MickeyMouse

Norton also detects Auslogics products in the risk signatures 'PUA.DiskDefrag' and 'PUA.BoostSpeed'. Neither the DiskDefrag nor BoostSpeed products are 'malign' in any way - this is 'overkill', plain and simple, and it creates difficulty for users to download, install and use these otherwise fine products, both the free and paid versions. I realize consumers have demanded more aggressive blocking and detection of any installers that contain offers of other products - but so long as they have clear 'decline' or "opt out" options, a user has to be brain dead to not uncheck the box, click 'decline', etc., and proceed to install a clean program that is absent of all viruses and malware! Shame on you guys for not exercising more discretion, choosing to flag harmless and useful programs under the generic banners of 'PUP', 'PUA', etc. As others have testified here, it is a bear trying to get your security products to let them use SOFTWARE THEY WANT and that is absolutely HARMLESS to their machines. Uggh .. sorry for a critical post but I for one am weary of excellent security products like MBAM and Norton trying to play "big brother" for me. Any reasonably intelligent user can use these programs, both free and paid versions, without risk of 'infection' of any sort. Why not focus on the REAL bad guys and leave harmless and useful utilities like Auslogics products alone? Please? Auslogics puts out some of the very best such products on the market, imho. It's a shame their distribution of even the free versions of these products is hindered by unnecessary and irritating 'detection' as malware - which is NOT malware at all; and NOT harmful to the user in the least. Thanks for letting me vent and, no offense intended the MalwareBytes' Staff ..

Thank you Samuel !

Strange because I just read another answer (link) by an "Honorary Member" advising a user NOT to use Emsisoft Anti-Malware in real-time alongside MBAM since two antiviruses will conflict. But then I note your reply here, saying otherwise. Those are two links to the threads I've read, which I found via Search Results. Also it seems that MBAM has a very good detection rate; it detected stuff that McAfee Internet Security allowed to infect my friend's PC. And when I did a scan with an up-to-date NBRT (Norton Boot Recovery Tool) that I created on a bootable thumb-drive, Norton did not detect anything in a full scan either? Both those AV products, Norton and McAfee, are usually very good: They score highly in the professional AV testing: AV Comparatives, Virus Bulletin, etc. So it seems that MBAM might, indeed, be able to substitute for an AV product. When I cleaned my friend's PC, I uninstalled McAfee after putting the Pro version of MBAM on there. Should I reinstall McAfee on my friend's PC, per your suggestion here that MBAM is only meant to complement a full AV product ? Thanks so much ..

I was working on an elderly friend's computer today and noticed that the Vista Home x32 Operating System does not monitor MBAM. I had noticed this several days before and disabled monitoring of MBAM. When I re-enabled today, same thing, I have to tell the Security Center that I'll monitor MBAM myself. McAfee Internet Security had allowed an infection of trojans, and the CloudAV 2012" fake antivirus, so I had d/l-ed MBAM to help clean the PC. It would be helpful and good to report to the Security Center. The average user doesn't know what to do when the Security Center reports an absent Anti-Virus when a copy of "MBAM Pro" is in fact running in real-time.

Or, are the updates for the Pro version the same as for the Free ? These humongous ~ 6 Meg babies ? No offense. Until you have smaller incremental updates, I do not have the bandwidth to endure such large downloads on a regular basis .. Thanks, Mickey