EMET reduces system speed when used with MBAE

[hake]

Pedro will probably cheer on reading these words.  EMET reduces system speed when used with MBAE.  This is much more readily apparent on older slower hardware.  Removing EMET adds some zip to system performance and the behaviour of the MBAE GUI (mbae.exe) not starting properly and failing to show its icon in the system tray seems to be eliminated.  Web browser performance is definitely improved, especially apparent on newspaper web sites which are often notorious for their slow page loading. 

 

This suggests to me that there are probably conflicts between EMET and MBAE which slow things down and makes me wonder if it might cause inhibition of detection of exploits.

 

I have in the past repeatedly trumpeted that I use both EMET and MBAE.   All Heaven rejoices when a sinner repents, or so it is said.

[pbust]

Glad to hear it

 

But yes, having 2 anti-exploit products together can cause some unforeseen troubles, even as far as reduced protection if they don't play really nice with each other internally.

[hake]

Does this extend to using EMET and MBAE at the same time but each protecting different applications?

[pbust]

@Kaine looked at this over a year and a half ago and IIRC it did have a potential impact. But things have evolved quite a bit in both fronts so it has probably changed.

[hake]

I am no longer using EMET because DEP is ensured with MBAE.  Regarding ASLR, Process Explorer 16.05 confirms that all applications that I protect with MBAE on Windows 7 (e.g. Google Chrome, Firefox, IE, Opera 12, SumatraPDF, OpenOffice) have been built with ASLR readiness.  I would hazard a guess that ASLR readiness is universal among the well-known software producers.  The process list is full of ASLR protected processes.