Latest Version of Malwarebytes

[DavidE]

Are you kidding me? You were the one who supplied that date back in post #563 of this thread.

No way i can remember that far back
They should put out an official statement now so people know the current status / plans for 1.75.

Yea I'm happy if it updated once a day at startup which it has never really done well no matter how many times I'd clean.. reactivate

I agree, update on startup/wakeup has never worked reliably. More comments below.

Okay yea my only gripe has been it's updating weirdness and still no popup confirmation of successful updating otherwise 2.0... has been okay other than the bad update they put out.

I agree, they should work on fixing user notification issues.

With the new BETA it looks like if the DB is out of date I don't get an alert in the notification area icon.
The dashboard does show it's out of date, but i wouldn't know that without opening the GUI.

With 1.75 I could fix the startup/update issue with task scheduler and command processing.
They haven't implemented command processing in 2.x yet (that i know of), another thing that is coming "someday".

I wish they would fix these types of issues rather than spend months trying to figure out a smiley face.

 

[ThrashZone]

lol the way they lock threads on mbam it's useless to ask the same thing and get the same silly post = lock responses over and over again

 

[Seffrid]

Yes, it was uneasiness because of the initial problems. It sounds more stable now, hence the uneasiness has eased, but I'm still not 100% enthusiastic about making the upgrade, having had no problems with 1.75 (the bad update didn't affect me as the free version doesn't auto-scan or auto-quarantine and the update had been withdrawn by the time I did a scan).

 

[1PW]

Default for checking for updates is still pretty weird and unnecessary every 5 minutes is just whack and a waste of resources and it does not like changes even with new tasks added.

Hello ThrashZone:

Yes - I agree that database check for updates interval of 5 minutes is too frequent.

In the "Frequency and Settings" pane in one of my system's "Check for Updates" scheduling tasks, I've set the interval to 57 minutes. Thus "on the hour" type update checks are all but avoided and yet the frequent database updates during the weekday daytime hours in the U.S.A. time zones aren't far away.

 

[ThrashZone]

Even hourly is too much imho but the option serves people that want it too,
My issue is old and never been really acknowledged as a bug although DavidE just posted about it = thanks david
mbam in general really hasn't offered any viable solution beside use the default settings and lock the question soon after

 

[1PW]

With the ability to set check for updates from between once per minute to once per month seems to satisfy the very largest portion of the license holders.

 

[DavidE]

If you select once per month, what can you choose for Recovery Options / Recover if missed by ?
I have only seen up to 23 hours as an option.
The point is none of this should be needed.
The issue has been raised with MBAM, but they don't get it.

Other products know how to wait until a Network connection is established BEFORE trying to update the DB.
Why hasn't MBAM made that adjustment ?

Other products don't need the user to configure "Recover if missed by".
If the DB is OUT OF DATE, say so.
If the user wants no alerts, DON'T say so.

I want to know if my definitions are outdated, so i can fix the issue.
If you don't care, you should be able to turn off that notification.

 

[ThrashZone]

With the ability to set check for updates from between once per minute to once per month seems to satisfy the very largest portion of the license holders.

That's only true if it works which it does not and never has since 2.0... was released.

 

[AdvancedSetup]

Official statement of support for 1.75

We will continue to support version 1.75 for another year. There is no specified cutoff date at this time.

This means:

• We will continue to support the product as normal and help individual users with issues.
• Version 1.75 Business will continue to be available/sold on our site, but the 1.75 Consumer version will not as this has been replaced by 2.0
• We continue to encourage consumer users to upgrade from 1.75 to 2.0

https://forums.malwarebytes.org/ind...tes-anti-malware-history-updates/#entry666782

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Yes, it was uneasiness because of the initial problems. It sounds more stable now, hence the uneasiness has eased, but I'm still not 100% enthusiastic about making the upgrade, having had no problems with 1.75..............

I took the plunge on a whim a few hours ago and installed 2.0.4.1028 Premium after having used 1.75 Pro for a long time.

No issues noted. The interface is completely different. Did the most complete scan of all 3 internal drives, which took about 4 hours and found only 2 instances of Open Candy.

Did not uninstall 1.75 or do anything special, just poked the new EXE and let it install on top of 1.75.

I was expecting some form of licensing or activation hell, but it didn't happen. I didn't have to enter any code of any type anywhere.

My "exclude" settings from 1.75 were carried over to the new version.

Only irritation so far is the tall nagging banner that appears along the bottom of the screen during scans, urging you to poke a link to "learn more".

I think I've got schedules set to do a "threat scan" at noon every day and to check for updates at 15 before and 15 after every hour.

 

[Layback Bear]

The banners at the bottom are nothing but annoying. I don't know how to get rid of them.

 

[ThrashZone]

Minimize the scanner

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

The banners at the bottom are nothing but annoying. I don't know how to get rid of them.

Are you using the free version?

 

[Layback Bear]

Paid for version.

 

[1PW]

@Layback Bear:

With version 2.1, the ad pane is vacant from all windows except a scan in progress window. That scan window can now be minimized to the Windows task bar.

If anyone would like to try v2.1 Beta1, the official download link can be found near the bottom of post #1:
https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/topic/165570-malwarebytes-anti-malware-21x-beta/

Cheers.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Paid for version.

Curious. The only ad I have on mine is a small box with a plug for their backup program. It doesn't flash at me, it doesn't play audio, it doesn't have annoying and distracting video, and it doesn't pop up an ad window, so, most of the time, I don't even see it on the rare occasions I actually open it up. The rest of the time, I just let MBAM do its thing, quietly updating and running a scan in the background (and the scan runs in the wee hours when I'm sawing logs).

 

[Brink]

New 2.1.1.1010 BETA version of Malwarebytes Anti-Malware released. See first post for more details.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I seem to recall there was a problem with the rootkit scan when 2.0 first came out. I've also noticed it is unchecked in the default settings. Is there still a problem with that (if there ever was one) or should I enable it?

 

[1PW]

Ticking "scan for rootkits" will add a small percentage of time to a system's overall scan times. Some users will take comfort in knowing their system is still rootkit safe when negative results are reported.

If speed is more important to you, a separate Threat Scan can be scheduled, in the Premium version, where a less frequent, and less stringent, scanning schedule has been chosen.

Try a few Threat Scans with everything enabled and see if this is what you like.

Cheers.

 

[DavidE]

I seem to recall there was a problem with the rootkit scan when 2.0 first came out. I've also noticed it is unchecked in the default settings. Is there still a problem with that (if there ever was one) or should I enable it?

I've been running my scheduled scans with rootkit enabled since v2 came out.
It hasn't caused me issues.

Run a manual scan with rootkit enabled and see if you have problems.