Jump to content

Malwarebytes for Mac 4.7 beta


Recommended Posts

  • Staff

We have released Malwarebytes for Mac 4.7 into the beta channel today, so you should get it if you have the "Beta application updates" setting turned on.

There's nothing really visibly new in this release, but we made some significant optimizations and improvements to the scan engine for detecting browser extensions. The code is both more efficient and more accurate.

The biggest thing we'd like to hear about is any issues you see with scanning, and a general feel for how fast you think scans are now vs before. If you've been having CPU usage issues, does this beta solve that, only help in part, or not help at all?

If you find any issues, please report them by replying to this message.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FEEDBACK

  • Installation took place automatically. 
  • No problem, even after a Mac restart. 
  • The number of scanned items has increased, compared to the average, of about 20%.
  • Scan times are about the same as before.
  • I've never had any particular CPU usage issues.
  • There are always some usage peaks, but they decrease within a few moments of viewing within the Activity Monitor but I think it's normal that there are.
  • However, I have never encountered particular problems with slowing down the machine or starting the fans: it could also be because I mostly use the Mac for Internet Browsing, Mail, Office. 

The only thing that is still missing, unfortunately, is support for Apple M1; I hope it will be released, at least in beta, as soon as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello @treed:

The Malwarebytes for Mac app automatically updated to v4.7.8 and took place on my MBP11,3 in the early evening Thursday local time.  A later manual scan seems to be about 30% longer to over three minutes and that's not objectionable to me.  Now, the number of reported scanned objects is significantly larger.

I'll pay a bit more attention to RTProtectionDaemon activity over the next few macOS restarts.  Thank you to all for the new beta.

 

Screen Shot 2021-01-14 at 23.16.35.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manually updated after reading this announcement. Detected once less PUP than usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Staff
4 hours ago, 1PW said:

Now, the number of reported scanned objects is significantly larger.

I see the same thing here. I'm guessing that the way it's reporting the number of objects when scanning browser extensions has changed with the improvements to that code. Do you have a large number of browser extensions on your system, or a few very large browser extensions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, treed said:

Do you have a large number of browser extensions on your system, or a few very large browser extensions?

Hello @treed:

I use 2 extensions with Safari and 12 with Firefox.  Would a MWB_info.zip uploaded archive be helpful?

HTH

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Staff

Nope, I don't think it's an issue, just a change in reporting. If the counts changed for browser extensions (for example, reporting on all the files present inside an extension rather than counting each extension as one), having 14 extensions on the system could easily cause such a change.

However, I'm going to verify this with the dev team on Monday. Just to confirm with you, the scan didn't take longer than previously, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, treed said:

Just to confirm with you, the scan didn't take longer than previously, right?

I apologize to you for any ambiguity.  The manual scan does take longer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Staff
27 minutes ago, 1PW said:

I apologize to you for any ambiguity.  The manual scan does take longer. 

Is this consistent, or just that first time? About how much longer does the scan take?

Also, are you comparing manual scans with scheduled scans, or manuals scans now with manual scans when you were doing them in version 4.6?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello @treed:

4 hours ago, treed said:

Is this consistent, or just that first time? About how much longer does the scan take?

My personal recollection, from yesterday evening, is the v4.7.8 manual took up to a minute longer versus those of v4.6.12.  Alas, I made no historic v4.6.12 screenshots.

Quote

Also, are you comparing manual scans with scheduled scans, or manuals scans now with manual scans when you were doing them in version 4.6?

No.  My manual scans always seem shorter.  I observed long ago that scheduled scans take longer.  However, I understand the difference and I never found the difference personally objectionable.

For the sake of data that could be documented, I followed the Malwarebytes for Mac uninstall procedures and went back to v4.6.12.  Then I ran a manual scan and captured the result with a screenshot.  Following that, I upgraded to v4.7.8, ran a manual scan and captured the results with a screenshot.

I sincerely hope these observations are much more useful.  Of course any other data is yours for the asking.

History Report - Screen Shot 2021-01-15 at 18.02.49.png

4.6.12 manual scan Screen Shot 2021-01-15 at 17.49.31.png

4.7.8 manual scan Screen Shot 2021-01-15 at 17.57.55.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, treed said:

Did it miss something that you think it should have detected? If so, what was that?

I couldn't tell for certain what it was, but I believe it was a component of ReiBoot (Tenorshare). In any case, tonights scan found them all again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • treed unpinned this topic

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.