A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Malwarebytes BAD !



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old May 14th 18, 02:27 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default 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  
Old May 14th 18, 05:44 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default 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  
Old May 14th 18, 08:24 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default 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  
Old May 14th 18, 08:37 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default 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  
Old May 15th 18, 09:43 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.freeware
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default 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  
Old May 15th 18, 09:43 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default 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  
Old May 15th 18, 09:43 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default 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  
Old May 15th 18, 09:43 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default 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  
Old May 16th 18, 05:48 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default 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  
Old May 16th 18, 07:25 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Jeff Barnett[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 298
Default 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  
Old May 16th 18, 04:03 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default 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  
Old May 17th 18, 08:15 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default 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  
Old May 17th 18, 08:17 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default 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  
Old May 18th 18, 12:43 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default 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  
Old May 18th 18, 12:43 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default 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
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.