Jump to content

MBAE 1.09 requirement for SSE2 compatible processors


hake
 Share

Recommended Posts

Same issue here.  I tried 1.09.1.1232 on my legacy computer with SSE only and it didn't work.  Install went well .. then rebooted, only to get an error screen telling me that the service didn't start.  I then reinstalled 1.08.1.2572 without a hitch.

It does happen that programmers "forget" to use a compiler compatible with SSE .. so, if this is the case, maybe release 1.09.x.x can be recompiled accordingly.  If not, I need to find a way to block automatic updating.

That said, I can't see any warnings and/or information about a SSE2 requirement on the download and/or tech-spec pages of MB's website.  Pedro!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The unwanted MBAE version update can be blocked by adding the following line to the HOSTS file: -
127.0.0.1       data-cdn.mbamupdates.com

I also recommend that you uncheck the MBAE setting 'Automatically upgrade to new versions'.

If you use Malwarebytes Antimalware (Free or Premium), this will have the effect of preventing it from downloading data updates so the HOSTS file modification might be a nuisance.

Edited by hake
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hake said:

...I also recommend that you uncheck the MBAE setting 'Automatically upgrade to new versions'...

I did this already and it should theoretically be enough.  Regardless, I hope to hear back from 'staff' asap.  I seem to recall that Pedro told me in the past that SSE won't be an issue (version-wise) down the road .. but that may have changed.  We'll see!

As I said, maybe the issue is with the compiler used with v.1.09.x.x.  This is what another software company (Macrium) said when my legacy SSE computers crashed:

"Sorry for the delay in replying. We have just released an update that now supports Pentium II/III CPU's. The problem was caused by updating our projects to Visual Studio 2012. VS2012 defaults to compiling code with SSE2 CPU instruction set enabled unlike earlier versions of Visual Studio. Apologies for the problems this has caused, and thank you for your patience."

The above FYI only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Agnitum Outpost Firewall Pro 9.3. Versions 9.2 and 9.3 of Outpost Firewall would not run on my hardware. The techs at Agnitum kindly took note of my request for the continued compatibility with SSE only processors and issued an update to version 9.3. I understand that this was the result of a recompile. I am glad they did because Outpost 9.3 is their best and final version. Yandex has since bought Agnitum and Outpost has ceased to be developed and will receive no more data updates after 31 December 2016. You can imagine that I esteem the memory of Agnitum and its people very highly. I have a decent firewall for Windows XP, 7 and 8.1 for several years to come. Not sure about Windows 10 in the long term.

To be fair to Malwarebytes, the thoughtful gesture by Agnitum was made in the knowledge that the Outpost Firewall Pro product was on borrowed time and it would probably not have been possible to maintain pre-SSE2 compatibility in the longer term.

Edited by hake
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who use old hardware with non-SSE2 processors will find that MBAE 1.08.1.2572 persists in trying to offer MBAE 1.09.1.1235 in spite of it being unable to execute. I'm afraid that the opportunity to have coded MBAE 1.08.1.2572 so that it recognises pre-SSE2 hardware, and so does not install an unusable version update, appears to have been lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that no MB Staff has commented!  Although the number of SSE computer users (if that's indeed the issue) are dwindling as we speak, I'm sure there are enough out there to justify some MB attention .. as other premier software providers (coders) have indeed done and still do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hake, thank you for your post concerning the host file modification. With 1.08.1.2572, disabling automatic updates results in a prompt asking to update at every restart. I have a hard time understanding why Malwarebytes did not foresee this being a problem for users. I like to keep my security software on a controlled update schedule.

Without your host file modification, I would have been required to stop all outbound communication from Malwarebytes. This means no samples would have been submitted to Malwarebytes on detection, which somewhat defeats the purpose of running anti-exploit in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
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.