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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
I know a lot of people here like Malwarebytes.
I tried it last night for the first time and thought it worthwhile to issue a warning: Malwarebytes grossly oversteps its job and can recklessly label things malware, with potentially disastrous results. I ran the latest version and it found 10 "threats". No explanations. No uncertainty. It just brought up the final diagnosis and said let's clean 'em up. Among the list was no malware at all. What MB did want to remove were the following: * The disk imaging executable for BootIt. (MB called it "Backdoor.Bifrose", even though the description for a bifrose infection shares nothing in common with the file MB wanted to delete.) * Software license in the Registry (Probably from Visual Studio 6 and certainly not a risk, but a big problem if deleted. I'd have to completely reinstall VS6.) * The Registry entries for Windows Media Player ActiveX control. * An entry in the Registry for LowRiskFileTypes. It's a tweak to stop IE and other browsers from interfering with downloads. * The Registry entries I use to stop Windows from nagging me about updates, AV and Windows firewall. Any of these items would have caused problems if removed. Some of them could have caused big headaches. I was lucky insofar as I was able to figure out exactly what these "threats" were. Most people won't be able to figure it out. I then tried the latest Microsoft Malicious Software Removal tool. That worked fine. It found no problems. AV and malware hunters in general have become overzealous software with limited usability. Like xenophobic email servers that block any source they don't know, this kind of software works well by being overzealous, but it only *really* works well for people who do very little with their computer and can't be bothered with security. If your PC is an email machine then there's probably no harm in letting AV or MB nuke it. They might even end up nuking something that should be nuked. But for anyone else I think it's time to start taking all of these programs with a grain of salt -- and be very careful about letting them "clean up malware" without being very sure of exactly what they're going to clean up. I would certainly never try MB again. (I also got stuck cleaning up junk it left behind in all users app data. Not the first program with a bad uninstaller, but still inexcusable.) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
"FredW" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 10:47:26 -0500, "Mayayana" wrote: I then tried the latest Microsoft Malicious Software Removal tool. That worked fine. It found no problems. MMSRT is limited to some specific threats (as you should well know) and can not be compared with any other av/am product. It finds no problems because it is not looking for those problems. AV and malware hunters in general have become overzealous software with limited usability. Like xenophobic email servers that block any source they don't know, this kind of software works well by being overzealous, but it only *really* works well for people who do very little with their computer and can't be bothered with security. If your PC is an email machine then there's probably no harm in letting AV or MB nuke it. They might even end up nuking something that should be nuked. But for anyone else I think it's time to start taking all of these programs with a grain of salt -- and be very careful about letting them "clean up malware" without being very sure of exactly what they're going to clean up. I can smell your disappointment included in this description. But it is so grossly exaggerated, that I can hardly assume that you are serious in this opinion. I would certainly never try MB again. (I also got stuck cleaning up junk it left behind in all users app data. Not the first program with a bad uninstaller, but still inexcusable.) I use my paid MBAM for online-protection, never any problem. - How do I uninstall Malwarebytes Anti-Malware? https://support.malwarebytes.org/cus...are-?b_id=6438 I have paid MB too and have never had any problems. -- http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
| AV and malware hunters in general have become
| overzealous software with limited usability. Like | xenophobic email servers that block any source | they don't know, this kind of software works well | by being overzealous, but it only *really* works well | for people who do very little with their computer | and can't be bothered with security. If your PC | is an email machine then there's probably no harm | in letting AV or MB nuke it. They might even end up | nuking something that should be nuked. But for anyone | else I think it's time to start taking all of these programs | with a grain of salt -- and be very careful about letting | them "clean up malware" without being very sure of | exactly what they're going to clean up. | | I can smell your disappointment included in this description. | But it is so grossly exaggerated, that I can hardly assume | that you are serious in this opinion. | I'm by no means the first to talk about this. AV started out as 1 MB of definitions, updated once per month. Now it's millions of definitions, updated in terms of hours and people often run 2 or 3 programs to proetect themselves. Yet it still may not help with 0-day attacks, which have become increasingly common. And it's become a resource drain due to the constant scanning. http://www.infoworld.com/article/300...-programs.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11..._anti_malware/ In an attempt to make up for the failing model of executable byte signatures, programs are now doing things like watching for suspicious behavior and jumping the gun with malware warnings. I've run across a number of cases where extreme security causes problems for people. Again, people who mainly just do email usually don't have to worry. But if you do things like edit your HOSTS file, run VBScripts, edit the Registry, or do anything at all out of the ordinary, you're increasingly likely to be dealing with false alarms. I've even had my own software flagged as a virus and had to recompile it with minor changes until it no longer sets off alarms. I know of an MS MVP who had his software flagged merely because it had a Registry string embedded. https://visualstudiomagazine.com/art...safer-now.aspx If you find these products useful that's fine. I generally don't. That's a matter of preference. I also wouldn't leave an inexperienced person with no AV. If they have no idea how to stay safe they can't afford to be without it. My warning is mainly about the danger of false alarms and overreach. (MB should never suggest removing a Registry tweak without explanation.) It's less damaging to a company's reputation to be overzealous than to miss bugs. But it might not be less damaging to your system. I detailed 10 false alarms that were all unfounded, while some would have been damaging, and left me very confused, if I didn't know what they were and allowed MB to proceed. The worst part is the cavalier confidence these program apply, combined with the militaristic melodrama of naming alleged malware threats with official sounding names that scare people MB didn't say "this one might be suspcious". It said "this one is known malware such and such and should be removed". Danger! Danger! Will Robinson! When Avira tagged my own software it did the same thing. It named the virus! The name turned out to be a generic term for "we don't know, but we're suspicious", but it sounded very official and specific. So what I'm saying is go ahead and use it, but before letting it clean anything, research that file or Registry entry to find out what it is and why it might be there. The fact that you haven't had problems doesn't mean you won't. | - How do I uninstall Malwarebytes Anti-Malware? | https://support.malwarebytes.org/cus...are-?b_id=6438 | That's rich. One needs a special cleanup tool to remove pesky residue from an anti-malware program. Silly me. I thought that was what the uninstaller was supposed to do. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
"Mayayana"
Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:47:26 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: I know a lot of people here like Malwarebytes. I tried it last night for the first time and thought it worthwhile to issue a warning: Malwarebytes grossly oversteps its job and can recklessly label things malware, with potentially disastrous results. I don't know what you mean by oversteps... Overstepping to me would be if it just went ahead and make executive decisions regarding those files future without your input. It is subject to a false positive, as ANY other app AV/AM would. I ran the latest version and it found 10 "threats". No explanations. No uncertainty. It just brought up the final diagnosis and said let's clean 'em up. Among the list was no malware at all. What MB did want to remove were the following: Some of this is an issue of wording. I've gone back and forth with them for ages over this. I'll explain more detail... * The disk imaging executable for BootIt. (MB called it "Backdoor.Bifrose", even though the description for a bifrose infection shares nothing in common with the file MB wanted to delete.) This is a false positive. if you email them a copy of the file and/or post in the forums, they can resolve this for you and anyone else who might also be affected by it. * Software license in the Registry (Probably from Visual Studio 6 and certainly not a risk, but a big problem if deleted. I'd have to completely reinstall VS6.) Another possible false positive and/or a problem with the newer registry scanning module has been found. You should report this to them so that they can look into it. They do try to correct bugs as they crop up, whenever possible. * The Registry entries for Windows Media Player ActiveX control. This can be ignored in MBAM. is it another tweak you've set yourself? If so, you can tell MB to ignore it. You didn't specify what it's 'detecting' here, so I can't tell you if it might be a bug or a non default setting and that's what got MBs interest. * An entry in the Registry for LowRiskFileTypes. It's a tweak to stop IE and other browsers from interfering with downloads. You can have MB ignore this in the future. The reason the software is alerting on it is because it's not the default value and for normal home users, could present a security risk. You know what you're doing, so it doesn't apply as a risk to you. Tell MB to ignore it and it won't bother you about this again. I agree, this sort of detection should be rephrased so as to properly inform the user exactly what's going on and why MB has alerted them to it. * The Registry entries I use to stop Windows from nagging me about updates, AV and Windows firewall. See previous answer. The *same* applies here for the very *same* reasons. Any of these items would have caused problems if removed. Some of them could have caused big headaches. I was lucky insofar as I was able to figure out exactly what these "threats" were. Most people won't be able to figure it out. Not all of the items would have caused problems as in system instability if removed, although some programs might have been affected in a negative way. You're exaggerating a bit here. The last three items would cause you unwanted nag screens and nothing more. That is why you disabled them, right? -- Error: Creative signature file missing |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
In message ,
Diesel writes: [] You can have MB ignore this in the future. The reason the software is alerting on it is because it's not the default value and for normal home users, could present a security risk. You know what you're doing, so it doesn't apply as a risk to you. Tell MB to ignore it and it won't bother you about this again. [] Hmm. So, a "normal home user" has to not change _any_ default in order to not be bugged by MB - or if does, has to tell MB for each such change? I can see both sides of this "argument", but must admit I'm closer to Mayayana on this one (-:! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Can you open your mind without it falling out? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
On 22/11/2015 16:47, Mayayana wrote:
I know a lot of people here like Malwarebytes. I tried it last night for the first time and thought it worthwhile to issue a warning: Malwarebytes grossly oversteps its job and can recklessly label things malware, with potentially disastrous results. I ran the latest version and it found 10 "threats". No explanations. No uncertainty. It just brought up the final diagnosis and said let's clean 'em up. Among the list was no malware at all. What MB did want to remove were the following: * The disk imaging executable for BootIt. (MB called it "Backdoor.Bifrose", even though the description for a bifrose infection shares nothing in common with the file MB wanted to delete.) * Software license in the Registry (Probably from Visual Studio 6 and certainly not a risk, but a big problem if deleted. I'd have to completely reinstall VS6.) * The Registry entries for Windows Media Player ActiveX control. * An entry in the Registry for LowRiskFileTypes. It's a tweak to stop IE and other browsers from interfering with downloads. * The Registry entries I use to stop Windows from nagging me about updates, AV and Windows firewall. Any of these items would have caused problems if removed. Some of them could have caused big headaches. I was lucky insofar as I was able to figure out exactly what these "threats" were. Most people won't be able to figure it out. I then tried the latest Microsoft Malicious Software Removal tool. That worked fine. It found no problems. AV and malware hunters in general have become overzealous software with limited usability. Like xenophobic email servers that block any source they don't know, this kind of software works well by being overzealous, but it only *really* works well for people who do very little with their computer and can't be bothered with security. If your PC is an email machine then there's probably no harm in letting AV or MB nuke it. They might even end up nuking something that should be nuked. But for anyone else I think it's time to start taking all of these programs with a grain of salt -- and be very careful about letting them "clean up malware" without being very sure of exactly what they're going to clean up. I would certainly never try MB again. (I also got stuck cleaning up junk it left behind in all users app data. Not the first program with a bad uninstaller, but still inexcusable.) When I run it on our pc's, it finds mostly unimportant thingies, like some advertising issues. I always kill them. When I ran it on our server (file server, FTP server, printer server, Web server etc) it found a lot of entries. All very dangerous - what Malwarebytes said, but all were useful applications that run on the server. So I uninstalled it from our server, will never run it there again, but will still use on our pc's. Using the free version, though. I use Emsisoft (paid version) to protect our pc's from malware. Fokke |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
In message , FredW
writes: On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 13:02:59 -0500, "Mayayana" wrote: [] If they have no idea how to stay safe they can't afford to be without it. So if your are stupid you are free to use it, but when you are not a dummy you should not use av and/or am software? Really ??? That's not what he said. He said that those who know little or nothing of AV matters _should_ use AV software. Those who know a little more about computing in general should still use it, but - since they are likely to make changes that the noobs (not stupid, just noobs) won't make, they are more likely to encounter unexpected side-effects (false positives, for short). [] https://support.malwarebytes.org/cus.../1835311-how-d o-i-uninstall-malwarebytes-anti-malware-?b_id=6438 | That's rich. One needs a special cleanup tool to remove pesky residue from an anti-malware program. Silly me. I thought that was what the uninstaller was supposed to do. No, generally one does not need a special cleanup tool. YOU need a special cleanup tool after YOU made a mess of things. I think he's entitled to expect the software's own uninstaller to, er, uninstall - and to be offended at being told he'd "made a mess of things" when it doesn't. It ought not to be possible to "make a mess of things" by just using the software, not to the extent that the uninstaller doesn't uninstall, anyway. I tried to help you, but all you do is keeping complaining and complaining about your ignorant use of anti-malware software. Why did you not put YOUR home-made false positives in Malware Exclusions (problem solved) and kept using MBAM in stead of complaining that MBAM did not work for you, while millions of other users have no problems? Problem hidden, not "solved". Where the false positives are to do with the software he's written himself, I think it's a reasonable compromise on both sides for AM software authors to request other software authors to _report_ false positives (not just put them in exclusions). But where they are do to with reasonably widely-known software, ... Anyhow I know now that I cannot expect any meaningful contribution from you in any discussion of security software. That's a bit sweeping. You don't _agree_ with him: fair enough, he doesn't agree with you; that doesn't mean either of you won't make _useful_ (as opposed to "meaningful") contributions to such discussions. I find that (very) disappointing! Have a nice day. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Wisdom is the ability to cope. - the late (AB of C) Michael Ramsey, quoted by Stephen Fry (RT 24-30 August 2013) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
| I don't know what you mean by oversteps... Overstepping to me would
| be if it just went ahead and make executive decisions regarding those | files future without your input. It is subject to a false positive, | as ANY other app AV/AM would. | By overstep I mean saying xyz.exe is known malware when the program really doesn't know. It should inform the user as best it can: "This may be suspicious". It shouldn't be tagging things like security settings in the Registry as malware. If it can't provide an informative explanation of why the setting might be risky then that item should be left out of the "threat" list. When I first started using computers I used to run Norton System Works. It would find the usual 142 problems and I'd be delighted to get them all fixed. I felt like I had my own Special Forces attack squad. It never occurred to me that some of the "problems" might be frivolous or even problematic to fix. No doubt a lot of inexperienced people feel the same way about such programs as MB. Worse, those programs encourage trust with their tough- guy-against-evil style of presentation. If I were an average computer user I would have told MB to fix all the problems it found. It gave no indication that my computer might survive if I didn't fix them. I might have never figured out that the resulting problems were actually caused by MB. | This is a false positive. if you email them a copy of the file and/or | post in the forums, they can resolve this for you and anyone else who | might also be affected by it. | In my experience it doesn't work that way. When Avira tagged my own EXE I wrote to them. I got back a robo-email telling me to upload the problem EXE. But it wasn't a problem EXE. Avira was tagging 6 of my EXEs. And if they issued a fix for those I'd be back in the same boat next time I compiled a new version. So I wrote back to say that what was needed was to re-assess how they're tagging EXEs altogether, and that their catchall category they call "TR/Dropper.Gen" was a problem. I would have been happy to work with them, but they never responded to that email. I've had to put notes on my own website as I find out about such problems. The same would be true for the BootIt EXE. Even if MB responds, in a few months I'll probably have a BootIt update. Depending on people to essentially run beta test software is not a way to design malware hunters. In any case, all of that is beside the point. It's not for me that I started this thread. It's for the people who might be a bit too trusting and enthusiastic with AV/mawlare products. | | * The Registry entries for Windows Media Player | ActiveX control. | | This can be ignored in MBAM. is it another tweak you've set yourself? A tweak? No. Windows Media Player ActiveX control is pre-installed on all Windows systems. It's a core component. The Registry key is the HKCR\CLSID COM key that allows software to find and use the control in order to play media files. Without that entry the control -- and thus some software -- would break. MB called it a "Rogue.Regsort", which a bit of research indicates may be very nasty ransomware. (MB didn't say the setting *might* be Rogue.Regsort. MB said it *is* Rogue.Regsort and marked it for removal.) So yes, I can ignore it. But most people won't know to look up that particular GUID in the Registry. Even if they did they're unlikely to understand the values they find. | Not all of the items would have caused problems as in system | instability if removed, although some programs might have been | affected in a negative way. You're exaggerating a bit here. The last | three items would cause you unwanted nag screens and nothing more. | That is why you disabled them, right? Yes. And another would have stopped my disk imaging software from working. Another would have prevented me using some libraries in my software, for lack of a license. Another would have broken Windows Media Player. Worse, none of those would have been obviously caused by MB, so I likely would have spent a long time trying to figure out what was broken. How much damage does it need to do before you'd count it as a problem? While your points make some sense *for you* personally, I think you're making excuses for a product that you feel some loyalty toward. There's really just no excuse for things like labelling a Microsoft ActiveX control Registry setting as ransomware.... Well, except maybe if it's those Win10 nagware settings. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
| Using the free version, though.
| I use Emsisoft (paid version) to protect our pc's from malware. | I'm not sure which I was using. It was free but it loaded with a box checked to "enable premium trial". |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 18:42:11 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Hmm. So, a "normal home user" has to not change _any_ default in order to not be bugged by MB - or if does, has to tell MB for each such change? I am a normal home user, I have not had to change any defaults, and I have not been bugged by Malwarebytes. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 16:43:07 -0500 "Stan Brown"
wrote in article MPG.30bc00f2d87d37bd98f296 @news.individual.net I am a normal home user, I have not had to change any defaults, and I have not been bugged by Malwarebytes. There have been many suggestions over the years NOT to touch the Registry repair in MBAM (or anywhere else). I don't have the OP's post, but I believe he complained about registry damage. Best to avoid letting MBAM touch it. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
Jason wrote on 11/22/2015 5:53 PM:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 16:43:07 -0500 "Stan Brown" wrote in article MPG.30bc00f2d87d37bd98f296 @news.individual.net I am a normal home user, I have not had to change any defaults, and I have not been bugged by Malwarebytes. There have been many suggestions over the years NOT to touch the Registry repair in MBAM (or anywhere else). I don't have the OP's post, but I believe he complained about registry damage. Best to avoid letting MBAM touch it. I don't see any option in MBAM about "registry repair". |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
On 22/11/2015 15:47, Mayayana wrote:
I know a lot of people here like Malwarebytes. I tried it last night for the first time and thought it worthwhile to issue a warning: Malwarebytes grossly oversteps its job and can recklessly label things malware, with potentially disastrous results. I ran the latest version and it found 10 "threats". No explanations. No uncertainty. It just brought up the final diagnosis and said let's clean 'em up. Among the list was no malware at all. What MB did want to remove were the following: * The disk imaging executable for BootIt. (MB called it "Backdoor.Bifrose", even though the description for a bifrose infection shares nothing in common with the file MB wanted to delete.) * Software license in the Registry (Probably from Visual Studio 6 and certainly not a risk, but a big problem if deleted. I'd have to completely reinstall VS6.) * The Registry entries for Windows Media Player ActiveX control. * An entry in the Registry for LowRiskFileTypes. It's a tweak to stop IE and other browsers from interfering with downloads. * The Registry entries I use to stop Windows from nagging me about updates, AV and Windows firewall. Any of these items would have caused problems if removed. Some of them could have caused big headaches. I was lucky insofar as I was able to figure out exactly what these "threats" were. Most people won't be able to figure it out. I then tried the latest Microsoft Malicious Software Removal tool. That worked fine. It found no problems. AV and malware hunters in general have become overzealous software with limited usability. Like xenophobic email servers that block any source they don't know, this kind of software works well by being overzealous, but it only *really* works well for people who do very little with their computer and can't be bothered with security. If your PC is an email machine then there's probably no harm in letting AV or MB nuke it. They might even end up nuking something that should be nuked. But for anyone else I think it's time to start taking all of these programs with a grain of salt -- and be very careful about letting them "clean up malware" without being very sure of exactly what they're going to clean up. I would certainly never try MB again. (I also got stuck cleaning up junk it left behind in all users app data. Not the first program with a bad uninstaller, but still inexcusable.) Too some extent I agree. But most (not quite all I admit) of the things it regards as unwanted that could well be wanted are things that only a experienced user would have. As an experienced user one would be well equipped to spot them and exclude them from any further detection. -- Brian Gregory (in the UK). To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
On 22/11/2015 18:02, Mayayana wrote:
| AV and malware hunters in general have become | overzealous software with limited usability. Like | xenophobic email servers that block any source | they don't know, this kind of software works well | by being overzealous, but it only *really* works well | for people who do very little with their computer | and can't be bothered with security. If your PC | is an email machine then there's probably no harm | in letting AV or MB nuke it. They might even end up | nuking something that should be nuked. But for anyone | else I think it's time to start taking all of these programs | with a grain of salt -- and be very careful about letting | them "clean up malware" without being very sure of | exactly what they're going to clean up. | | I can smell your disappointment included in this description. | But it is so grossly exaggerated, that I can hardly assume | that you are serious in this opinion. | I'm by no means the first to talk about this. AV started out as 1 MB of definitions, updated once per month. Now it's millions of definitions, updated in terms of hours and people often run 2 or 3 programs to proetect themselves. Yet it still may not help with 0-day attacks, which have become increasingly common. And it's become a resource drain due to the constant scanning. http://www.infoworld.com/article/300...-programs.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11..._anti_malware/ In an attempt to make up for the failing model of executable byte signatures, programs are now doing things like watching for suspicious behavior and jumping the gun with malware warnings. I've run across a number of cases where extreme security causes problems for people. Again, people who mainly just do email usually don't have to worry. But if you do things like edit your HOSTS file, run VBScripts, edit the Registry, or do anything at all out of the ordinary, you're increasingly likely to be dealing with false alarms. I've even had my own software flagged as a virus and had to recompile it with minor changes until it no longer sets off alarms. I know of an MS MVP who had his software flagged merely because it had a Registry string embedded. https://visualstudiomagazine.com/art...safer-now.aspx If you find these products useful that's fine. I generally don't. That's a matter of preference. I also wouldn't leave an inexperienced person with no AV. If they have no idea how to stay safe they can't afford to be without it. My warning is mainly about the danger of false alarms and overreach. (MB should never suggest removing a Registry tweak without explanation.) It's less damaging to a company's reputation to be overzealous than to miss bugs. But it might not be less damaging to your system. I detailed 10 false alarms that were all unfounded, while some would have been damaging, and left me very confused, if I didn't know what they were and allowed MB to proceed. The worst part is the cavalier confidence these program apply, combined with the militaristic melodrama of naming alleged malware threats with official sounding names that scare people MB didn't say "this one might be suspcious". It said "this one is known malware such and such and should be removed". Danger! Danger! Will Robinson! When Avira tagged my own software it did the same thing. It named the virus! The name turned out to be a generic term for "we don't know, but we're suspicious", but it sounded very official and specific. So what I'm saying is go ahead and use it, but before letting it clean anything, research that file or Registry entry to find out what it is and why it might be there. The fact that you haven't had problems doesn't mean you won't. | - How do I uninstall Malwarebytes Anti-Malware? | https://support.malwarebytes.org/cus...are-?b_id=6438 | That's rich. One needs a special cleanup tool to remove pesky residue from an anti-malware program. Silly me. I thought that was what the uninstaller was supposed to do. Just Uninstalling will work fine, but like many programs it will leave various options, settings and, I think, your quarentined files etc so that if you choose to reinstall they are available again. -- Brian Gregory (in the UK). To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Malwarebytes warning
| I don't see any option in MBAM about "registry repair".
Out of 10 false positives I had, 9 were registry. Some were settings that MB deemed unwise, like turning off Windows update nags. Others it claimed were actual malware. That included the Windows Media Player COM key and the software license keys. Presumably it wanted to delete those. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|