Jump to content

Compatibility ...the Achilles' heel of MBAM

Recommended Posts

MBAM has continually grown since v1.75 , adding various shields (by purchasing software)  and today the compatibility is going to be the main issue with MBAM.

Version 3.5 is very likely to interfere with any antivirus which is running on the same computer; adding the exceptions MAY solve the problems but this will introduce additional risks on your defense.

Your antivirus has definition updates daily and major updates several times a year; this major updates are very likely to conflict with MBAM and again , developers have to workout a solution , over and over again.

On long term this is not feasible. 

So, either MBAM will became as soon as possible a fully flagged antivirus (by buying a well known antivirus engine)  OR

slowly slowly user will abandon the software , keeping only one major Antimalware solution on their PC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Staff

The only recent compatibility issues I was aware of were the issues with Web Protection and the web filters in Avast and AVG.  Web Protection was the very first protection module added to Malwarebytes, developed in house (not through acquisition of a third party company/software, though they did hire on Steven Burn as the lead/primary Researcher for that module who also manages the HOSTS files for hpHosts at hosts-file.net, which Malwarebytes also acquired, though the HOSTS files, the browsable online database and free availability of the block lists did not change).  But the Web Protection issues turned out to be due to some recent change in the WFP APIs through a recent Microsoft Update if I recall correctly, and Avast, AVG and Malwarebytes all ended up having to release updates for their web filtering components to resolve the conflicts and issues (one of the symptoms was intermittent BSODs, though these would occur on affected systems where any one of the 3 affected programs was installed so it wasn't actually a conflict between Malwarebytes and the other two).

Other than that, the only issues I'm aware of are the known issues with Kaspersky's idle rootkit scan component which has existed for a long time now, though its effects seem less severe than they once were, and an intermittent issue with some component on older builds of AVG which, while I don't know the definite cause, seem to be resolved by updating AVG and Malwarebytes to the latest versions (no exclusions necessary).

As for the other modules added since 1.75, so far there has been Exploit Protection which was through the acquisition of ZeroVulnerabilityLabs and integration of the Exploit Protection technologies they had developed which were previously available as a standalone software and are now maintained as the beta/standalone version of Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit, however that software, like Malwarebytes, was designed to work in tandem with an active antivirus.  There has also been the Anti-Ransomware component which was formerly CryptoMonitor which, like ZVL, was available previously as a standalone solution designed to work in tandem with other security products, including antivirus and became Malwarebytes Anti-Ransomware and likewise was integrated into Malwarebytes for version 3.

So far, based on the nature of the various acquisitions and new modules, all of which were based on technologies known to be compatible with and designed to work alongside an active antivirus, Malwarebytes has added nothing that should cause any conflicts with an active AV that I know of.  In fact, as time has gone on, I've seen fewer and fewer FAQ and Knowledgebase entries dedicated to specific exclusions for third party AV programs/suites as compatibility has actually been improving over time, not regressing and other than the specific known issue with Web Protection and Kaspersky's rootkit scanning which I mentioned earlier, I know of no specific scenarios where exclusions are actually required for compatibility when at one time (during the 1.75 days, for example), there were several known issues and scenarios where exclusions were required.  In fact, there used to be many FAQ items for specific AV products for creating exclusions for compatibility which no longer exist because they are no longer needed.  I don't know if the reason for this is because of improved compatibility on the Development side or if it is because of changes in recent versions of Windows where the available APIs and technologies for installing and running monitoring drivers and filters on systems has become more robust and flexible, but whatever the reason may be, Malwarebytes compatibility with third party AV products appears to be better than it has ever been out of the box, without exclusions.

If you know of other specific circumstances or instances where exclusions are a requirement for compatibility then please share them, however as I mentioned before, the only one case I am aware of at this time is the longstanding issue with that particular component of Kaspersky's idle scan referenced here.

With all of that said, I have seen rare instances where some issue with performance or scenario on a specific system was improved or resolved by creating exclusions, however I have not seen any such issues which were consistent/frequent enough or severe enough to warrant the creation of an FAQ or KB entry, and do bear in mind that QA is constantly testing each release of Malwarebytes 3 and other Malwarebytes protection products and technologies for AV compatibility across multiple platforms and environments, and if such a conflict were discovered an FAQ and/or KB entry would be created based on their findings to inform customers as well as Support of any such issues/requirements and that's how they've always done it in the past, yet I've seen no such entries being created in a long time now as I do not believe there are any new incompatibilities which have been discovered where exclusions are necessary.  Again, if you know of any scenarios where this is not the case then please let us know so that it may be investigated further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Staff

Apologies, it's a subject with which I have a lot of experience personally, having worked on the forums here for a long time as well as having been personally responsible for a good portion of the compatibility testing done at one time being a former member of the QA team for Malwarebytes so I wanted to be thorough.

The short version is that compatibility with AVs and Malwarebytes is better than it has ever been and the only current issue I'm aware of is the longstanding known issue between Kaspersky's idle rootkit scan feature and the Web Protection component in Malwarebytes and that the recent BSOD/web filtering component issues with Avast, AVG and Malwarebytes 3 had nothing to do with any conflict between the products but was in fact the result of some change in Windows likely due to a recent MS update that all 3 vendors had to update their software individually to fix.

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.