Kaspersky vs Malwarebytes

[TexMcFaden]

I"m curious to hear back from Malwarebytes how their product differs from Kaspersky..... how it compliments Kaspersky's design and intentions... etc.

I have the Internet suite and love Kaspersky, but have had people advise me to use Malwarebytes as well... and it has found 1 or 2 items that had not been dealt with by Kaspersky, but I'm not sure if that's simply because the malware popped up between RootKit scans.... or if they were even true malware items that needed to be removed.

Do I need both? Does having both present any complications that I need to know about? Anything that makes the two programs run more smoothly together?

Thanks!

~Tex

[MAM]

My only advise that i can give you, use both of it

But belive me, every Antivirus Vendor can bring out some Falseposetive, that is so

And for a Workearound, compare Kaspersky, with Malwarebytes' Antimalware commpany...?!

I will not bad, or evil spelling against (about) Malwarebytes' Antimalware, that is not my intention, you know ok ?

But, in this securety sector give it not 100 % SECURETY !!!

Mistakes happens, thats Live

Sorry for my gibberish, writing. English are not my native Languages

MAM

[srtools1980y]

Hi

Kaspersky is an A/V soft & Malwarebytes is an anti-malware soft.

For optimum protection of your system you should have both installed.

Both of the softs compliment each other. What one leaves the other will catch.

One A/V soft + one anti-malware soft will give what is known as Layered Protection to your system.

[yardbird]

some more reading, 3 days old.. http://www.malwarebytes.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=26895

[MAM]

That was my statement, so silly in this issue ?

Iam sad

MAM

[GT500]

I"m curious to hear back from Malwarebytes how their product differs from Kaspersky..... how it compliments Kaspersky's design and intentions... etc.

Kaspersky is pretty good at anti-virus. But, at the same time, no anti-virus is good against things like rootkits, and they tend to lag behind a bit on the random trojans that drop other malware (such is the bane of signature based detection). We focus on being strong where good anti-virus solutions like Kaspersky are weak. We seek to complement their protection, but not to replace it!

Towards the ends of complementing good anti-virus software, we focus less attention on things that anti-virus software is already good at. Our researchers and developers dive headlong into the things that anti-virus software has difficulty with and where their detection rates are not strong or consistent. We believe that there is no point in doing the same thing that everyone else is doing, and we fight to take out the malware that everyone else has trouble with. This focus on the toughest and hardest malware allows us to spend more time on it, and often come up with better solutions to detect and eradicate it.

We don't expect to be the only tool that you use, but our team works hard to ensure that MBAM is the tool that experts turn to in areas where everyone else fails.

[MAM]

Manny cogitations, in my mind Sorry.

MAM

[TexMcFaden]

Thank you so much for the answers... they addressed my concerns and increased my understanding, which was somewhat vague.

I feel much more comfortable using both together and better understand how they fit together like a hand in a glove.

:-)

[ItsNews2Me]

Hi, Kaspersky is an A/V soft & Malwarebytes is an anti-malware soft ...

Kaspersky is pretty good at anti-virus. But, at the same time, no anti-virus is good against things like rootkits, and they tend to lag behind a bit on the random trojans that drop other malware (such is the bane of signature based detection). We focus on being strong where good anti-virus solutions like Kaspersky are weak. We seek to complement their protection, but not to replace it! ...

Excuse me, but if you are referring to "Kaspersky Internet Security 2010", BOTH you guys are 100% WRONG!!!

Kaspersky 2010 protects against ALL malware including, Viruses, Spyware, RootKits, Trojans, and on and on!!

I'm the newbie here, but I HIGHLY suggest you go to: http://usa.kaspersky.com/products_services...p?icid=50000028, read up, ... AND THEN RE-ANSWER THIS FELLOW'S QUESTION because I was going to ask the same question!!

Thanks.

[Falkra]

Hi,

Kaspersky is an antivirus, with anti-malware features.

MBAM is an antimalware, dedicated only to this, with some antivirus features, and there is no problem using both of them, second line of defense...

Why don't you answer to the link you post ? I see no question. Just advertising.

You say all malware ? Why ? You only give a list of malwares types. Kaspersky is a good product and the teams work well, so does MBAM : use both for good protection, but don't discard one of them.

I highly suggest this.

[yardbird]

@ ItsNews2Me

Welcome to Malwarebytes! Please ask your question. Or tell us what the issue/problem is?

[AdvancedSetup]

Everyone please calm down. ItsNews2Me did ask his question. His question was the same as TexMcFaden's question.

Kaspersky vs Malwarebytes, Advantages? Overlap? Need for both?

He then simply (well maybe with a bit of attitude) stated that he did not agree with the reply from GT500 which is fine as long as it goes no further.

@ItsNews2Me

You're welcome to post your ideas and opinions however you're not free to do so with malice, anger, etc directed at any other members of the forum.

Please remain courteous and polite to everyone just the same as you'd like to be treated.

Thank you.

[Bobs your uncle]

I dont know about a comparison between Kapersky and Malwarebytes since I haven't used Kaspersky but I would like to comment on MalwareBytes vs other antiviruses in general. MalwareBytes due to its small size in comparison to Tier 1 vendors can afford to take certain false positive risks in its detection that other AV vendors wouldn't dream of taking. The comment about "We believe that there is no point in doing the same thing that everyone else is doing, and we fight to take out the malware that everyone else has trouble with" is more about using a highly risky though highly effective technique against certain classes of malware that the other guys have trouble with. Called side-effects scanning, where one looks tell-tale signes in the registry and file system instead of looking at the file contents itself. As you can see from the False Positives Forum, there are a lot of FPs.

So MBAM is really doing nothing innovative, its just using its small size and therefore low exposure to implement a highly risky (and highly effective) technique that the big boys have known about for years but I suspect are too scared to implement.

[GT500]

You'll have to forgive me, as my Internet connection died, and I am typing this on a Palm Pre (browser on this thing is somewhat retarded).

Our scanning and detection methods go far beyond "If it looks like malware, and acts like malware, then it's probably malware." While our detection algorithms are closely guarded secretes, I can say that they employ numerous methods of determining if something is malware. These heuristics are no more prone to false positives than any other form of heuristics (less in my experience, but everone's mileage varies).

[Strangedays]

I use both and I like both of them. As stated above layered protection is the way to go.

[exile360]

I use both of them myself and I can vouch for the fact (note: I said fact) that MBAM has caught things in realtime that Kaspersky let slip by. I have KAV cranked up all the way (maximum heuristics, maximum scan settings etc), but it does miss sometimes. MBAM has caught at least 3 nasties that Kaspersky had missed that I can recall off the top of my head. I believe in a layered approach to security but most antivirus vendors disagree, but I believe that no one group of researchers or antivirus product, no matter how good their detection rates are and their heuristics etc, can catch 100% of the infections out there on the net that a user might run into on any given day, there's just too much malware and it's always mutating to try to avoid detection.

[noknojon]

@ exile360 -

You may note he was refering to KIS , not KAV -

I found KIS to be somewhat less effective than KAV - You use KAV , not KIS which I think is a slightly different program -

If I went back to Kasper I think would go to KAV next time - Just my personal observations ////

EDIT _

Effective may not be the right term - Ease of use may be better -

[exile360]

KIS is a bit different, it adds HIPS+Firewall, but the heuristics are identical and so are the definitions . So the detection rates are the same.

[noknojon]

KIS is a bit different, it adds HIPS+Firewall, but the heuristics are identical and so are the definitions . So the detection rates are the same.

That was why I added "ease of use" For me personally - (I may just be harder to please after Avira) -

Of course With MBAM also -

[dipper6]

My fav AV program is NOD32, I have tried quite alot, kaspersky, Anti-vira, Vipre, I cant remember the others, about 7 of them.

Anyway, of them all its NOD32 by a long shot followed by VIPRE (this one is sold by Sunbelt).

My system has

NOD32 AV

Agnitum Outpost Firewall

Malware bytes

They are in my Sys Tray monitoring all that is going on.

For manual scanning only,

SUPERAntiSpyware

Spybot

and Trojan Hunter.

I have no problems with any of them.

[Bobs your uncle]

These heuristics are no more prone to false positives than any other form of heuristics (less in my experience, but everone's mileage varies).

Your false positive forums tell a completely different story. I have been reading through them and some of the postings clearly indicate how fast and loose MBAM plays. Take the example of the user that installed TextPad and then configured TextPad to be launched instead when someone tries to launch Notepad. Well, guess what, that configuration puts Notepad.exe in the Image Execution Options Reg key and MBAM triggered on that! Basically the signature appeared to be looking for the sub-key Notepad.exe in the Image Execution Options. Wow. Seriously.

There are many examples in the False Positive forums like this. So yes, MBAM is more FP prone than Top Tier vendors (with the exception of McAfee's Artemis that FPs like hell).

[GT500]

... Basically the signature appeared to be looking for the sub-key Notepad.exe in the Image Execution Options. Wow. Seriously.

That's because no legitimate software (at least that I am aware of) does that. If a user wants to edit settings that trigger false positives, then that isn't the fault of the heuristics.

Now, I can understand wanting to make such a change, but I've also never heard of anyone doing this (aside from the example you pointed out, of course). The point I'm trying to make is, if you do something abnormal to your system, expect security software to complain about it. There are other popular tools where the real time protection would have asked for confirmation that such a modification was legitimate.

There are many examples in the False Positive forums like this. So yes, MBAM is more FP prone than Top Tier vendors (with the exception of McAfee's Artemis that FPs like hell).

I rarely come across false positives on the helpdesk, and I never come across them when I'm working on a friend's computer. If our software was false positive prone, then it would not be recommended as one of the malware removal steps at the higher traffic malware removal forums.

[kaixi]

@Bobs your uncle: I've never had any false positive problems with MBAM. I'm using Malwarebytes free and I recommend this program wholeheartedly to anyone with malware problems. MBAM has saved the computers of my family and my friends on a several occasions. MBAM is just impressive when dealing with nasty malware and rogues. On the other hand, this is something I can't say about the "Top tier vendors", and I have used a lot of AVs (ESET, Avira, Kaspersky, Norton, AVG, Avast, Norman, Panda...); they all let a lot of malware get through, slow down the system noticeably, have a lot of false positives ( especially Avira), and the installation files are huge sometimes (Gdata = 250 MB).

That's why now I no longer use any AV software but a HIPS with Malwarebytes and Superantispyware as on demand scanners. So far, 0 viruses.

[ItsNews2Me]

Everyone please calm down. ItsNews2Me did ask his question. His question was the same as TexMcFaden's question. He then simply (well maybe with a bit of attitude) stated that he did not agree with the reply from GT500 which is fine as long as it goes no further. ItsNews2Me - You're welcome to post your ideas and opinions however you're not free to do so with malice, anger, etc directed at any other members of the forum. Please remain courteous and polite to everyone just the same as you'd like to be treated. Thank you.

Sorry, no malice or anger intended.

[mountaintree16]

@ kaixi

I'm glad that you find MBAM such a great product!

However, an antivirus still must always be your first line of defense. Please install an antivirus as soon as possible! Let us know if you need any recommendations and/or links Malwarebytes is designed to complement your antivirus, not replace it.