If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
"FredW" wrote
| According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at | the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they | made a false positive and why they made a false positive. | That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect Malwarebytes | to correct false positives when you do not want to tell anything? | The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware and warn about it. Since MB is prone to melodrama and false positives it's not a safe product to use for most people. Why MB attracts such a zealous fan base is a mystery to me. Just because you love MB that doesn't grant them some kind of authority. False positives are becoming a widespread problem. Partly because the methods to identify malware are faulty and partly because security software companies risk their reputation less from false positives than from not catching real malware. So they increasingly err on the side of caution. I would never recommend MB to anyone because most of the people I know don't know enough to assess MB's cries of wolf to decide whether one of them is valid. Very few people do. My own experience with MB showed it to be a dangerous program that could easily do damage if allowed to make its own decisions. I've run into similar false positives with my own software from Avira. Someone wrote to tell me about it. Otherwise I would have had no idea. My attempt to contact Avira resulted only in robo-responses. No one was minding the store. But even if they were responsive, why is it my job to make sure all security software recognizes my software? Should I buy and/or install all AV products on a test machine and run every compile past them? That would be absurd. Their whole job is to tell the difference between malware and legitimate software. To put the responsibility on the software author is to move toward a corporatizing of the whole business, where unknown software is automatically categorized as malware and thus only large, corporate software products are used. It's known as whitelisting. Guilty until proven innocent. And who gets to create the whitelist? Big corporations with money. I ran into a similar situation awhile back with email. Arnold Arboretum, a branch of Harvard University, had set their email filter to a whitelist. Only known, approved sources could get through. My ladyfriend was volunteering there, leading student groups on plant tours. But our ISP was not on their whitelist. (Even though we use RCN, which is pretty big in these parts.) So she couldn't get through. As it turned out, their IT man was helpless to do anything because the whole system had been subbed out. Harvard University.... with a $50B+ endowment and more brilliant bluebloods than you can shake a stick at... yet they can't even manage to operate their own email server. So their email system is gravely faulty AND they don't realize it. They don't even have a system in place to allow someone to realize it. It's not part of the tech guy's job! Further, that kind of bad management makes it difficult for people to not give all their business to a few large companies. I found myself in a situation where a potentially anonymous, sleazy, spyware gmail account would be more trusted than a legitimate ISP account. In other words, what you're advocating is a kind of whitelisting. Such a move would make MB, and other AV-type software, even less useful than they are now. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
"FredW" wrote
| As to your other stories about Avira (an excellent German anti-virus | program) and your whitelisting problems with your girl friend, they may | be very interesting, but I do not see the relevance to Malwarebytes. | The point being that sloppy false positives well are on the way to whitelisting, which in this case would mean a positive for malware unless the software has been submitted for approval and there's a byte signature on hand to ID it. Submitting one's software to AV companies for approval *is* whitelisting. That's what you were suggesting. The one time I tried MB it wanted to delete my boot manager/imaging program, BootIt, and it wanted to change several Registry settings. It offered no detailed explanation. The settings were just classified "PUPs", with yellow alerts, and the boot manager was given a "red alert" along with a convincing name: Backdoor Bifrose In other words, MB didn't say, "We're not sure about this one. You should check it further." Instead it said, "Red Alert Will Robinson!! Kill This!! It's a monster known as Backdoor Bifrose!!" 9 out of 10 people would have started to tremble and allowed MB to delete the file, as well as change the Registry settings. After all, it's malware, right? Whew. Close call.... Then they would have had no idea what was wrong later when their computer wouldn't boot. That's not exageration. The MB people have no business being so sloppy. Before saying something is known malware and should be deleted, they should be very certain about it. Obviously they are not. If you're handy with computers and like MB that seems fine to me. I've used it a couple of times when I needed to check out someone's machine. A few opinions are always handy and it's easy to check things out with free, portable AV/malware programs. But I would never recommend MB to a "civilian". In that context I'd have to say it's junk that's likely to do more harm than good. It's true that I don't think much of AV and think less of MB. But I speak up mostly just to provide some counterbalance to the general trend of people thinking the more bug hunters they have, the better off they'll be. There are real risks. Not to mention the false sense of security. But I do install AV for friends who don't know how to be careful. I then set it only to scan new files. So it's a minimal resource risk but keeps an eye on things. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
FredW wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2018 09:27:27 -0400, "Mayayana" wrote: "FredW" wrote | According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at | the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they | made a false positive and why they made a false positive. | That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect Malwarebytes | to correct false positives when you do not want to tell anything? | The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware and warn about it. I am very sorry, but I prefer an answer of Dustin himself. I know you do not like anti-virus and likewise software It's a lazy lazy AV company, that relies on "software popularity" or "how many people downloaded this software", as a means to detect "malware". That is a ridiculous metric. Might as well hide inside an App Store, with an umbrella over your head for protection. https://78.media.tumblr.com/0268bc78...2Gj1s6gli3.jpg It's the antithesis of having a computer, if you can't run anything on it because "you're too scared". Some companies implement heuristics, but at least when they fail, you understand why. When I would use Kaspersky, half the programs in Sysinternals web site, would trigger it. You couldn't run a Process Explorer or a Process Monitor, because of the "suspicious" behavior of a program actually looking at system innards. But at least this is an honest mistake. A perfectly valid algorithm is being used, even if the results are not what you expected. I can't blame them for doing that. It's pretty hard to whitelist every valid program on the face of the earth, to stop that outcome. But if I compile my own little Hello World program in gcc, and my MalwareBytes or Avira or whatever quarantines that (based on the hash never having been seen before), then I am living in a sad sad world. Only the most lazy companies use that as a metric and algorithm. ****, I could write software that dumb. Maybe I should go into the AV business. Paul |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
"Paul" wrote
| Only the most lazy companies use that as a metric | and algorithm. ****, I could write software that dumb. | Maybe I should go into the AV business. | Sounds like a good idea. As long as you give it away free I/m sure you'll clean up. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
FredW
Mon, 14 May 2018 12:59:54 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On Sun, 13 May 2018 17:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote: Diesel news:XnsA8E11795F8E6BHT1 Sun, 13 May 2018 06:11:47 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: aiole news in alt.windows7.general, wrote: Just updated Malwarebytes to latest. Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE ! Erm.. No. Addendum: Sigh. Yes, I am aware that you have a deep grudge against Malwarebytes and that you do not get tired in showing so again and again and again. (and now in more and more newsgroups) ROFL. Yes, my pointing out your inability to notice a false positive and blaming the OP for it is evidence of a deep grudge against them. Please do yourself a favor and let go and turn to better causes. Please, do yourself a favor, learn how MBAM works. That way, when it does something it shouldn't be doing, you know what steps to take to correct it. -- To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php ================================================== = I wrestled with reality for 35 years and I finally won - Elwood P Dowd |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
"Mayayana" news
Mon, 14 May 2018 13:27:27 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:
"FredW" wrote | According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive | but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes | that they made a false positive and why they made a false | positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you really | expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you do not | want to tell anything? | The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware and warn about it. Since MB is prone to melodrama and false positives it's not a safe product to use for most people. Why MB attracts such a zealous fan base is a mystery to me. Just because you love MB that doesn't grant them some kind of authority. Nor does it grant him permission to make up stories about my trying to keep what needs to be done to fix it a secret. I *never* tried any such thing, and, infact, wrote on more than one occasion in this very thread what needs to be done to have this issue properly corrected. False positives are becoming a widespread problem. Partly because the methods to identify malware are faulty and partly because security software companies risk their reputation less from false positives than from not catching real malware. So they increasingly err on the side of caution. There identification and research methods are unlike anything I've experienced or known beforehand. And, the result, sadly, is a slew of false positives. Malwarebytes is the ONLY company I know of, seriously, that has people with no programming background or knowledge play the role of malware researcher. I would never recommend MB to anyone because most of the people I know don't know enough to assess MB's cries of wolf to decide whether one of them is valid. Very few people do. My own experience with MB showed it to be a dangerous program that could easily do damage if allowed to make its own decisions. I stopped recommending MBAM several years ago when I had to clean up a huge mess they made for me on a clients machine due to another false positive. It took me hours to fix it. And when I was finished, MB was removed from ALL of those machines. It'll never be reinstalled on them so long as they're my clients. I've run into similar false positives with my own software from Avira. Someone wrote to tell me about it. Otherwise I would have had no idea. My attempt to contact Avira resulted only in robo-responses. No one was minding the store. But even if they were responsive, why is it my job to make sure all security software recognizes my software? Should I buy and/or install all AV products on a test machine and run every compile past them? That would be absurd. I had the same problem with BugHunter when I initially released it. Although I did identify the false hit they were getting, I opted to have them remove it properly vs me moving things around in my source code to evade it. It took about a month or so before it showed as clean. -- To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php ================================================== = Plasma is another matter. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
FredW
Mon, 14 May 2018 12:52:01 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: [snip] Thank you for encouraging the troll to blame everybody for his self-created problems, but himself. I didn't encourage any such thing, I simply pointed out the fact that yourself and two others, gave malwarebytes a free pass for a false positive that is an issue with the malwarebytes definitions, not his program. He did not know (and did not want to know) how to specify his programs as exclusions so he would not have the problems he is complaining about. And when I gave the solution he switched to other fake problems. False hits are not fake problems. It's unlikely his programs are the only ones hit by those definitions, either. Using the exclusion list is a bandaid approach which doesn't solve the underlying issue. That being, malwarebytes has bad definitions which should be corrected. According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they made a false positive and why they made a false positive. Partially correct. Malwarebytes IS to blame for the false positives; they're the only ones who create the definitions malwarebytes uses. What's not correct in your comment is your accusation that I wanted to keep any of that a secret. From my first reply to the OP: MID: What to do ? Contact them, send samples of your programs when requested to do so (yes, you'll need to do that in order for them to track down the definition(s) responsible) so that it can be corrected in a later definitions update. I've consistently suggested Malwarebytes be contacted and samples submitted so they can track down the bad definitions and correct or remove them from the database. I've made NO effort whatsoever to make things difficult for Malwarebytes to do this. And certainly no effort to keep what needs to be done a secret. That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you do not want to tell anything? It would make more sense to you if you actually read what I wrote, instead of making wild assumptions as you've done here. I didn't try to keep anything a 'secret'. I told the OP from the first reply what they should do, I've also said the same thing in other replies on this very thread. Contact malwarebytes and submit samples when requested to do so. I don't know how I could possibly be any more clear than that. And, you might also want to read this article: http://software-reviews.com/review?id=3 Effectiveness The program has its own criteria for detecting software as potentially unwanted, and unfortunately those criteria appear to be too broad now, as the program produced over a dozen false positives in our tests. Getting the incorrect PUA detects added to exclusions proved to be a challenge and did not work for a couple of programs at all. Another thing we noticed was the fact that MBAM did not detect quite a few older malware samples in our tests, which amounted to about 40% of the malware the test system was infected with. Regardless, it remains a very useful tool for malware removal. ** end paste. Those are not very good statistics. Especially for a program that's advertised as an outright replacement for your current antivirus product. There's a reason Malwarbytes has not submitted the program for independent review and testing like the major antivirus companies do. They *know* they'd fail those tests miserably. -- To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php ================================================== = Cats must crawl into the dishwasher when it is full of clean dishes. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
FredW
Mon, 14 May 2018 14:12:52 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2018 09:27:27 -0400, "Mayayana" wrote: "FredW" wrote | According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive | but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to | Malwarebytes that they made a false positive and why they made a | false positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you | really expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you | do not want to tell anything? | The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware and warn about it. I am very sorry, but I prefer an answer of Dustin himself. I've provided one. You're more than welcome to explain where you got the silly idea that I was trying to keep how to fix the issue a secret from Malwarebytes or anyone else though. I really don't know where you got that idea, but, I'm certainly interested in learning. I have been using MBAM (Malware Bytes Anti Malware) for many years and I never had problems, for me it is totally safe to use and I have never problems with false positives. Good for you. You're in the minority though. Of course I use it as complimentary to my regular anti-virus program and not as a single anti-whatever program. Why not? According to Malwarebytes, you don't need your antivirus anymore; their product alone can take care of your needs. In my opinion, you'd be a fool if you believed that, but, I digress, that IS what they are claiming these days. Contrary to your assumption, I advocate nothing. I have only suggested that OP learns how to use MBAM. You suggested the OP is to blame for the false positive hits and that he should just add his programs to the exclusion list. That's bad advice on a good day. The problem is with Malwarebytes. Samples of the files it's hitting on need to be sent to them so that the bad definitions can be isolated and corrected. Even Dustin (Diesel) tells us that learning to use MBAM should not be difficult, but nevertheless seems to be a huge problem to OP. It has a very nice windows based hand holding gui. The problem the OP is having isn't how to use the software, it's a false positive the software is getting with his programs. Adding his work to the exclusion list isn't going to fix the real issue. Do you expect him to add each recompiled version from here on out to the exclusions list? Or, wouldn't it make more sense to have the problem corrected? -- To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php ================================================== = The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one -- George Bernard Shaw |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
FredW
Tue, 15 May 2018 21:32:56 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2018 20:43:58 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote: FredW m Mon, 14 May 2018 14:12:52 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2018 09:27:27 -0400, "Mayayana" wrote: "FredW" wrote | According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive | but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to | Malwarebytes that they made a false positive and why they made | a false positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you | really expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you | do not want to tell anything? | The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware and warn about it. I am very sorry, but I prefer an answer of Dustin himself. I've provided one. You're more than welcome to explain where you got the silly idea that I was trying to keep how to fix the issue a secret from Malwarebytes or anyone else though. I really don't know where you got that idea, but, I'm certainly interested in learning. Thank you for calling my words a silly idea. If you had read more carefully you would have understood. I read what you wrote. It's right he MID: According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they made a false positive and why they made a false positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you do not want to tell anything? ** end paste Malwarebytes IS to blame for the false positive, but, I didn't try to keep anything related to fixing it a secret. So, yes, you stating that I had in some way done that, was a silly idea to me. Especially when the first post I wrote on the subject, CLEARLY explains what the OP should do to have it corrected. I made no effort to keep how to fix it a secret from malwarebytes or anyone else. I have been using MBAM (Malware Bytes Anti Malware) for many years and I never had problems, for me it is totally safe to use and I have never problems with false positives. Good for you. You're in the minority though. Minority in how many millions of users? I assure you, you're in the minority for having never recieved a false positive (You probably have, but may have mistaken it for being a legitimate hit). You're also in the minority if you've never experienced even a single problem with the software. I dealt with thousands of users on the forums alone who had issues with the software. That doesn't include god only knows how many more users were also having problems with the software, but, didn't post to the forums. As a certified technician responsible for keeping several small business networks online as well as home users, I can't tell you Malwarebytes is perfectly safe to use and wouldn't keep me up at night if it was still allowed on the machines I'm responsible for. I've seen too many false positives which resulted in the system being unusable for the user as a result. I don't like cleaning up after their messes (especially when I can't bill for the time). As of their last little stunt with a false positive that took several workstations completely down for one particular business, that was the end of Malwarebytes being allowed to exist on any machines I provide support for, unless the machines owner simply insists upon having it AND understands that I will bill for my time if that software breaks anything. If I acquire a new client and I see Malwarebytes on the machine, we have a discussion concerning it, right then. BEFORE I'll accept the job. If they want to keep Malwarebytes, it's with the understanding that when/if it does something that causes harm, I'm (a) not responsible and (b) will bill for the time spent fixing the mess they caused. if those two conditions are acceptable, I'll take the job and allow the software to remain. As long as they completely understand, I won't do free repair work when it trashes something the system needs. And, it will. It's just a matter of time these days. Of course I use it as complimentary to my regular anti-virus program and not as a single anti-whatever program. Why not? According to Malwarebytes, you don't need your antivirus anymore; their product alone can take care of your needs. I hoped for a serious answer, but I understand you are not willing and / or able to do so. You didn't ask any question. My question was a serious one. Malwarebytes (in the event you've been living under a rock) does claim their software is good enough now that you no longer need your antivirus program, they have your back, without it. What question do you think you asked of me that I won't or otherwise can't answer, Fred? In my opinion, you'd be a fool if you believed that, but, I digress, that IS what they are claiming these days. Oh dear, there we go again. Mocking Malwarebytes in a condescending way. Oh? Since when is it mocking when you rightfully call someone a fool if they believe absurd marketing claims? Is that not one of the definitions of a fool? Malwarebytes is marketing itself as a total and complete REPLACEMENT for your current antivirus. When it has nothing evidence wise, independent test results, etc, nothing basically, to support the claims. They are touting the west coast labs AV certification.. But, that's been called into question too, primarily because Malwarebytes engine knows NOTHING about viruses. Several of us aren't quite sure how they got that certification without having to scan for a single actual virus. Perhaps a large amount of $$$ changed hands? Or, west coast certification requirements were laxed so Malwarebytes could get certified? Hard to say for sure. Only that somethings off with the certification because the certified software doesn't deal with actual viruses, at all. No use talking to you anymore. Fred, I'm sorry if you take facts as a personal attack on you or your opinion of the software. Facts don't judge. they are what they are. Have a nice day. You too. -- To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php ================================================== = Cats are good lapwarmers for modemers. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
Diesel wrote on 5/15/2018 10:48 PM:
FredW Tue, 15 May 2018 21:32:56 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2018 20:43:58 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote: FredW Mon, 14 May 2018 14:12:52 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2018 09:27:27 -0400, "Mayayana" wrote: "FredW" wrote | According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive | but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to | Malwarebytes that they made a false positive and why they made | a false positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you | really expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you | do not want to tell anything? | The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware and warn about it. I am very sorry, but I prefer an answer of Dustin himself. I've provided one. You're more than welcome to explain where you got the silly idea that I was trying to keep how to fix the issue a secret from Malwarebytes or anyone else though. I really don't know where you got that idea, but, I'm certainly interested in learning. Thank you for calling my words a silly idea. If you had read more carefully you would have understood. I read what you wrote. It's right he MID: According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they made a false positive and why they made a false positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you do not want to tell anything? ** end paste Malwarebytes IS to blame for the false positive, but, I didn't try to keep anything related to fixing it a secret. So, yes, you stating that I had in some way done that, was a silly idea to me. Especially when the first post I wrote on the subject, CLEARLY explains what the OP should do to have it corrected. I made no effort to keep how to fix it a secret from malwarebytes or anyone else. I have been using MBAM (Malware Bytes Anti Malware) for many years and I never had problems, for me it is totally safe to use and I have never problems with false positives. Good for you. You're in the minority though. Minority in how many millions of users? I assure you, you're in the minority for having never recieved a false positive (You probably have, but may have mistaken it for being a legitimate hit). You're also in the minority if you've never experienced even a single problem with the software. I dealt with thousands of users on the forums alone who had issues with the software. That doesn't include god only knows how many more users were also having problems with the software, but, didn't post to the forums. As a certified technician responsible for keeping several small business networks online as well as home users, I can't tell you Malwarebytes is perfectly safe to use and wouldn't keep me up at night if it was still allowed on the machines I'm responsible for. I've seen too many false positives which resulted in the system being unusable for the user as a result. I don't like cleaning up after their messes (especially when I can't bill for the time). As of their last little stunt with a false positive that took several workstations completely down for one particular business, that was the end of Malwarebytes being allowed to exist on any machines I provide support for, unless the machines owner simply insists upon having it AND understands that I will bill for my time if that software breaks anything. If I acquire a new client and I see Malwarebytes on the machine, we have a discussion concerning it, right then. BEFORE I'll accept the job. If they want to keep Malwarebytes, it's with the understanding that when/if it does something that causes harm, I'm (a) not responsible and (b) will bill for the time spent fixing the mess they caused. if those two conditions are acceptable, I'll take the job and allow the software to remain. As long as they completely understand, I won't do free repair work when it trashes something the system needs. And, it will. It's just a matter of time these days. Of course I use it as complimentary to my regular anti-virus program and not as a single anti-whatever program. Why not? According to Malwarebytes, you don't need your antivirus anymore; their product alone can take care of your needs. I hoped for a serious answer, but I understand you are not willing and / or able to do so. You didn't ask any question. My question was a serious one. Malwarebytes (in the event you've been living under a rock) does claim their software is good enough now that you no longer need your antivirus program, they have your back, without it. What question do you think you asked of me that I won't or otherwise can't answer, Fred? In my opinion, you'd be a fool if you believed that, but, I digress, that IS what they are claiming these days. Oh dear, there we go again. Mocking Malwarebytes in a condescending way. Oh? Since when is it mocking when you rightfully call someone a fool if they believe absurd marketing claims? Is that not one of the definitions of a fool? Malwarebytes is marketing itself as a total and complete REPLACEMENT for your current antivirus. When it has nothing evidence wise, independent test results, etc, nothing basically, to support the claims. They are touting the west coast labs AV certification.. But, that's been called into question too, primarily because Malwarebytes engine knows NOTHING about viruses. Several of us aren't quite sure how they got that certification without having to scan for a single actual virus. Perhaps a large amount of $$$ changed hands? Or, west coast certification requirements were laxed so Malwarebytes could get certified? Hard to say for sure. Only that somethings off with the certification because the certified software doesn't deal with actual viruses, at all. No use talking to you anymore. Fred, I'm sorry if you take facts as a personal attack on you or your opinion of the software. Facts don't judge. they are what they are. Have a nice day. You too. I just tried a simple test: I created a test virus (EICAR) in notepad and tried to save it. My AV solution, ESET, jumped in and got rid of it. Next, I disabled ESET for a few minutes: 1) I was now able to save the file despite realtime MB-AM enabled, 2) MB-AM did not notice any problems when I ask it to scan that file from the right click menu, and 3) when I re-enabled ESET and did a directed scan from the right click menu, the file was crushed. So your claim that MB-AM is not an AV program is certainly correct. It failed the first test step in establishing an AV claim. I've had other problems with their softwa 1) there is no way to suppress some of their irritating notifications, i.e., they have removed a severity control on display, 2) I believe that MB-AM sometimes (almost) deadly embraces with ESET on system wake up, 3) they refuse to use the Windows scheduler so it's a royal pain in the ass to schedule scans when the machines are not in use, and 4) many other annoyances. I am looking for suggestions of alternatives that will gracefully coexist with ESET. I don't mind paying for software as I am now paying for MB-AM. I'm not really enamored with ESET either and would consider swapping the pair out. (I'm running Win 7 Pro SP1 64-bits.) Thanks for any suggestions. -- Jeff Barnett |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
On 5/9/2018 12:58 AM, aiole wrote:
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest. Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE ! It keeps killing apps that I wrote. They are NOT any kind of threat ! Never used it. Heard of bad things about it. -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
In message , FredW
writes: [] But Avast has sometimes annoying messages, like telling me I have four (4) security problems. I have no idea what these problems might be, but of course Avast is only trying to scare me into buying the paid version. [] AVG almost identical [four (4) problems]. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Actors are fairly modest...A lot of us have quite a lot to be modest about. - Simon Greenall (voice of Aleksandr the "Simples!" Meerkat), RT 11-17 Dec 2010 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
"FredW" wrote
| And as an addition to all that I run Kaspersky System Checker and | Kaspersky Virus Removal now and then. | They are free programs and updated frequently. | So 3 AV programs and 2 "super duper malware hunters". Personally I don't like to go online with less than 7 AV programs, a bottle of alcohol, and some extra-thick condoms. I'm guessing you're the kind of guy who will have sex even if his lover refuses to first rinse herself in triclosan. What a cowboy. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
FredW
Thu, 17 May 2018 18:36:52 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: On Wed, 16 May 2018 00:25:45 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote: I've had other problems with their softwa 1) there is no way to suppress some of their irritating notifications, i.e., they have removed a severity control on display, 2) I believe that MB-AM sometimes (almost) deadly embraces with ESET on system wake up, 3) they refuse to use the Windows scheduler so it's a royal pain in the ass to schedule scans when the machines are not in use, and 4) many other annoyances. I am looking for suggestions of alternatives that will gracefully coexist with ESET. I don't mind paying for software as I am now paying for MB-AM. I'm not really enamored with ESET either and would consider swapping the pair out. (I'm running Win 7 Pro SP1 64-bits.) Thanks for any suggestions. To avoid security programs biting each other, I always put them in the exclusions, as is often suggested. There have been ongoing issues with Malwarebytes exclusion capability...It generally works, most of the time, but, as the other poster has likely observed (I've seen it too), sometimes, it doesn't do as expected. -- To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php ================================================== = SPECIMEN: An Italian astronaut. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes BAD !
Jeff Barnett news
16 May 2018 06:25:45 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:
I just tried a simple test: I created a test virus (EICAR) in notepad and tried to save it. My AV solution, ESET, jumped in and got rid of it. Next, I disabled ESET for a few minutes: 1) I was now able to save the file despite realtime MB-AM enabled, 2) MB-AM did not notice any problems when I ask it to scan that file from the right click menu, and 3) when I re-enabled ESET and did a directed scan from the right click menu, the file was crushed. So your claim that MB-AM is not an AV program is certainly correct. It failed the first test step in establishing an AV claim. Although EICAR is harmless, MBAM should go ahead and offer detection for it. They have a variety of single line commands they could issue to detect it. I don't recall the exact reason they declined to do so last time the suggestion was made, but, no harm in suggesting they do so again. That being said, MBAM really doesn't do a single thing with an actual virus. Yet, they continue with the claim they can replace your current antivirus package, outright. They can't even blame it on the advertising dept alone now. Marcin himself has been quoted as delivering the same lines. I've had other problems with their softwa 1) there is no way to suppress some of their irritating notifications, i.e., they have removed a severity control on display, 2) I believe that MB-AM sometimes (almost) deadly embraces with ESET on system wake up, 3) they refuse to use the Windows scheduler so it's a royal pain in the ass to schedule scans when the machines are not in use, and 4) many other annoyances. MBAM intentionally refuses to use task scheduler. It's one of the paid for features, scheduled scans. To ensure you couldn't create your own task for a scheduled scan using the free version, various command line options were removed from it. You can run the program via task scheduler, but, you'll have to click to start the scan. It's also intentionally setup to be difficult to make into a portable application, as, well, they have (or used to) a technician version that's significantly more $$$ that can. I am looking for suggestions of alternatives that will gracefully coexist with ESET. I don't mind paying for software as I am now paying for MB-AM. I'm not really enamored with ESET either and would consider swapping the pair out. (I'm running Win 7 Pro SP1 64-bits.) Thanks for any suggestions. I'd keep a copy of Superantispyware. It's a reliable program with a proven track record. And, I've yet to see that company intentionally mislead anybody! I cannot say the same for Malwarebytes. -- To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php ================================================== = It is not down on any map; true places never are. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|