenU in the Daemon Tools
  5. @blender What you suggest would exclude a single file, but I am talking of exclusion by category. Maybe I wasn't clear in my question. Again, is there a valid reason not to allow users, if they want, the same for Adware as it can be done for PUPs and PUMs? I gather the difference is a rather subtle one (in the EULA).
  6. Anyone for a proper answer?
  7. Hi, I disabled both PUP and PUM detections in MBAM 3.1.2 Settings. PUP=Ignore Detection, PUM=Ignore Detection but MBAM still detects WhenU.Adware in an old file (see attached). I believe the problem lies in the fact MBAM defines WhenU.Adware as "malware", as opposed to "non-malware" (PUP and PUM). I am not an expert but I wonder: is there a rationale behind MBAM behavior or should it be fixed? Kaspersky, for instance, calls WhenU "not-a-virus". Some others call it a "PUA". Or, maybe, you might want to add a third entry (Adware: ignore/warn/dete
  8. See attached log and file sample. DiskView.zip FalseTrojanDV.zip
  9. See log and attached sample FalseRansomCerber.zip Advanced_Uninstaller11.zip
  10. No reason. Actually I don't remember why on earth I put it there! Anyway, I'd suggest that MBAM informed about the unusual location.
  11. I forgot Jotti's result http://virusscan.jotti.org/en/scanresult/e8e6a003244cf02ff209f046852b4e31f862f2a3/cec441caf493b33aa08a554e470cb04da0fab697 and the attachment with zipped file TrueCrypt Setup 6.2a.zip. Also, the reason why M-AM did not find anything in the individual scan is that I put the file in the Ignore list. Now I removed it from the list and the program finds it infected again.
  12. Hi guys, after updating Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, it found an "infected" file during a QuickScan, but I think it's a false positive because: -Jotti online check found nothing -other local scanners on my PC (MSE, VirusScan Enterprise, Spyware Terminator) don't find anything; -the file has been there for ages and MA-M never said it infected before; -MA-M does not find it infected if I scan it as an individual file from context menu. Anyway, here is the QuickScan log, and I am going to upload the zipped file. Thank you! Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.51.1.1800 www.malwarebytes.org Database versio
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.