Latest Version of Malwarebytes

[MoxieMomma]

Ok mate I might try this one although I will be watching it as I know that an Australian installed Kaspersky for example like the one I loaded onto a machine I sent my brother in the UK would not work there but it definitely quotes $AUD's.

'Tis true that KL licenses have regional filters regarding purchase/activation to prevent piracy and resale in countries at a high price of licenses purchased in another country at a low price. (I am a long-time KIS user.)

AFAIK, there are currently no such regional purchase/activation restrictions for MBAM.

You just want to be sure that you are buying a valid lifetime license from a valid seller, especially if it is a "download only" purchase with no boxed CD.
This is especially true now that lifetime consumer licenses are "at a premium", as resellers move out their remaining stock.

HTH,
MM

 

[Britton30]

Hello. I checked out this new version some days ago (the new 2.0 one) and the interface was just ugly I couldn't stand it. Is there anyway to make it look cleaner? The moment it was finished installing huge popups came from the system tray telling me to "your definitions are not up to date! You should update!!" and a "your computer has never been scanned!" pop-up. Why the huge pop-ups? Why can't there just be a small window telling "you need to update definitions" and "do you want to do a first time scan"? I won't bother scanning as it takes 2 hours (at least in the 1.75 version which I reverted back to). I also heard that the new version's scan is a bit slower than before.

Has anyone tried the new 2.0 version and what was your experience? For now I'm gonna stick to the 1.75 version and just update the definitions.

I sure wouldn't use an ugly interface, that's for sure. IT can't be good if it's ugly. I got the big popups too on initial install, they did scare me.

 

[Jonguy30]

Yeah, they sure are scary, lol. Do the pop-ups nag one all the time or is it one time only or can they be disabled? And can the new UI be changed in any way? I like the v.1.75 UI, it's nice and clean, no clutter. According to the version log posted here they can at least be reduced...

 

[MoxieMomma]

Yes, the scary, garish color scheme was the first thing (partially) fixed with the latest build (2.0.1).
Notifications and dashboard banners have been toned down, as well.

More fixes (~30 bugs) will be in the next release in a few weeks.
This includes more granular user control of the many notifications and popups.
It's a tough call, as it tends to be a "Goldilocks and Three Bears" issue.

As a long-time user and forum volunteer myself, I share most of your observations.
These new "changes" are not all necessarily improvements, especially cosmetically.
(The GUI layout was probably necessary to accommodate all the new features and options. But the change to the overly obtrusive, "rogue" color scheme was not....)

The team is quite responsive to customer feedback.
In order to make your opinions known to them, you might want to consider posting over at the forum.
There is at least one thread dedicated to "issues" with the new UI.

Just a humble suggestion from a home user unaffiliated with the company,

MM

 

[Jonguy30]

Thanks. But I don't know if I really want to register, I will probably just wait for the next update(s). Btw, what color does the GUI have now? Is it grey/white like it was before?

 

[MoxieMomma]

Thanks. But I don't know if I really want to register, I will probably just wait for the next update(s).

Well, they are unlikely to be able to acknowledge or respond to your feedback if they can't "hear" it.
(I'm sure that staff probably peruse these outside forums from time to time, but the best way to be heard is to provide them with the direct feedback they have actively solicited.)
"Squeaky wheel/grease" sort of thing.
It only takes a minute to two to register at the forum.
Entirely up to you.

Btw, what color does the GUI have now? Is it grey/white like it was before?

It's a VERY bright blue with rather bright green and red (now orange) buttons.
Challenging for those with poor eyesight or who are color-blind.
Some like it (probably mostly young folks of the digital generations).
Some don't care for it (mostly old geezers like me, who preferred the frumpy, calm, quiet 1.xx GUI).

You'll find ample screenshots (albeit of the now outdated 2.0.00 GUI) in the user guide:

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0 Help Documentation
http://downloads.malwarebytes.org/asset/mbamuserguide.pdf

Some -- but not all -- of the KB topics and videos have been updated for 2.xx here:

Malwarebytes | Customer Support Center

Cheers,

MM

 

[Jonguy30]

Thanks again, I will check these links out.

 

[scr]

Hi:

All of the previous scan types are still there.
They have been renamed (much to the consternation of some us long-time users).

Flash ---> Hyper (available only to paid users of MBAM Premium (formerly PRO), and generally not recommended for routine use (TBH, it was a user request a long while back that has been retained).

HTH,

MM

A Guy

Dazed and confused, maybe it was the bright colors...Apologies. :shock:

 

[MoxieMomma]

No, problem, @scr.
Trust me, the new scan names have flummoxed many folks.
There *was* a rationale (e.g. "Flash" was confusing because it sounded like "Adobe Flash Player, so it was renamed; and the "Custom" scan really does permit the user to customize what is scanned).
Having said that, I am still perplexed by the "Threat" scan -- if *it* scans for threats, what do the other scans look for????? :roflmao:

Speaking of scans, I have seen in this thread a number of users reporting longer scan times, slower scans and "freezes".
Some of this might be "normal".
The new scanning engine in 2.xx is more robust than in 1.xx
Here is a list of other factors that also contribute to scan times:

[quote name="AdvancedSetup" post="811422" timestamp="1396315975"]
Time taken is due to a many factors some which can be dealt with and others not as easily.

Size of disk
Disk type
Disk speed
Disk caching
CPU speed
Controller type and speed
Operating System used
Amount of files
Amount of folders
Amount of archived files such as zip, rar, sfx, etc.
Rootkit scan or not
PUM/PUP scans
Other security programs running at the same time that may potentially be monitoring all file accesses by any other process.
Drive integrity - if a drive is failing it can take a long time to ignore and bypass sectors on a disk or simply fail period and hang the scan.
Other ongoing disk I/O processes
System being infected can also affect speed of scans

https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=145429#entry811422

In particular, archive scanning (which has been around since version 1.75) and the new anti-rootkit (ARK) scanning will both increase scan times.
Disabling ARK scanning might improve your scan times.
EDIT: Also, ARK scanning on encrypted drives (BitLocker, TrueCrypt, SecureDoc, etc) is not supported; so this could cause an error message or scan failure.

However, if users are experiencing serious performance problems, then I would respectfully reiterate the suggestion to post over at their support forum.
No amount of in-house beta testing can replace usage in the wild in a range of real-world environments.
So reporting of any issues will help the team to sort out any problems, squash bugs, & improve performance.

Just a humble suggestion,

MM

 

[Stephanie]

Well this morning my new Malwarebytes doing a custom scan stuck and was still stuck after reboot, disabled via msconfig reboot and now its back to normal, I hope bug fixes are on there way.

 

[scr]

No, problem, @scr.
Trust me, the new scan names have flummoxed many folks.
There *was* a rationale (e.g. "Flash" was confusing because it sounded like "Adobe Flash Player, so it was renamed; and the "Custom" scan really does permit the user to customize what is scanned).
Having said that, I am still perplexed by the "Threat" scan -- if *it* scans for threats, what do the other scans look for????? :roflmao:

Speaking of scans, I have seen in this thread a number of users reporting longer scan times, slower scans and "freezes".
Some of this might be "normal".
The new scanning engine in 2.xx is more robust than in 1.xx
Here is a list of other factors that also contribute to scan times:

[quote name="AdvancedSetup" post="811422" timestamp="1396315975"]
Time taken is due to a many factors some which can be dealt with and others not as easily.

Size of disk
Disk type
Disk speed
Disk caching
CPU speed
Controller type and speed
Operating System used
Amount of files
Amount of folders
Amount of archived files such as zip, rar, sfx, etc.
Rootkit scan or not
PUM/PUP scans
Other security programs running at the same time that may potentially be monitoring all file accesses by any other process.
Drive integrity - if a drive is failing it can take a long time to ignore and bypass sectors on a disk or simply fail period and hang the scan.
Other ongoing disk I/O processes
System being infected can also affect speed of scans

https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=145429#entry811422

In particular, archive scanning (which has been around since version 1.75) and the new anti-rootkit (ARK) scanning will both increase scan times.
Disabling ARK scanning might improve your scan times.
EDIT: Also, ARK scanning on encrypted drives (BitLocker, TrueCrypt, SecureDoc, etc) is not supported; so this could cause an error message or scan failure.

However, if users are experiencing serious performance problems, then I would respectfully reiterate the suggestion to post over at their support forum.
No amount of in-house beta testing can replace usage in the wild in a range of real-world environments.
So reporting of any issues will help the team to sort out any problems, squash bugs, & improve performance.

Just a humble suggestion,

MM

I still say it was the bright colors that confused me, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it

As far as speed goes I think it's about the same for me as v1.75 even with scan for rootkits enabled. I Keep my C: drive to a minimum, it's a spinner. It keeps backups small and fast as well as faster scans.

My last scan:

 

[UsernameIssues]

Thanks. But I don't know if I really want to register, I will probably just wait for the next update(s). Btw, what color does the GUI have now? Is it grey/white like it was before?

No - they did not (and probably will not) go back to gray.

version 2.0.0.1000


version 2.0.1.1004

 

[A Guy]

Just ran a rootkit only scan...BSOD. So I'll skip that for now (shame ) The active protection works fine. Scans are considerably slower, and many freezes while scanning, but not a deal breaker as I usually scan once a week. A Guy

 

[andrew129260]

What I want to know is how this crap of a product got through the testing phase? This thing has more bugs then swiss cheese. And honestly, it looks like a Fake program even with the enhancements and smaller dialog boxes.

 

[UsernameIssues]

What I want to know is how this crap of a product got through the testing phase? This thing has more bugs then swiss cheese. And honestly, it looks like a Fake program even with the enhancements and smaller dialog boxes.

The bugs are partly the fault of the users. If more users had actively taken part in beta testing, these bugs had a chance at being found/fixed.

There is no excuse for designing an app that looks like the very rouge programs they hope to eradicate.

 

[andrew129260]

Users are supposed to be an additional factor in bug testing. Not the main source. It looks to me like Malwarebytes themselves didn't even test their product. I usually am a huge fan of malwarebytes, but they defiantly screwed something up here.

 

[ThrashZone]

I have to agree with Andrew,
This is pretty basic stuff,
Upgrading = failure in allot the licenses being acknowledged protection mode disabled,
Custom scans including rootkit = did no one ever use this

The only solution offered so far as I've seen is use mabm clean ?

 

[UsernameIssues]

Just ran a rootkit only scan...BSOD. So I'll skip that for now (shame ) The active protection works fine. Scans are considerably slower, and many freezes while scanning, but not a deal breaker as I usually scan once a week. A Guy

What I want to know is how this crap of a product got through the testing phase? This thing has more bugs then swiss cheese. And honestly, it looks like a Fake program even with the enhancements and smaller dialog boxes.

Users are supposed to be an additional factor in bug testing. Not the main source. It looks to me like Malwarebytes themselves didn't even test their product. I usually am a huge fan of malwarebytes, but they defiantly screwed something up here.

I would not even call myself a fan of mbam... but I do write stuff for others and have to beg for beta testers.

You posted your comment right after A Guy posted his about BSOD. I took your comment as being somewhat tied to A Guy's post. Those developing mbam can only test a tiny fraction of combinations of software. Beta testing does the rest of that kind of testing. mbam + other software = BSOD for A Guy. Did you expect those developing mbam to have a computer with the exact combination of software that A Guy has?

 

[UsernameIssues]

I have to agree with Andrew,
This is pretty basic stuff,
Upgrading = failure in allot the licenses being acknowledged protection mode disabled,
Custom scans including rootkit = did no one ever use this

The only solution offered so far as I've seen is use mabm clean ?

I've only been reading this thread - not the threads on the mbam forums - so maybe I missed what you meant by "Custom scans including rootkit = did no one ever use this". Can you please elaborate?

 

[andrew129260]

Sorry, my post was not talking about the bsod. I was talking about the multiple other bugs. I understand the testing phase/process quite a bit, and I believe that any decent company should have had this tested better then what was presented here.

I also am seeing bug reports on multiple things on malwarebytes forums that I have been able to reproduce, and have sent in bug reports via email. I get that there are thousands of possible ways for a system to be configured, but some of this stuff was clearly not tested at all. A majority of these bugs is not even caused by third party programs being the reason. Which is another point that eradicates the whole excuse that they didn't have enough users to test.

Scanning is the the whole point of this software, if it cannot even do that well, what is the point?

Also, its pretty bad that in a VM and clean install of windows and just their product, I find TEN bugs in their software by using it for 5 minutes. 10!

I just don't get it. What was malwarebytes thinking here?

I have to agree with Andrew,
This is pretty basic stuff,
Upgrading = failure in allot the licenses being acknowledged protection mode disabled,
Custom scans including rootkit = did no one ever use this

The only solution offered so far as I've seen is use mabm clean ?

I've only been reading this thread - not the threads on the mbam forums - so maybe I missed what you meant by "Custom scans including rootkit = did no one ever use this". Can you please elaborate?

I believe they were referring to the multiple freezing and some files being accidentally skipped when supposedly scanning when this feature is enabled.