First AV Comparatives test for MBAM v3

[lock]

https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/avc_sp_pcpitstop_201702_en.pdf

MBAM , the "next antivirus replacement",performed worse than MSE!!!

Edited April 14, 2017 by lock

[1geekmercenary]

full image?

[lock]

5 minutes ago, 1geekmercenary said:

full image?

You just need to click the link...

[Unicore]

Unfortunately PC Matic is not a trusted application in that they supply and advocate the use of a registry cleaner.  Cleaning the registry is not necessary and can potentially damage your OS.  Therefore their software review ranks high on the bogosity meter.

[lock]

1 minute ago, Unicore said:

Unfortunately PC Matic is not a trusted application in that they supply and advocate the use of a registry cleaner.  Cleaning the registry is not necessary and can potentially damage your OS.  Therefore their software review ranks high on the bogosity meter.

It is not about PC Matic, is about AV Comparatives performing an antiransomware test commissioned by PCMatic (which did not do very well, 805FP's)

MBAM (93%), which has a dedicated antiransomware shield , performed worse than the generic MSE(96%)

At least 8 antiviruses performed 100% on all categories, which will suggest one more time that the "layered" approach in PC security (ex: running MBAM concurrently with an antivirus) is a bogus approach.

[dcollins]

I'd recommend checking out the following thread where @exile360 explains why av-comparative tests need to be taken with a grain of salt. Not that they're entirely false, just that they don't tend to use real world scenarios.

 

[lock]

 "First off, Malwarebytes 3.0 is not an actual antivirus..."

 

MBAM v3 was not  tested as an antivirus, was tested strictly as an antimalware and anti ransomware, and failed  badly....

Why anyone would run a well known antivirus and MBAM v3 , when , the AV's alone detected 100% and MBAM only 93%

Where is the "added protection" offered by MBAM v3?

Edited April 14, 2017 by lock

[Aura]

Quote

Why anyone would run a well known antivirus and MBAM v3 , when , the AV's alone detected 100% and MBAM only 93%

100% detection in the real-world doesn't exist.

[Telos]

You have to wonder what kind of marketing fluff this report reflects given that it was commissioned by PC Pisstop. The latest malware tests by AV Comparatives basically show that no products achieved 100% malware protection.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/avc_mpt_201703_en.pdf

Unfortunately for the MBAM haters, MBAM has no presence in this cohort (nor has PC Pisstop).

The vanity link in the OP may be ignored

Edited April 14, 2017 by Telos

[lock]

1 minute ago, Aura said:

100% detection in the real-world doesn't exist.

You are absolutely right!

Again, what is the added protection offered by o software (MBAM) with lower detection rate when you are already running a software(any AV from the list) with higher detection rate?

[lock]

2 minutes ago, Telos said:

You have to wonder what kind of marketing fluff this report reflects given that it was commissioned by PC Pisstop. The latest malware tests by AV Comparatives basically show that no products achieved 100% malware protection.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/avc_mpt_201703_en.pdf

Unfortunately for the MBAM haters, MBAM has no presence in this cohort (nor has PC Pisstop).

The vanity link in the OP may be ignored

Yes, this is the best approach, IGNORE and pretend that DOESN'T exist; maybe nobody will notice...

[exile360]

I've reported this to the team.  They're investigating what happened in the test.  Honestly, our team believes we should have done better, especially against the ransomware tests.

[Mueller4711]

Any response from the team? I own an old lifetime license and think of (re)installing MBAM 3.0. However, this makes only sense if there is a real benefit compared to MS defender which is already on the system.

[Aura]

You can use Windows Defender and Malwarebytes 3.0 side-by-side Mueller.

[Mueller4711]

8 minutes ago, Aura said:

You can use Windows Defender and Malwarebytes 3.0 side-by-side Mueller.

Sure. But if MBAM does not have a better detection rate than defender why then have two progs running instead of one? Therefore I'm really interested to know more about that surprising test result.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Mueller4711

[Porthos]

23 minutes ago, Mueller4711 said:

But if MBAM does not have a better detection rate than defender why then have two progs running instead of one?

There are things an AV detects that MB does not and vise-versa. MB is not an actual AV.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Porthos

[Aura]

59 minutes ago, Porthos said:

There are things an AV detects that MB does not and vise-versa. MB is not an actual AV.

This. Malwarebytes 3.0 can be used the same way you always used Malwarebytes Anti-Malware before. With an Antivirus.

[Guest]

Till yet this thread didn't catch my eye, it got my attention  by the today's replies.

Therefore I can say many thanks to @lock for this very informative thread only today.

The results of the test bring me to the decision not to install MB3 and confirm my decision to let MBAM2 deleted on my PC as well - BTW, without MBAM2 all browsers are running much faster on my PC and some other programs, too

Maybe I will add another program against malware instead of MB3 or MBAM2 to my Norton Internet Security, maybe not. 

Norton Interent Security runs excellently and without any issues on my PC since I subscribed it 15 years ago and it protected my PC always.

The renewal of my yearly subscription of MBAM2 (or MB3) is now canceled on Cleverbridge, the subscription will end on 12.20.17 - until now I don't know, what I will do with the still remaining time of my subscription.

But one thing is certain: My time with Malwarebytes ends today. 

[Telos]

There's a difference between detecting a dormant virus, and stopping viral activity. It's the activity that kills you.

That said, here's a rather unofficial AV test where MB (free) trounced many well know free AVs...
https://malwaretips.com/threads/so-i-did-test-all-free-av-and-was-surprised.70756/

So really now, is the "next antivirus replacement" still up for discussion.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Telos

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Telos said:

There's a difference between detecting a dormant virus, and stopping viral activity. It's the activity that kills you.

Do you allege, that Norton protects only against dormant viruses,but only MB3 does that?

Sorry for my harsh answer, but that's nonsense!

If you realy believe that, how do you explain the always excellent test results of Norton?

If you realy believe that, it only proves your low knowledges about Norton.

To my mind at least at time Norton is much smoother, safer and gives more security than MB3. And if MB3 ever will reach that level is still written in the stars.

Said with other words: Till today MB3 "is unable to hold a candle to Norton".

I don't chicken out any useful discussion, but I regard a discussion about that theme as useless and effectless, therefore I will not continue it.

[Porthos]

On 4/14/2017 at 5:18 PM, lock said:

Again, what is the added protection offered by o software (MBAM) with lower detection rate when you are already running a software(any AV from the list) with higher detection rate?

 

 

From it's beginnings, Malwarebytes has always been a SUPPLEMENT to an Anti-Virus. It really STILL is. It has the ability to run ALONGSIDE your AV program. It has been improved with more detection vectors than before.  There are more improvements to come.

The "trolling" posts are all because of the way MB was marketed this time. (an AV REPLACEMENT). If it was not called that 99% of these threads would NOT exist.

Personally, I am fine (since I am a 100% Win 10 user)to run MB alongside Defender.

. And will continue to do so.

 

 

[lock]

26 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Malwarebytes has always been a SUPPLEMENT to an Anti-Virus

Hi Portos,

I've been running Malwarebytes as a "SUPLEMENT" for many years, with MSE, ESET, Trend Micro.

I never had a detection initiated by Malwarebytes before the associated antivirus, and this statement is valid on 3 pc's for more than 5 years.

So, what's the purpose of a "SUPLEMENT"??? Just giving you a false sense of security.....

[Porthos]

So then you have never had a website block or a PUP detection?  If not good for you. You are now awarded a cookie for knowing how to use a computer safely.

I have 6 in as I type for a Win 10 Creators update. All have MB and part of my SOP is to look at the logs and quarantine to see what has been going on since I saw it last.

I see many PUP's and web blocks on every machine.

[lock]

3 hours ago, Porthos said:

So then you have never had a website block

I had many websites blocked, but most of them (if not all) were FP ( see the FP section of this forum, where "This will be unblocked on next update" seems to be a leitmotiv).

I checked each and every website blocked by MBAM on Virus Total , with 0 detections, so after a while I started not to care about websites blocked by MBAM, it is simply not worth it.

[Tinstaafl]

It may be time for Malwarebytes to take down this page ... seems a bit silly now ...

https://www.malwarebytes.com/

"MAKES ANTIVIRUS OBSOLETE"