Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, benvl said:

I think you are still better of to use version 3.4.5 premium. This is working fine.

The reason I keep recommending disabling Web Protection rather than downgrading to the previous version is because several releases have happened since 3.4.5 and pretty much all of them have included major and/or minor improvements to the detection and protection capabilities in Malwarebytes for the other modules that aren't backwards compatible with older builds like 3.4.5, so I honestly believe you would be safer using 3.5.1 with Web Protection disabled than to use 3.4.5 with all modules active, especially if you use a browser that is compatible with the beta extensions I mentioned above, but even if you don't, I still think you'd be better off using the latest build.  Web Protection is a very small aspect of Malwarebytes' protection capabilities and definitely is not the most proactive since it relies on black lists of known malicious sites while most of the other components target unknown threats more frequently.

The decision is of course up to you, but I just wanted to make clear why we have not been recommending this approach to customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been over a month and I don't see a fix coming anytime soon.  This is a bad look for malwarebytes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is a deal killer for many, as a longtime MB user with a lifetime subscription I've uninstalled it as I'm not willing to live with BSOD failures or deactivating functionality. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will admit that if I saw this problem 3 weeks ago when I purchased my subscription, I probably wouldn’t have bought it and stood with webroot. 

That being said, is there a trustworthy version of 3.4.5 anywhere? I apologize if I missed it in the thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, unfortunately this has been a tough issue to fix completely.  They actually did correct several of the underlying issues that were causing some of the BSODs in the past couple of releases, however the one you guys are seeing appears to be the most persistent and I believe the only one they haven't been able to nail down yet, but hopefully, thanks to all the memory dumps and logs/data you guys have provided, they'll finally get this last one fixed as well; I hope in the next release.  I know that's what they are trying to do anyway, but of course it isn't fixed until it's fixed, so until then all we can do is wait and hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, miykael said:

I will admit that if I saw this problem 3 weeks ago when I purchased my subscription, I probably wouldn’t have bought it and stood with webroot. 

That being said, is there a trustworthy version of 3.4.5 anywhere? I apologize if I missed it in the thread

You're within your rights to request a full refund if you don't want to wait it out.  Obviously we hope you'll stick with us, but no one wants you to pay for a product that you aren't happy with either.  If you decide to request a refund, the information on who to contact and how may be found here or you may contact Malwarebytes Support directly via the options on this page.

Version 3.4.5 may be safely downloaded from here.  FileHippo always has older versions of the software archived for download and I've used them for years.  That said, if you want my advice, I'd suggest sticking with 3.5.1 and disabling Web Protection for the time being to eliminate the BSODs and start using the Malwarebytes browser extension beta which is currently available for both Chrome and Firefox as it uses the same databases as Web Protection in addition to using signature-less behavior based capabilities to block other malicious sites that Web Protection does not as well as blocking many ads and tracking servers for privacy:

Chrome
Firefox

The reason I don't recommend 3.4.5 is because many other issues have been fixed since then, and many more new capabilities have been added, including many improved detection and removal capabilities for the various protection components in Malwarebytes 3 which are not backwards compatible with older versions like 3.4.5, so even though you get the same databases, some of the content of those databases as well as some of the signature-less capabilities which have been improved in the other modules since 3.4.5 will be unavailable to you.

Edited by exile360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our engineers are still working on a solution. They believe they have identified the root cause, however it's apparently a long standing issue that many AV vendors face so it's taking longer to find a solution than we had hoped. This is not to pass blame or say "these guys have the issue too so it's not a big deal", just providing context as to why we don't have a solution available yet.

To give some clarification around why this happened in 3.5.1, we greatly enhanced the ability of Malwarebytes Web Protection in this release. One of the biggest feature enhancements is the ability to block based on URL's instead of just domains. IE: If someone was serving up malicious files through Discord and we wanted to block it, in the past we would have had to block all of Discord (this actually happened, and we quickly reverted the block). This is obviously not ideal as many people use Discord and most people won't hit this malicious link, however it still stands that the malicious link is out there and we want to make sure we're protecting users. So in 3.5.1, we added the ability to block based on the full URL, IE: discord.com/badurl/goeshere.zip. This way we can keep people protected, and still allow them to use these large scale services uninterrupted. This is also why we can't just "revert the change" as some have suggested, as it's quite a big change that isn't just a simple revert.

All that being said, our engineers are toiling away at this issue because we do understand that keeping our users protected at the cost of crashing their machines is not an acceptable alternative.

Share this post


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

Our engineers are still working on a solution. They believe they have identified the root cause, however it's apparently a long standing issue that many AV vendors face so it's taking longer to find a solution than we had hoped. This is not to pass blame or say "these guys have the issue too so it's not a big deal", just providing context as to why we don't have a solution available yet.

To give some clarification around why this happened in 3.5.1, we greatly enhanced the ability of Malwarebytes Web Protection in this release. One of the biggest feature enhancements is the ability to block based on URL's instead of just domains. IE: If someone was serving up malicious files through Discord and we wanted to block it, in the past we would have had to block all of Discord (this actually happened, and we quickly reverted the block). This is obviously not ideal as many people use Discord and most people won't hit this malicious link, however it still stands that the malicious link is out there and we want to make sure we're protecting users. So in 3.5.1, we added the ability to block based on the full URL, IE: discord.com/badurl/goeshere.zip. This way we can keep people protected, and still allow them to use these large scale services uninterrupted. This is also why we can't just "revert the change" as some have suggested, as it's quite a big change that isn't just a simple revert.

All that being said, our engineers are toiling away at this issue because we do understand that keeping our users protected at the cost of crashing their machines is not an acceptable alternative.

I usually download podcast mp3 files from websites that use archive.org and MB would block my attempt, leaving me one option, which was to enter that url in my exclusion list. However, the url was not the mp3 url, but they did contain archive.org in the url. For example; www.analytics.archive.org. 

It may have had more to do with the content discussed in the podcast. Once, the url blocked was for a jpg file that wasn't anywhere on the website.

It's been nearly 3 weeks since my last BSOD which is when I disabled the web protection.

Edited by 1776blues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also started getting BSOD's (it is techincally GSOD's, because I'm on Insider), with the errorcode being NETIO.SYS.

Is this the same problem as you guys are having? I've had 4 of them until now, with 2 of them being today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DCollins and the MWAB team, Thank you for the steady updates and continuing to work on this issue!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep facing the same problem as well. Turning off web protection helped stop the netio error.

Edited by all4wh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like ESET is having this issue independently of MBAM, this specific BSOD keeps popping up more and more with other apps. It might be useful to find what the common denominator is, possibly a bug in some of the more recent versions of netio.sys?

https://forum.eset.com/topic/16066-112490-causes-netiosys-bsod-on-win10/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2018 at 9:39 PM, Tokken17 said:

Is there a fix for this yet? I just got another BSOD and this is getting annoying. Malwarebytes is literally the only software I have ever installed to cause my system to have serious errors. The first time you guys pushed an update that sucked all the available RAM until it froze the system. That was a great morning with 3 PCs, I could only imagine a company with many PCs having to deal with that. Now this BSOD Netio.sys all because of Malwarebytes. I am getting tired of software that I pay for causing my system problems. If this is how you guys handle updating your software, I will have to consider uninstalling and never buying Malwarebytes again.

As you can see I posted asking about this issue over a month ago. This is unacceptable for such an issue to not be fixed yet. Currently I am just running my PCs without Malwarebytes on at all. Paying for a program that cannot even run properly or have proper updates that won't cripple your system, smh.

On 7/13/2018 at 12:09 PM, dcollins said:

Our engineers are still working on a solution. They believe they have identified the root cause, however it's apparently a long standing issue that many AV vendors face so it's taking longer to find a solution than we had hoped. This is not to pass blame or say "these guys have the issue too so it's not a big deal", just providing context as to why we don't have a solution available yet.

To give some clarification around why this happened in 3.5.1, we greatly enhanced the ability of Malwarebytes Web Protection in this release. One of the biggest feature enhancements is the ability to block based on URL's instead of just domains. IE: If someone was serving up malicious files through Discord and we wanted to block it, in the past we would have had to block all of Discord (this actually happened, and we quickly reverted the block). This is obviously not ideal as many people use Discord and most people won't hit this malicious link, however it still stands that the malicious link is out there and we want to make sure we're protecting users. So in 3.5.1, we added the ability to block based on the full URL, IE: discord.com/badurl/goeshere.zip. This way we can keep people protected, and still allow them to use these large scale services uninterrupted. This is also why we can't just "revert the change" as some have suggested, as it's quite a big change that isn't just a simple revert.

All that being said, our engineers are toiling away at this issue because we do understand that keeping our users protected at the cost of crashing their machines is not an acceptable alternative.

Not sure why you even bring up other AV vendors at all. I don't see other AV vendors causing BSOD to people's systems. I have reached my breaking point, Malewarebytes is the only program that has caused me stress losing work. Now I don't have to worry about saving that work all the time in fear that my system will crash because Malwarebytes isn't running. I shouldn't feel relieved that a program I pay for isn't on because it could cause BSOD. Twice now Malwarebytes has caused system crippling problems but at least with the RAM issue, it was fixed that day. The same most certainly is not the case with this BSOD error. If this problem is not addressed officially and fixed soon, I will be uninstalling Malwarebytes from all of my PCs and ending my subscription.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dcollins and @exile360, is there any concrete progress on this issue? My licenses (yes, plural) are coming up for renewal in 2 weeks and, to be completely honest, having no ETA after a month and 12 days, is making that questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tokken17 said:

As you can see I posted asking about this issue over a month ago. This is unacceptable for such an issue to not be fixed yet. Currently I am just running my PCs without Malwarebytes on at all. Paying for a program that cannot even run properly or have proper updates that won't cripple your system, smh.

Not sure why you even bring up other AV vendors at all. I don't see other AV vendors causing BSOD to people's systems. I have reached my breaking point, Malewarebytes is the only program that has caused me stress losing work. Now I don't have to worry about saving that work all the time in fear that my system will crash because Malwarebytes isn't running. I shouldn't feel relieved that a program I pay for isn't on because it could cause BSOD. Twice now Malwarebytes has caused system crippling problems but at least with the RAM issue, it was fixed that day. The same most certainly is not the case with this BSOD error. If this problem is not addressed officially and fixed soon, I will be uninstalling Malwarebytes from all of my PCs and ending my subscription.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 5:49 AM, exile360 said:

The reason I keep recommending disabling Web Protection rather than downgrading to the previous version is because several releases have happened since 3.4.5 and pretty much all of them have included major and/or minor improvements to the detection and protection capabilities in Malwarebytes for the other modules that aren't backwards compatible with older builds like 3.4.5, so I honestly believe you would be safer using 3.5.1 with Web Protection disabled than to use 3.4.5 with all modules active, especially if you use a browser that is compatible with the beta extensions I mentioned above, but even if you don't, I still think you'd be better off using the latest build.  Web Protection is a very small aspect of Malwarebytes' protection capabilities and definitely is not the most proactive since it relies on black lists of known malicious sites while most of the other components target unknown threats more frequently.

The decision is of course up to you, but I just wanted to make clear why we have not been recommending this approach to customers.

I tried what you said. Installed 3.5.1, disabled web protection and added the extensions for Firefox. Got a BSOD a few hours later with the same trigger method:
Opening tabs in forums such as Facebook and Vbulletin. Reverted back to 3.4.5 and got all fine and dandy.
Also, leaving the extension active was giving me some black screens (1s) like if my HDMI reseted when going to random video sites. Deactivated it for now and it is all fine now.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info.  I hadn't heard of anyone having any problems like that with the browser extension.  I'll be sure to point the Developers to your post so that they can investigate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone else posted these yet, but I did some research and found the following which might be relevant, at least for users running Windows Vista or Windows 7 and having this issue:

A Windows Filtering Platform (WFP) driver hotfix rollup package is available for Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2

That hotfix contains fixes which address the following issues, the second and third of which seem similar to what's been reported so far:

A nonpaged pool memory leak occurs when you use a WFP callout driver in Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, or in Windows Server 2008 R2
Using two Windows Filtering Platform (WFP) drivers causes a computer to crash when the computer is running Windows Vista, Windows 7, or Windows Server 2008
Error message on a computer that is running Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2: STOP: 0x00000050


That would also explain why other vendors appear to be affected by similar issues as some users have reported (i.e. without Malwarebytes installed) and why having more than one product active with a WFP driver appears to increase the likelihood of the issue occurring (I believe most users reporting the problem are running a combination of MB3 and at least one AV or FW which also contains a WFP driver).

Edited by exile360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.