Jump to content

v3.1.2 video review

Recommended Posts

Also, he disables one module that could literally detect the payload files as they are downloaded and saved to the disk, and one another that could stop them from communicating with their C2 and therefore starting the encryption process.

This test is flawed from A to Z. Too many "wannabe" security testers on YouTube now a day that have no clue of what they're doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aura said:

Too many "wannabe" security testers on YouTube now a day that have no clue of what they're doing.

And they do it with an agenda and will go out of their way to bash any program they don't like no matter why they don't like it.  There are many here that post just to complain and try to argue with facts that are offered them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else I noticed is people saying "Malwarebytes isn't what it used to be, Malwarebytes detection ratio has been lower than other software lately, etc." yet, which program is most of the users running when they are having an issue, the program that detects the most threats on an infected system to clean it, and the one that gets updated lightning fast to counter new infection (SmartService, CertLock, etc.), the one that is always used in the malware removal community as part of a normal clean-up process? Malwarebytes. A lot of critics, but nothing to back them up.

Link to post
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Aura said:

Once again, not implementing real-world scenarios.

As long as this excuse (which I totally agree with) is used in all circumstances, then I am fine with it. I am referring to MSE/WD. People cite poor results in laboratory tests as their justification for calling MSE/WD lousy, or their favorite as great when clearly laboratory tests are totally synthetic.


Something else I noticed is people saying "Malwarebytes isn't what it used to be, Malwarebytes detection ratio has been lower than other software lately, etc."

It is my experience (except in these synthetic tests) when people say MB isn't what it used to be, they are not talking about its detection ratio, but rather the program's stability and the developer's response to issues. MBAM2.0 was, IMO, rock stable. I cannot recall seeing problems with disabled protection, nor did I see weeks and even months passing before problems were resolved. But that's exactly what's been happening with MB3.x. :(

MB3's biggest problem is the stellar reputation MBAM2 created. It was impossible to top. But sadly, it was not even equaled. Pushing MB3 out before it was thoroughly beta tested before the holidays really hurt their reputation. More complete testing surely would have found these disabled protection problems. And you can tell it was rushed because it was not even finished! For example, many of the "More Information (?)" buttons were non-functional. That's inexcusable (especially for a paid product). Then failing to quickly resolve these issues, was again, totally uncharacteristic for the company, and a let down.

That's what it means to me that Malwarebytes isn't what it used to be. AFAIK, people are not complaining that they are getting infected. They are complaining that they no longer have confidence in the product. :(

IMO, it is once again a stellar product. But when it comes to getting burned, people have long memories. It will take some time before that reputation is back to where it should be.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 2 had many problems when it first came out. Many complains are user/computer caused. I had no trouble with v2 and only a minor one with v3. Guess I am a happy camper !

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some things to be gleaned from this seemingly flawed test...

First, there is a propensity of users posting on this forum that choose to disable certain protections not to their liking. This video indicates that when MBAM's protection features aren't permitted to work in harmony, protection may be significantly compromised .

Second, this video would cause one to question the level of protection offered by MBAM Free. Clearly it is quite limited.

Although this tester plays loose with a testing protocol, synthetic testing is valuable, and is a commonly accepted means by which one can actually challenge today's anti-malware products. While some decry that this isn't real world, testing is seldom real world. Testing needs to stress and threaten. Otherwise what is left for one to do... buy a program on "faith" and then explore the nether reaches of the intrawebs hoping to stumble into malware? That is silly. 

To put speculation to rest, why doesn't MB produce videos of v3 in action... These are not easily found. Exactly how is protection validated? Is it merely theoretical? It's time for MB to step up and counter these videos with proof of protection. Is that so much to ask? Others do that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Regardless of the version, I never had , in more than 4 years and 3 computers any significant or life saving detection from MBAM.

Also, not allowing any third party to independently test MBAM will only cast doubt on MBAM capabilities.

While now MBAM runs without any conflict, I really doubt that it ads value on top of any well known antivirus program.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hydruis said:

...but surely as other people have stated on this thread to have a fair review you would at-least have all modules activated as malwarebytes is from what i hear meant to be a layered defense.

Not just that but the computer needs to be set up in a normal "default" configuration. That is, Windows needs to be fully updated and running with the default settings as set by Microsoft - that is, as Microsoft intended the computer to be configured - just as Malwarebytes should be running in the defaults configuration as the developers at Malwarebytes intended.

14 hours ago, KenW said:

Version 2 had many problems when it first came out. Many complains are user/computer caused.

I don't remember any problems with V2 where the protection was disabled or with features that just did not work at all. I only seem to remember minor issues that were quickly addressed. Or maybe I was just lucky but V2 did not create disappointment right out of the gate, as far as I remember. But you are absolutely correct that many problems are user caused. Contrary to what some seem to think, the default settings are best for the vast majority of users. Some seem to think their systems are so unique, they need special settings. I suspect only 1 or 2% of the 1.5 billion Windows systems out there fall into that extreme uniqueness category, if that many.


5 hours ago, lock said:

I really doubt that it ads value on top of any well known antivirus program.

This really depends on the user. Even the best security solution can easily be thwarted if the user opens the door and lets the bad guy in.

I've been using MBAM since its inception from way back in my CastleCops days. And now I use MB3.x. I use the premium version on my two main systems (because I already had lifetime licenses of MBAM) and I use the free version on my other systems. And MBAM/MB has NEVER found anything malicious. The worse case is it found a few PUPs that were not unwanted at all. And for the record, I used MSE on my W7 systems and now use WD on all my systems (which now all run W10).

That in no way is a criticism of MBAM/MB but rather a testament to me and "practicing safe computing" - that is, good "user discipline". Keeping our systems updated and avoiding risky behavior is the #1 method of avoiding being compromised. But that does not suggest to me that I don't need Malwarebytes. Badguys can be very clever. While I feel I am very clever too and can spot cleverly presented socially engineered malicious threats, I might slip up one day and be fooled.

Also, if you have other users of your computer, users who may not have the safe computing discipline you do, having a second scanner running in real time might very well be good idea, if not a life saver.

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
  • 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.