pkolasa

I think you should, exactly. This is no different than doing what he accuses others of doing - purposedly trying to cheat you with giving them lifetime licenses. By buying your software each one of people using it, expressed their belief that it's one of the best things on the market and I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement that you are.

I didn't mean not keeping license details. I meant not keeping payment details. If you do a lot of transactions, some of them will start to mix with all other mails after some time. That's why I delete them, just as no one keeps shopping cash receipts for things they buy and use in their homes - hell, most of them even won't survive longer period of time. If someone came to you and asked about cash receipt for buying, e.g. a fridge 10 years ago - are you sure you have it available? Some people treat buying of AV program as one and done operation, not as something to remember about years in the future. It's supposed to work, period. Being scammed, when you often don't get a proper receipt is another thing. And it's not the customer who should be punished for scam. I did provide such explanation. This is the part of their business. People who bought pirated copies in most cases were not aware of that fact. Would anyone pay for something that is openhandedly advertised as 'stolen'? And now, when they get informed by their product that their license is invalid, when they get acknowledged of that fact, they have the opportunity to be treated as customers, not as the source of cash.

And isn't it? I can't believe my own eyes and even more, can't believe that people from Malwarebytes have agreed to refunding that. By buying a license (and I have valid, issued by Malwarebytes, lifetime one) you've expressed your belief that MBAM is one of the best products in the market - which it is. That it's worth support. This has to be worth some money. And now, after using it sometime, you want to be refunded because the company behind it decided to be responsible and allow some of its customers to also get a legal version if they were robbed by someone. Not many customers still keep their original version of messages with payment details, me included, just the license details. Why should they be punished for having some good faith in people and because they got cheated? This is not the famous Islamic State nor Soviet Union that everyone should treat each other as liars and enemies. In every group you'll find a black sheep, which doesn't mean whole group should get punished. Moreover, what Malwarebytes does from long period of time, including offering its technology to cure infected machines, is something called Corporate Social Responsibility. Your demands looks like you never heard of it, so how about checking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility In other words: they could maximize their income and yet they decide to let people use what they developed for free under some conditions, because that's what good people do. And by demanding the refund, you are just like those who convince people to buy pirated license. Instead of supporting the company that does something for common good, which you can do (because you did that already) you decide to be selfish. I think people from Malwarebytes do one piece of good job and everyone buying their software just express that belief. They let Malwarebytes do their job, create more amazing software. Money isn't all that matters.

NGN478, as pbust said, it's not MBAE's piece of cake, to pretect against such kind of exploits. But if you're using Firefox and want to be not vulnerable, you can always install originating from Mozilla extension (SSL Version Control) allowing you to choose minimum version of TLS by a simple drop-down list in Tools --> Addons or change a preference in about:config (security.tls.version.min), setting it to 1. However in most recent Firefox versions (Mozilla said it's gonna be in 34.0) Firefox doesn't support SSLv3 by default. In most recent Chrome versions (I'm using 39.0.2171.36) it is also turned off and Poodle Test gives a "not vulnerable" result.

Pedro, It's hard to say why this happened. The thing is: it seemed to be some kind of a glitch, because today, when I booted up my computer, there is no problem with IE and MBAE. IE just boots up normally. And I did no changes to the system.

Hello Pedro, I have current version of MBAE Experimental and I can see the problem with IE - when I try to run it today, the following message appears: telling me that the application failed to initialize properly. iexplore.exe is visible in Process Hacker (what seems strange to me, the window of message doesn't belong to its process, but to csrss.exe, checked that with PH), and after clicking OK button, the process of IE disappears. When I disable MBAE (right click --> Stop protection), IE loads properly and functions as it should... What's even stranger, everything worked correctly, as well as Internet Explorer before last reboot (however I had a strange behavior of network, which I don't know what to put the blame on, as when I had a file downloading by any application, other apps seemed to lose connection, what never happened before). My logs are attached logs.zip

Okay, Pedro. Thank you for information and keep up this nice work

Dear Pedro, I like very much the latest release of MBAE, having almost no problems with it, except some icon disappearing issues, but the icon always shows up after another reboot, so nothing very important. However, today I have came up against a problem cause by MBAE when using software needed for signing electronically documents in Poland, needed e.g. in some cases while using our e-government platforms (when you need to submit electronically verified document and so on). To make such signature, you need to have such software, distributed by (in our case) Unizeto Technologies. They use Java to run this software. The problem is, that when I run this software (proCertum Smart Sign), I get HUGE lags, which makes application almost useless. And as soon as I stop MBAE protection (by context menu on tray icon), and start the application again, I get NO lags and the application works in a normal way. You can find the software I am talking about at: https://www.certum.eu/certum/cert,offer_smart_sign.xml (there is latest version available, 6.0.0.2088). For signing documents you would actually need USB certificate cards and a certificate card issued by Unizeto, but the lags are visible just after running proCertum, even with no card attached, so you should see what I'm talking about. I am also attaching 7z'ed logs from MBAE and will PM the password for it to you. Greetings, Piotr. logs.7z

Pedro, Just once again I ran into the problem with installing MBAE on Windows XP SP3. In order not to litter the thread here, I sent you a PM.

Pedro, Unfortunately I won't have access to that computer to 24th Feb. After the date we can schedule up something. puff_m_d, I know that, yet this is irrelevant here, as on XP, usually 32-bit, there is only one Program Files folder.

Pedro, I did that even with 0.9 and tried to be thorough. Uninstalled, rebooted, deleted directory, rebooted. Tried now, with 0.10 - uninstalled, rebooted, found that there is no Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit folder in Program Files (must have been deleted by uninstaller), rebooted again, tried to install --> same thing. Checked services and autostart and task scheduler - no sign of MBAE anywhere.

Pedro, Just tried to install recently posted MBAE alpha version on one of my friend's computers (Windows XP SP3, AVG IS 2014). She had an MBAE previously, but I uninstalled, rebooted and deleted MBAE's folder from Program Files. However, I can't get the alpha version to run. Installer gives me following screen at the end of installation progress: I checked Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit folder in Program Files, noticing, that MBAE installed almost all files ending with '_' instead of just normal extensions (e.g. mbae.exe._ instead of mbae.exe). The folder looks like that: It doesn't seem to install the service (no entry of it in Services) nor add any task to install service during boot (checked with Autoruns). Tried to install and reboot many times, but this behaviour doesn't seem to change. What is going on? There is also no folder for logs in the location you've mentioned in your post with setup file created, however the setup does create Start folder with shortcuts. The installer should work fine, as I have installed this version on my Windows 8.1 x64 and there was no problem at all.

pbust, also sent you a PM, will be glad for testing alpha!

OK, then that's great you have thought it out so thoroughly

Dear Pedro, You've said in another topic: I think many users would like to have such feature available in MBAE, as the most recent version of exploit blocking software is a neccessity for maintaining good security level. I don't know how is this feature going to look like, but one of the features MBAM uses is that it requires me to perform a reboot whenever installer for newer version is downloaded. What's more, its updater firstly downloads from the Internet newest databases, then installs them, then checks for newest program version, downloads it, asks user to install, and after installations asks for update once again, wanting to download newer bases. A lot of hassle. If you are going to project an auto-update feature, why don't you do it the way that e.g. Unchecky uses? Whenever newer version is available, service downloads it in the background, silently installs and continues to protect user. In addition to that, its executables are signed, so it launches installer only if the signature is correct. It would be wonderful to create such an really hassle-free auto-update feature for MBAE, so novice users would just be protected, wihout worrying about having to check if their version is newest. It is also a dll-injecting software (injects itself into installers, in order to uncheck suspicious offers), so maybe this could work also for MBAE? I know the beta is still early, but I thought that it would be a good idea to propose such thing to be used later on.