Is this review of MB correct?

[Phxflyer]

I just saw this YouTube review of MB. What are they doing wrong or looking at incorrectly? Or are they right? I know MB gets panned as an antivirus but this is panning MB in it's ability to prevent malware. I'm very skeptical of what they are coming up with and how they doing this test by throwing out dozens of malware loaded links and programs at one time. This doesn't seem realistic????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9clWAlxZloI

 

[Malwarebytes]

***This is an automated reply***

Hi,

Thanks for posting in the Malwarebytes for Windows Help forum.

 

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

Spoiler

If you haven’t already done so, please run the Malwarebytes Support Tool 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.

1. Download Malwarebytes Support Tool
2. Once the file is downloaded, open your Downloads folder/location of the downloaded file
3. Double-click mb-support-X.X.X.XXXX.exe to run the program
   • You may be prompted by User Account Control (UAC) to allow changes to be made to your computer. Click Yes to consent.
4. Place a checkmark next to Accept License Agreement and click Next
5. You will be presented with a page stating, "Get Started!"
6. Click the Advanced tab on the left column
   
   
    
7. Click the Gather Logs button
   
   
    
8. A progress bar will appear and the program will proceed with getting logs from your computer
   
   
    
9. Upon completion, a file named mbst-grab-results.zip will be found on your Desktop. Click OK
   
   
    
10. Please attach the file in your next reply. Before submitting your reply, be sure to enable "Notify me of replies" like so:
    
       

Click "Reveal Hidden Contents" below for details on how to attach a file:
 

Spoiler

To save attachments, please click the link as shown below. You can click and drag the files to this bar or you can click the choose files, then browse to where your files are located, select them and click the Open button.

 

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

 

[Porthos]

24 minutes ago, Phxflyer said:

I'm very skeptical of what they are coming up with and how they doing this test by throwing out dozens of malware loaded links and programs at one time.

 

24 minutes ago, Phxflyer said:

This doesn't seem realistic????

It is not.

The test also bypassed web protection by pre downloading that "folder". Also in the real world no one will be bombarding the system with that much at one time. It does not give the heuristic cloud component a chance to react.

I also believe bypassing Windows 10 built in security measures is a crime in it self as well. 

[Phxflyer]

I didn't think this review was being fair. What does MB do when this kind of review is posted? Counter its validity? Or just ignore it?

With all the "fake" news today both on TV and on the web, I find it hard to ignore posts that seems to be coming from a legitimate site (TPSC.... are they legitimate?) without doing some questioning.

[exile360]

They generally ignore them.  This is the same reason that companies like Malwarebytes and many others called for reforms in the testing methods used by most of the AV testing organizations due to similar practices and unrealistic testing methods that fail to accurately recreate how threats actually infect users' systems, usually bypassing many of the layers of security provided by security products like Malwarebytes as well as many of the inbuilt features in modern Windows operating systems (for example, most web browsers have some kind of file and website checking against known malware and malicious sites including Microsoft's SmartScreen and Google's Safe Browsing built into them that is also being bypassed).  For a long time, many questioned why Malwarebytes chose to focus primarily on the latest active threats rather than attempting to build up a massive database that covered all past threats the way that most major AVs have (which is why most AVs have databases measuring in the hundreds of megabytes or more) and this is related to the same flaws in these testing methods; it is unrealistic that a user will encounter a threat from 10 years ago trying to infect their system, and even if they somehow do, it is very likely that they will be immune, not just because of their AV/AM software, but because of advancements in security and vulnerabilities that have long since been patched in their operating system and other software (this is also why keeping up to date with patches is very important).  Also, as time has passed Malwarebytes has changed its focus greatly to focus more on the threats that their Research team has not encountered yet, both by analyzing the behaviors of existing threats and attacks as well as by cleverly attempting to predict what the bad guys might do next and this is where new technologies like Exploit Protection, Ransomware Protection and behavior based threat heuristics have come from now making up most of the protection that Malwarebytes Premium provides.

Today, threats have such a short shelf life, often only existing in the wild for a matter of hours, not days or weeks as things once were because the bad guys know that the AV vendors will quickly adapt to any new threats that are created and that they are constantly out hunting for new samples as well as collecting malware and data from infected users throughout the web.  This is another reason that relying strictly on specific threat signatures is a very bad idea because it is a reactionary approach to threats that change too rapidly to adapt to effectively, thus more proactive methods are needed and today this is the primary focus of Malwarebytes.  Most major AVs have begun following the same path because they have made the same observations and they have noted the success of products and tools like Malwarebytes throughout the years in using innovative heuristics and behavior based protection and detection techniques to mitigate the threat of new and unknown malware.

If you wish to learn more about how Malwarebytes works, please refer to the diagram and information found on this page and I would also recommend reading this article as it explains much about why using signatures to try and detect things like scripted malware and exploits is a flawed approach (and why Malwarebytes doesn't do this, instead relying on behavior based detection techniques for such threats; something the test in the video does not account for since the tester is simply executing the threats one by one via a Powershell script rather than a legitimate exploit that the bad guys might use in a real attack).

[Phxflyer]

I'm very happy with MB. It just bothers me when a reviewer pans (or praises) a product based on incomplete or incorrect testing procedures and then try to foist themselves off as experts and that you should listen to them or subscribe to their channel. No way to tell the truth these days without digging. Thanks for the input. 👍

[exile360]

You're welcome.  It's funny, the reviewer even says he's trying to simulate real-world infection by using a Powershell script to execute the payloads, as he notes that most threats come in this way, usually being executed by a malicious exploit or some other scripting method, which is true, however his script does not in any way resemble or replicate what a real exploit/script combo attack looks like, and so Malwarebytes (and all the other AV/AM products he tests) ignores it, otherwise none of his files would run, and the test would be over before it started (especially since the Exploit Protection component in Malwarebytes is by far one of the most aggressive, forward looking defense technologies in Malwarebytes and it has proven most effective against real-world exploits, rendering detection of the payloads they might try to download and execute moot since the payload is never even dropped onto the system to begin with; something his test doesn't account for, among many other things).

[BFOJ]

It's great seeing all of you weighing in on this. 

TPSC does testing on most all of the Internet Security applications, pretty much using the same method they tested Malwarebytes.  Don't recall them having such a issue as they did with others, but I'm going with I'm reading here in the forum since I've only seen/heard about one hiccup MB had I think last year, turned off a lot of techies and consumers.  I'm still going to be a staunch MB advocate.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKGe7fZ_S788Jaspxg-_5Sg

On 11/14/2019 at 10:35 AM, Phxflyer said:

I just saw this YouTube review of MB. What are they doing wrong or looking at incorrectly? Or are they right? I know MB gets panned as an antivirus but this is panning MB in it's ability to prevent malware. I'm very skeptical of what they are coming up with and how they doing this test by throwing out dozens of malware loaded links and programs at one time. This doesn't seem realistic????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9clWAlxZloI

 

 

[unknownguy]

21 minutes ago, BFOJ said:

I've only seen/heard about one hiccup MB had I think last year, turned off a lot of techies and consumers. 

I have never heard about this before. When did they kick out techies or consumers? Or are you talking about the so called lifetime license which made people rage?

[Porthos]

1 hour ago, unknownguy said:

I have never heard about this before. When did they kick out techies or consumers? Or are you talking about the so called lifetime license which made people rage?

The legitimate lifetime licenses are NOT "so called". They are still active for a single Windows computer and will always continue to be.

[1PW]

On 11/14/2019 at 7:35 AM, Phxflyer said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9clWAlxZloI

In the case of the above posting, and similar, the educated viewer would surely terminate the video at approximately 1:15 for they know that over one-hundred different types of malware do not instantly appear within their systems.  Nor at this point in time would a reasonably intelligent user disable MB4's extensive protections for the purpose of receiving a file/folder of unknown integrity.

[unknownguy]

On 12/13/2019 at 4:16 AM, Porthos said:

The legitimate lifetime licenses are NOT "so called". They are still active for a single Windows computer and will always continue to be.

I mean if it was because of people that didn't understand that it was for 1 account. I know it have always been.

[Phxflyer]

Would you please start your own thread if you want to talk about lifetime licenses. thank you.

[BFOJ]

On 12/12/2019 at 9:13 PM, unknownguy said:

I have never heard about this before. When did they kick out techies or consumers? Or are you talking about the so called lifetime license which made people rage?

 

 

[exile360]

In the situation being described in the video regarding the lifetime license, every single time I am aware of where this has occurred, the customer contacted Malwarebytes Support (which anyone can do via the form on the bottom of this page) and Support was able to look up their original license/purchase information and get their license back to them.  The only cases I know of where anyone ended up having to buy the subscription version after having issues with their lifetime licenses were either incidents of piracy or where the user could absolutely not prove in any way that they had a lifetime license (i.e. they don't know the name on the credit card used to purchase the license, no Cleverbridge reference number from the purchase, no license key, they don't know the email address registered for the account, they have no receipt, no box/CD if the license came from a physical copy of the software etc.) however such incidents are very rare based on what I've seen.

It sounds like the individual in the video saw that the license info was no longer present, never had the customer attempt to contact Malwarebytes Support and just assumed that the only recourse the customer had was to purchase a single year subscription license, however I am certain Support would have been able to sort the issue out and get the customer their lifetime license key back, and again, I say this because I have seen many occasions where this exact issue happened for various reasons like hard drive failures, the customer reinstalls Windows without writing down their key and they don't have it backed up anywhere, they sell their old computer that had their key on it etc.  Malwarebytes has the history of every legitimate license key documented, so if a customer has an issue like this they really just need to contact Support and they should be able to get it sorted out.

[1PW]

Hello @BFOJ:

The creator of that YouTube video is Mr. Carey Holzman and despite that unfortunate and long since corrected database incident of January 2018 and the other comments, Mr. Holzman currently recommends Malwarebytes Premium to his paid customers and to his several hundred thousand YouTube subscribers and viewers.

My apologies to @Phxflyer for this wild deviation from the original subject of this topic.

Thank you.