Malwarebytes 3.0.6 AV replacement

[jgt1942]

On the webpage for Malwarebytes 3 as I understand the statement "MAKES ANTIVIRUS OBSOLETE" it now replaces my AV. Is this a correct statement? I'm currently running Kaspersky Total Security 2017 as my AV. I'll be happy to uninstall it if this is a true statement.

[glitchyrichy]

I would run it along side Kaspersky and just set exclusions in each so they aren't scanning each other. The more layers of protection the better!

[Telos]

I run KSP alongside MBAM. No need to delete KSP. Besides KSP offers many features (firewall, software updates, vpn, trusted application mode, encryption, etc., etc) which fall outside the scope of MBAM.

That said, you will probably want to whitelist each program with the other, to avoid conflicts which could impair overall security.

And you read this?

 

[exile360]

28 minutes ago, jgt1942 said:

On the webpage for Malwarebytes 3 as I understand the statement "MAKES ANTIVIRUS OBSOLETE" it now replaces my AV. Is this a correct statement? I'm currently running Kaspersky Total Security 2017 as my AV. I'll be happy to uninstall it if this is a true statement.

Yes, we're confident that the protection offered by Malwarebytes 3.0 is sufficient alone so that an antivirus is no longer necessary, however we do still test alongside various AV products (Kaspersky included) to verify compatibility because we believe that users who wish to continue using a layered approach to security should be able to do so as they always have with our products.

[lock]

1 hour ago, exile360 said:

Yes, we're confident that the protection offered by Malwarebytes 3.0 is sufficient alone so that an antivirus is no longer necessary,

Can you prove your statement with any test  in AV Comparatives or AV Test?

[exile360]

6 hours ago, lock said:

Can you prove your statement with any test  in AV Comparatives or AV Test?

Not yet, but soon we should.  I've discussed this previously, but basically we've found that unfortunately many of the AV tests out there just aren't realistic.  They focus on things like static file detection and manual execution of malicious scripts through the Windows shell rather than through the exploits and drive-by downloads through which such threats are normally encountered in the real world.  This means that all they're really testing is an AV's static detection and file heuristics flagging capabilities rather than its ability to actually detect and stop a threat/attack during a real infection attempt event.  Very soon however, we also believe that even that argument will be moot.  We've got something in the works that's going to change drastically our ability to deal with even static files (like zoos of archived malware and the like, which are often the focus of such tests).  It's not that we don't think such detection capabilities aren't useful as they certainly can be, we're just of the opinion that they often fail to test what's most effective in our (and many other vendors') products, especially components that don't rely on static definitions for known malware.

All that said, we aren't attempting to force anyone to drop their antivirus if that's not something they're comfortable with, and in fact, we still very much believe that a layered approach to protection still has a lot of value.  However, we finally have a product that we're confident is capable of protecting users without the need of an antivirus, something that many of our customers and users have been asking us to create for a very long time now.  We're now able to offer those users and customers a choice between using us alongside a paid antivirus, a more basic free antivirus, or even no antivirus at all if that's what they want.

Look, at first when I found out that we were moving in this direction of AV-replacement with Malwarebytes 3.0 I was as skeptical as the next guy (assuming the next guy was extremely skeptical and thought it was a bad idea), but our own testing and my own experience has shown me that the protection we offer in 3.0 today is a truly capable endpoint protection solution all on its own because of the current state of the threat landscape and its focus on stopping the attack chain early in the process through file-less/signature-less and behavioral detection methods such as our anti-exploit and anti-ransomware components which have been added to our already quite effective malicious website and malware protection components (the latter of which uses both static definitions as well as tons of "fuzzy" heuristics definitions and algorithms).

I hope that helps to clear things up a bit.  Basically it still comes down to the user's choice and what they are comfortable with using to protect their systems.  We've just finally developed a product which we believe provides protection robust enough to stand on its own as protection from real world threats.

[lock]

1 hour ago, exile360 said:

Basically it still comes down to the user's choice and what they are comfortable

Unfortunately, a simple statement will not make users comfortable...The general consensus, even on your forum is that MBAM cannot replace an AV, yet.

And this was said by experienced people.

 

[exile360]

1 hour ago, lock said:

Unfortunately, a simple statement will not make users comfortable...The general consensus, even on your forum is that MBAM cannot replace an AV, yet.

And this was said by experienced people.

 

Yes, but to date I've yet to find a single instance where a user (experienced or otherwise) was able to illustrate a live threat/real-world attack capable of bypassing the protection in 3.0, especially one which would be detected/deflected by an AV.  Or to put this another way, if anything does get past Malwarebytes 3.0, I have serious doubts that most AVs would be capable of detecting said threat themselves, especially if it's a 0-hour threat (which it would most certainly be).

I believe that where many of our users around here are coming from is the long time accepted practice of a layered approach to security and the knowledge that the more layers you have, the less likely a successful attack/infection becomes.  There's nothing wrong with this way of thinking as it's one I myself shared for years (and still do in some ways).  That said, looking at what's being offered by the vast majority of AVs right now with regards to the methods they're using, I have my doubts about just how effective they would be against any modern threat capable of bypassing our protections.  Perhaps I am wrong and I suppose only time (and testing) will tell but for now I am quite confident in the protection we're providing with Malwarebytes 3.0.

[lock]

For example eicar , it is not detected by MBAM but it is detected by each and every AV on the market.

[Telos]

11 minutes ago, lock said:

 

For example eicar , it is not detected by MBAM but it is detected by each and every AV on the market.

 

If there's help you need, please open a new thread.

[jgt1942]

9 hours ago, exile360 said:

Yes, but to date I've yet to find a single instance where a user (experienced or otherwise) was able to illustrate a live threat/real-world attack capable of bypassing the protection in 3.0, especially one which would be detected/deflected by an AV.  Or to put this another way, if anything does get past Malwarebytes 3.0, I have serious doubts that most AVs would be capable of detecting said threat themselves, especially if it's a 0-hour threat (which it would most certainly be).

I believe that where many of our users around here are coming from is the long time accepted practice of a layered approach to security and the knowledge that the more layers you have, the less likely a successful attack/infection becomes.  There's nothing wrong with this way of thinking as it's one I myself shared for years (and still do in some ways).  That said, looking at what's being offered by the vast majority of AVs right now with regards to the methods they're using, I have my doubts about just how effective they would be against any modern threat capable of bypassing our protections.  Perhaps I am wrong and I suppose only time (and testing) will tell but for now I am quite confident in the protection we're providing with Malwarebytes 3.0.

I've also read the posting at https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/191650-malwarebytes-30-frequently-asked-questions/#comment-1077438

and it also (IMHO) clearly states that MBAM 3 does it all. 

I also agree that much of the testing for viruses is questionable plus fighting virus and other attacks is a huge moving target. Thus at this time I have a few questions. Does MABM 3+ contain all of the Malwarebytes products such as Anti-Exploit, Anti-Malware, Anti-Ransomware,  Anti-Rootkit? If the answer is yes I'm willing to use one of my older systems and just run MABM 3 on it. This of course will NOT answer the big question, e.g. will MBAM 3 give me the total question but it does help move me in that direction.

What about running SuperAntiSpyware. Currently on my systems I run Kaspersky, MBAM 3 and SuperAntiSpyware. I will admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I do consider myself more knowledgeable than most computer users. However I often ask novice questions to help ensure I understand and to help in an area where my skills are lacking. 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2017 by jgt1942

[lock]

5 hours ago, jgt1942 said:

I will admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I do consider myself more knowledgeable than most computer users

And running Kaspersky AND MBAM3 AND  SuperAntispyware???????

In all tests , Kaspersky has 100% detection rate.

[exile360]

13 hours ago, jgt1942 said:

I've also read the posting at https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/191650-malwarebytes-30-frequently-asked-questions/#comment-1077438

and it also (IMHO) clearly states that MBAM 3 does it all. 

I also agree that much of the testing for viruses is questionable plus fighting virus and other attacks is a huge moving target. Thus at this time I have a few questions. Does MABM 3+ contain all of the Malwarebytes products such as Anti-Exploit, Anti-Malware, Anti-Ransomware,  Anti-Rootkit? If the answer is yes I'm willing to use one of my older systems and just run MABM 3 on it. This of course will NOT answer the big question, e.g. will MBAM 3 give me the total question but it does help move me in that direction.

What about running SuperAntiSpyware. Currently on my systems I run Kaspersky, MBAM 3 and SuperAntiSpyware. I will admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I do consider myself more knowledgeable than most computer users. However I often ask novice questions to help ensure I understand and to help in an area where my skills are lacking. 

 

 

Yes, Malwarebytes 3.0 contains our anti-malware, anti-exploit, anti-ransomware, anti-rootkit as well as several other technologies to detect and prevent various threats and attack vectors.  It's for this very reason that we're so confident in it.  That said, this is not something that we expect anyone to take our word on and we do not believe that our protection must be run alone.  If you wish to run Kaspersky, SUPERAntiSpyware and/or any other additional protections alongside Malwarebytes that's fine.  New threats are emerging every day and there's no harm in seeking additional protection to make sure that all of your bases are covered.

What we've done with 3.0 and this change in direction came about simply because we've seen how AVs are dealing with real world attacks.  The same is true for other next-gen vendors out there, who often have similar messaging about AVs, and for good reason; the old ways of detecting malware just aren't very effective any more.  Threats change too quickly with short lifespans so a reactive response, while quite effective in so-called AV tests, may look great.  The help forums filled with AV customers infected by ransomware and other malware that somehow slipped past their top rated AV product is the reason we believe that a new approach is necessary.  That's why we developed our product in the first place and have continued to expand and compliment it with additional features and layers to defend against new and unknown threats.

If you wish to continue to use a layered defense against threats, that's perfectly fine.  That's why we still test for compatibility with our products because we know that many users still want to run an AV and possibly other layers of protection alongside Malwarebytes.  We're simply confident now that if a customer of ours chooses to run our product alone, they should be safe online.

Edited April 30, 2017 by exile360