Mbamservice.exe - 30 to 80 CPU

[exile360]

I have been able to replicate this and I've reported it to the developers. Hopefully they will be able to resolve the issue.

[mountaintree16]

Actually, I'm fairly positive that Comodo wants to work with us on compatibility issues.

That's great

[mountaintree16]

Adding exclusions to the anti-virus is always the best solution. As Doug (our VP of development) has pointed out, compatibility issues between MBAM and an anti-virus are rarely the fault of MBAM. Our protection module does not work like a normal anti-virus does. It only scans each application as they launch, so MBAM is not constantly monitoring the processes from your anti-virus (it only checks them once when they first execute). On the other hand, if I am not mistaken, your average anti-virus will constantly monitor the processes from MBAM, and scan any file they access (as long as it is a file type that they are set up to scan), which is why adding exclusions for MBAM's processes and files to your anti-virus software always solves compatibility issues. As long as your anti-virus software leaves MBAM alone, then compatibility issues pretty much never happen.

Thanks for that explanation, GT! While I already had a pretty good understanding of how Mbam works in regards to/relation with an antivirus (as well as how it handles files it monitors), your explanation really helped to solidify that understanding for me

[1PW]

Update:

At the suggestion of thoughtful Comodo forum moderators, I added the %ProgramFiles%\Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware folder as an entry to their "Interprocess Memory Access" exceptions. IMO this entry has made no detectable change on the elevated CPU usage of mbamservice.exe while Comodo's CIS 5.0 is also running.

I have offered to purchase a full activation license for MBAM to assist any Comodo staffer in their further research of this problem.

I still strongly believe that these two applications can be made to coexist.

[exile360]

I tried adding all exclusions to CIS for MBAM and even went as far as uninstalling or disabling every single component of CIS (including all Defense+ options) and the issue still persisted unless CIS was completely uninstalled. Our development team is already working with COMODO to get this issue resolved so hopefully they will find a way to allow the two to coexist without resource conflicts.

[1PW]

I tried adding all exclusions to CIS for MBAM and even went as far as uninstalling or disabling every single component of CIS (including all Defense+ options) and the issue still persisted unless CIS was completely uninstalled. Our development team is already working with COMODO to get this issue resolved so hopefully they will find a way to allow the two to coexist without resource conflicts.

Hello exile360:

On my system with the least resources, I uninstalled COMODO CIS 5.0 and reinstalled with this variation; during the install process, I denied the installation of either flavor of Defense+. This of course resulted in the installation of their free firewall only and mbamservice.exe is then quite normal!

How this differs from a default install followed by turning off Defense+, I don't know. Had I left the install process to continue on the default path, I would have seen 80+% CPU usage for mbamservice.exe on this Pentium III E system.

For me, this is an acceptable workaround candidate! I'll report my findings in the COMODO forum also.

<https://forums.comodo.com/install-setup-configuration-help-cis/cis-50162636-vs-mbam-t62001.0.html>

Thank you for your time and trouble.

[noknojon]

Hello noknojon:

We may need to consider an approach where the least experienced Full version MBAM user need not engage the services of an expert just to permit their system to run correctly

Sorry but these are the findings of the companies involved - I only added items that both companies usually agree on -

Regards -

[1PW]

Sorry but these are the findings of the companies involved - I only added items that both companies usually agree on -

Regards -

Hello noknojon:

In this individual instance, one of the COMODO moderators believes that a COMODO CIS 5.0 software bug has been uncovered. At their suggestion, I've opened a COMODO CIS bug report.

<http://forums.comodo.com/bug-reports-cis/default-install-of-cis-501626361135-makes-mbamserviceexe-a-cpu-hog-t62437.0.html#new>

I suppose the reason I object to adding exceptions to MBAM is that security holes are opened were malware may flourish.

I still strongly believe that the default install versions of these two applications can be made to work well together.

Best wishes to you.

[exile360]

Here's a temporary workaround that I've been able to verify to resolve the problem until a permanent fix has been implemented:

Make CIS v5 Work with Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware's Protection Module:

• Open Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and click on the Protection tab
  
• Uncheck Start protection module with Windows.
  
• Restart your computer
  
• Open COMODO Internet Security and click on the Defense+ button
  
• Click on Defense+ Settings
  
• Check the box next to Deactivate the Defense+ permanently (Requires a system restart)
  
• Click Yes when prompted to restart your computer
  
• After your computer restarts, open Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and click on the Protection tab
  
• Check the box next to Enable protection module.
  
• Check the box next to Start protection module with Windows.
  
• Restart your computer to verify that mbamservice.exe is now running without using excessive amounts of CPU when the system is idle
  

[1PW]

COMODO CIS vs mbamservice.exe Update