Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Windows 10 Professional, 64-bits with Malwarebytes 3.3.1.2183, running on a system with i5-330P CPU, 16 GBs memory and Samsung EVO SSD. The system also has Vipre Antivirus version 9.3.4.3.

The system runs just fine, no issues with Malwarebytes except performance. If and when Malwarebytes protection enabled, MS Office applications, such as Word and Excel, have a substantial delay staring up. I've measured the the time it takes to start up with PassMark AppTimer V1.0 build 1010. With Malwarebytes active, this is the time it showed:

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office15\WINWORD.EXE
0.9636

That's one second that gets even a lot worse, if and when the word document is opened from a network share. Subsequent opening a different word document has no delays, as long as the first document is open. If it's closed, the delay is there.

Stopping and disabling the "Malwarebytes Service" in services and re-running the test shows this:

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office15\WINWORD.EXE
0.1556

That's about six times faster, than the previous test and opening up word document from network share is just as fast. Excel shows the same delay at startup, if Malwarebytes enabled.

I've just built a system with an i5-8400 CPU, 16 Gbs memory and Samsung NVMe EVO drive with Windows 10 Professional, 64-bits. Adding Malwarebytes slowed the MS applications the same way on this system too. Both systems have licensed installation, as shown in the attached image.

Question...

Is there a reason why MS Office apps are slowed down with Malwarebytes, at times to a crawl? Windows 10 has a number of built-in memory protections for apps. Could the some of the Malwarebytes memory protection, in "Advance Settings\Advanced Memory Protection" causing the conflict that  slows the apps start up time down?

TIA...

PS: Internet Explorer 11 has an even worse start up time with Malwarebytes...

 

mbm version.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***This is an automated reply***

Hi,

Thanks for posting in the Malwarebytes 3 Help forum.

 

If you are having technical issues with our Windows product, please do the following: 

Spoiler

If you haven't done so already, please run these two tools and then attach the logs in your next reply:

NOTE: The tools and the information obtained is safe and not harmful to your privacy or your computer, please allow the programs to run if blocked by your system.

  • Farbar Recovery Scan Tool (FRST)
    1. Download FRST and save it to your desktop
      Note: You need to run the version compatible with your system. You can check here if you're not sure if your computer is 32-bit or 64-bit
    2. Double-click to run FRST and when the tool opens click "Yes" to the disclaimer
    3. Press the "Scan" button
    4. This will produce two files in the same location (directory) as FRST: FRST.txt and Addition.txt
      • Leave the log files in the current location, they will be automatically collected by mb-check once you complete the next set of instructions
  • MB-Check
    1. Download MB-Check and save to your desktop
    2. Double-click to run MB-Check and within a few second the command window will open, press "Enter" to accept the EULA then click "OK" 
    3. This will produce one log file on your desktop: mb-check-results.zip
      • This file will include the FRST logs generated from the previous set of instructions
      • Attach this file to your forum post by clicking on the "Drag files here to attach, or choose files..." or simply drag the file to the attachment area

One of our experts will be able to assist you shortly.

 

If you are having licensing issues, please do the following: 

Spoiler

For any of these issues:

  • Renewals
  • Refunds (including double billing)
  • Cancellations
  • Update Billing Info
  • Multiple Transactions
  • Consumer Purchases
  • Transaction Receipt

Please contact our support team at https://support.malwarebytes.com/community/consumer/pages/contact-us to get help

If you need help looking up your license details, please head here: https://support.malwarebytes.com/docs/DOC-1264 

 

Thanks in advance for your patience.

-The Malwarebytes Forum Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

PS: Internet Explorer 11 has an even worse start up time with Malwarebytes...

Can you repeat the tests with Web shield disabled?

When I disabled Web shield, my PC's performance increased visibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lock said:

Can you repeat the tests with Web shield disabled?

When I disabled Web shield, my PC's performance increased visibly.

My system had marginal improvement, IE11 startup with MWB disabled:

C:\Program Files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe - 3 executions
0.6554
0.5461
0.5463

Enabling MWB results in this:

C:\Program Files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe - 3 executions
1.7342
1.7028
1.6556

Disabling Web Shield shows this:

C:\Program Files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe - 3 executions
1.6927
1.6715
1.6692

The values are in seconds, each tests included opening/closing IE three times. The first opening in each tests has the highest value, the minor decrease by the subsequent starting might be due for Windows cashing the program in the memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's MS Office 2013 Excel startup performance with MWB enabled:

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office15\EXCEL.EXE - 3 executions
1.3639
0.4440
0.4460

And with MWB disabled:

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office15\EXCEL.EXE - 3 executions
0.1867
0.1704
0.1760

And I could go on with other programs, not just MS Office apps on the system. The overall performance of the system is noticeably degraded, even managing the system, such as changing setting, opening event viewer are impacted. The opening apps time progressively increased, if and when MWB service is left active.

Operational wise, MWB works just fine, it's the performance hit that unacceptable. As such, MWB is disabled on my system, while it had been uninstalled from the new Windows 10 PC. While I understand the security software will have a hit on the system and applications performance, the level of decrease in performance is not acceptable. 

And I just renewed the licenses at the beginning of the month...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lock said:

Can you repeat the tests with Web shield disabled?

When I disabled Web shield, my PC's performance increased visibly.

What's Web Shield?  Do you mean Web protection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dcollins said:

@dont_touch_my_buffer if you're willing to spend a little more time testing, can you try disabling each protection module one by one to see which one specifically is causing your issue?

I am interested in this testing as well. I exited out of Malwarebytes and I can see a big difference as well on how long it takes for my office apps to open with Malwarebytes off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dcollins said:

@dont_touch_my_buffer if you're willing to spend a little more time testing, can you try disabling each protection module one by one to see which one specifically is causing your issue?

I've done some testing, changed the advanced anti-exploit settings, just disabled protection one-by-one and all four. While disabling all four does improves the startup time, the improvement isn't to the level of disabling MBA service. Individually disabling the protections seemingly had not improved the delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for those tests. I did some checking with our product teams and <2 seconds of extra time to bootup these programs is expected and is within the threshold we consider to be adequate. At this time, we have no plans to directly focus on improving this speed, but we do keep testing to make sure it falls within values we believe are valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dcollins said:

Thanks for those tests. I did some checking with our product teams and <2 seconds of extra time to bootup these programs is expected and is within the threshold we consider to be adequate. At this time, we have no plans to directly focus on improving this speed, but we do keep testing to make sure it falls within values we believe are valid.

Here's the results of all five disabled, but MBAM service running:

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office15\WINWORD.EXE - 3 executions
2.1395
2.1090
2.1090

That's worse than all five enabled and here's the results for MBAM service disabled:

C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office15\WINWORD.EXE - 3 executions
0.7028
0.7339
0.7339

One thing worth mentioning. This Windows 10 is an update from Windows 8.1, 64-bits. Should I uninstall/reinstall MBAM? Maybe some of the settings/files from Windows 8.1 are not correct to Windows 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my updated response above, it most likely won't make a difference as these numbers are within range of what we consider acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dcollins said:

Thanks for those tests. I did some checking with our product teams and <2 seconds of extra time to bootup these programs is expected and is within the threshold we consider to be adequate. At this time, we have no plans to directly focus on improving this speed, but we do keep testing to make sure it falls within values we believe are valid.

Your product team seems to be inadequate, if they believe that 300% increase in program bootup time is adequate in year 2018. In the year where 4-6 core CPUs on desktop, SSD and/or PCIe x4 NVMe drives and even fast memory are the norm, they still hang on the old/archaic software model that will make the up to date system feel like it's back in the late 90's, or early 2000s.

I do not accept any security product to decrease my system's performance by 300%, nor should anyone. I'll keep my licenses for the time being and may try the MBA version 4.x in the unlikely event, that the current product team will be able to come up with a product that does not increase the program bootup time substantially. There's always a chance....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2018 at 10:02 PM, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

The system also has Vipre Antivirus version 9.3.4.3.

What are the results with Viper completely uninstalled and the computer restarted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Porthos said:

What are the results with Viper completely uninstalled and the computer restarted?

I did not completely uninstalled Vipre and the computer restarted, simply disabled the services; here's the results:

C:\Program Files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe - 4 executions
0.5463
0.4995
0.4994
0.5002

And here's the results with Vipre enabled from my earlier post:

C:\Program Files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe - 3 executions
0.6554
0.5461
0.5463

This level of performance impact is acceptable in my view, certainly much less than the  "<2 seconds of extra time to bootup these programs is expected and is within the threshold we consider to be adequate." for Malwarebytes 3.3.1

Completely uninstalling/rebooting may, or may not result in an other ~0.1 seconds improvement.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

This level of performance impact is acceptable in my view

So this demonstrates that having a 3rd party AV other than just using Defender on a Windows10  computer that has Malwarebytes installed is going to slow performance. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Porthos said:

So this demonstrates that having a 3rd party AV other than just using Defender on a Windows10  computer that has Malwarebytes installed is going to slow performance. 

 

Just because you like Defender, and not any other AV does not mean your statement is correct....  @dcollins above already confirmed that MB3 will have an effect on these applications and they have what they deem acceptable in their book. I use SEP on my system, having it installed or uninstalled has no effect on my office products, the changes in time it takes them to open is only affected when MB3 is running or not running.  You can see from my sig, my computer is quite beefy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Firefox said:

Just because you like Defender, and not any other AV does not mean your statement is correct

The only correct part is that all/any protection will use resources and thus will slow the performance of a computer and programs. Malwarebytes believes that the current product can be the only protection on a computer.  You and I like many others here believe in a layered protection. MB and an AV together.

We all have our preferences and favorites that we are comfortable using and that is great. I am not debating that. I have a feeling that when MB is testing the product they are testing under the assumption that it is the only product you need so in that test MB performs well. add another protection that scans on download or on access (MB does not) and performance will slow.  

It boils down that those of us who have "beefy" systems expect super performance and of course when protection is added it reduces their performance in varied ways.  

If the choice was Malwarebytes or whatever the other layer is/was I choose Malwarebytes and I would consider another AV to be my other layer if I was not happy with the performance of the current combination.

And yes I use Defender. It is part of the OS and is the right amount protection with Malwarebytes for protection performance and cost of use. Many have difficulty paying for MB and an AV of their choice on a yearly basis.  

Hope this makes my point and feelings a little more clear. It was not intended to be a diss on anyone's choice of the "other" layer.  It was to demonstrate that having MB on a computer is not the only issue but just a piece of the equation.  :)

Edited by Porthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Porthos said:

So this demonstrates that having a 3rd party AV other than just using Defender on a Windows10  computer that has Malwarebytes installed is going to slow performance. 

 

While I disagree with your statement... Would you admit that Malwarebytes software is slow, if I reinstall Malwarebytes, remove Vipre from my system, and the test results still indicate ~300% performance hit when Malwarebytes enabled? The answer is probably no, you probably would ask for reinstalling Windows... 

And keep in mind what Malwarebytes said about other AVs:

Quote

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is not meant to be a replacement for antivirus software. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is a complementary but essential program which detects and removes zero-day malware and "Malware in the Wild". This includes malicious programs and files, such as virus droppers, worms, trojans, rootkits, dialers, spyware, and rogue applications that many antivirus programs do not detect or cannot fully remove. That being said, there are many infections that Malwarebytes Anti-Malware does not detect or remove which any antivirus software will, such as file infectors. It is important to note that Malwarebytes Anti-Malware works well and should run alongside antivirus software without conflicts. In some rare instances, exclusions may need to be set for your specific antivirus product to achieve the best possible system performance.

They may have changed their stance for market reason, but do not guarantee that you don't need AV...

1 hour ago, Porthos said:

It boils down that those of us who have "beefy" systems expect super performance and of course when protection is added it reduces their performance in varied ways.

 Beefy or not, all system will experience some performance hit with layered protection. The question is the magnitude of the performance hit and that's where Malwarebytes has disadvantage vs. others from my perspective.

And don't take me wrong, I do believe that Malwarebytes protection is excellent, I've been using it for couple of years. The gradual slowing down applications load time started couple of month ego and as of late, it was unacceptable. My guess is that Malwarebytes did not account for Windows built-in memory protections and there's a conflict, if and when the application started that causes the delay. Trying to disable these memory protections in Anti-exploit portion of MBA used to work, but it does not have the same effect now.

After uninstalling MBA, downloaded, installed the Beta version of the Anti-Exploit and it had been worse than the full install of MBA, that includes Anti-Exploit. Yes, I know, Beta software, but still...

And just as AV can be bypassed, so can be Malwarebytes:

So you do need layered protection....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

but do not guarantee that you don't need AV...

2 minutes ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

So you do need layered protection....

I don't argue that point. Never will. I believe in layered protection. Different combinations will have different results.

Each user needs to find the right balance of layers for their needs and taking into consideration of hardware/setup/ use of the computer.

 

5 minutes ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

exclusions may need to be set for your specific antivirus product to achieve the best possible system performance.

  I do the above no matter what the combination is used. Some AV programs do not have a place for exclusions or they are hard to find/do for some.  Those programs are automaticalyrejected by me for consideration. 

47 minutes ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

The question is the magnitude of the performance hit and that's where Malwarebytes has disadvantage vs. others from my perspective.

If I read your post correctly you stated without MB it worked well and then also in reverse without your AV but MB only the performance was ok as well. Combined with the AV performance was horrible. 

51 minutes ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

Beefy or not, all system will experience some performance hit with layered protection. The question is the magnitude of the performance hit and that's where Malwarebytes has disadvantage vs. others from my perspective.

That was my whole point. Your post to me seems to lead that MB was 100% of the problem but you showed that the performance issues were not solely the fault of MB alone.  

56 minutes ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

And just as AV can be bypassed, so can be Malwarebytes:

Of course, Nothing is 100%

57 minutes ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

My guess is that Malwarebytes did not account for Windows built-in memory protections and there's a conflict, if and when the application started that causes the delay.

I don't pretend to be a programmer so I can't speak to that.  But personally with those on default settings I have not seen any issues.

58 minutes ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

Trying to disable these memory protections in Anti-exploit portion of MBA used to work, but it does not have the same effect now.

They try to set those with a balance of protection vs performance. That is a grey slippery slope there.

 

1 hour ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

you probably would ask for reinstalling Windows... 

No, because many here(average users) looking for help would not have the skills or the ability to properly back up their systems.

As a tech the only time I format is...

After ransomware

When a computer has unexplained uncorrectable (non-hardware)issues especially if the computer has never had a clean install of Windows and is still on the original upgrades from 7/8.

PS: I don't trust the reset/refresh/rollback feature in Windows. ;)

 

Share this post


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.

×
×
  • 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.