Latest Version of Malwarebytes

[A Guy]

Will install after making my weekly images

A Guy

 

[Alexey2912]

Here's what I'm getting.

I was getting exactly the same, support tried giving various options but none worked. At last they admitted it's a bug, which would be rectified by new year, but still the same. Lost faith in MBAM paid versions.

 

[A Guy]

Installed latest version. Time will tell if the issue remains.

A Guy

 

[jadinolf]

Installed latest version. Time will tell if the issue remains.

A Guy

For me the issues showed up immediately, Bill.

Can't even install it on two of my computers.

Will try it on my Windows 10 computer when it really is working.

 

[Firefox]

From
Malwarebytes 3.0.6 Release Preview - Now Available! - Malwarebytes 3.0 - Malwarebytes Forums



How in the hell did Malwarebytes ever release 3.0 with this many problems??

Could it be that Malwarebytes did it like Microsoft did with W-10?
Both seemed to put their product out for the rest of the world to do the needed testing.
Obviously it's cheaper letting the world do the R&D rather that doing the needed R&D in house.

I would suggest to both companies that their reputation does have a value and these types of methods are not good for such reputations.

Just my opinion.

Jack

You may be right there, we seem to be the ones doing the R&D...

There's no credible reason to be running version 1.75 -- it has been outdated since March 2014.

As was explained HERE and HERE, the fact that version 1.75 may still be getting database updates for a few more months hardly matters. It lacks several important features, such as anti-rootkit scanning, as well as many, many improvements to the scanning engines and real-time protection capabilities under the hood (such as heuristic detection). Running version 1.75 now - even with current "databases" - is a false sense of security. It may be better than nothing at all, but it's not nearly as robust as version 2.x.

So I cannot fault Malwarebytes for removing their official download links to a program that is nearly 3 years out of date.
As for version 2.2.1.1043, at least for now, either of these download links ought to work:

https://downloads.malwarebytes.com/file/mbam_2x
https://data-cdn.mbamupdates.com/web/mbam-setup-2.2.1.1043.exe

Cheers,
MM

Excellent points here, there is no reason anyone should be running version 1.75 now. For now the best version to run is version 2.2.1.1043. That version is pretty solid, and together with the stand alone of MBAE you will be pretty protected.

 

[Seffrid]

I now have both my home computers upgraded to version 2.2.1.1043 from version 1.75.

As for what happens in June, that rather depends on Malwarebytes. If version 3 is the only supported version at that time then it will need to be generally accepted as being fully fit for purpose which is clearly not the case at present. If it isn't, then my hope would be that they would extend the support period for version 2.x which is something I'd favour anyway as I'm none too sure about all the extra things about version 3 like it replacing an anti-virus program - not least because I don't think in relation to security that "putting all one's eggs in one basket" is ever a good idea. The appeal of running several different programs has always been that they catch different things, and expecting one program to catch everything is quite an ask. If it's fully compatible with the other programs that is one thing, but if not then that's a major problem.

On the other hand, Emsisoft seems to have built a good reputation for covering both anti-virus and anti-malware protection and that may be one option (among others) if MBAM version 3 isn't proven to be wholly viable at the point where support is dropped for version 2.x.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

From
Malwarebytes 3.0.6 Release Preview - Now Available! - Malwarebytes 3.0 - Malwarebytes Forums



How in the hell did Malwarebytes ever release 3.0 with this many problems??

Could it be that Malwarebytes did it like Microsoft did with W-10?
Both seemed to put their product out for the rest of the world to do the needed testing.
Obviously it's cheaper letting the world do the R&D rather that doing the needed R&D in house.

I would suggest to both companies that their reputation does have a value and these types of methods are not good for such reputations.

Just my opinion.

Jack

MS has gotten big enough it doesn't give the north end of a south bound furry little rodent about its reputation (which never was all that stellar anyway). Malwarebytes, on the other hand, should take a look at what happened to companies like Lavasoft, McAfee, Norton, Nero, etc. when their software became too bloated to work well or were otherwise buggy.

 

[jadinolf]

MS has gotten big enough it doesn't give the north end of a south bound furry little rodent about its reputation (which never was all that stellar anyway). Malwarebytes, on the other hand, should take a look at what happened to companies like Lavasoft, McAfee, Norton, Nero, etc. when their software became too bloated to work well or were otherwise buggy.

Yeah and it's run by a 28 year old kid and it shows.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Yeah and it's run by a 28 year old kid and it shows.

Which one? "Nutella" is 49.

 

[Firefox]

I now have both my home computers upgraded to version 2.2.1.1043 from version 1.75.

As for what happens in June, that rather depends on Malwarebytes. If version 3 is the only supported version at that time then it will need to be generally accepted as being fully fit for purpose which is clearly not the case at present. If it isn't, then my hope would be that they would extend the support period for version 2.x which is something I'd favour anyway as I'm none too sure about all the extra things about version 3 like it replacing an anti-virus program - not least because I don't think in relation to security that "putting all one's eggs in one basket" is ever a good idea. The appeal of running several different programs has always been that they catch different things, and expecting one program to catch everything is quite an ask. If it's fully compatible with the other programs that is one thing, but if not then that's a major problem.

They may stop the support for it, but most likely the definitions should work for version 2....

Yeah and it's run by a 28 year old kid and it shows.

Which one? "Nutella" is 49.

Marcin Kleczynski is the CEO of Malwarebytes and he is 28 years old...

 

[jadinolf]

They may stop the support for it, but most likely the definitions should work for version 2....





Marcin Kleczynski is the CEO of Malwarebytes and he is 28 years old...

And there is your answer.

 

[mjf]

Mark Zuckerberg is still only 32 and worth USD$54 billion. But money isn't everything I suppose.

 

[jadinolf]

Mark Zuckerberg is still only 32 and worth USD$54 billion. But money isn't everything I suppose.

Really.

Another other rich guy I can think of.

 

[A Guy]

Not had the protection problem since updating to latest. Also no MBAM issues at all so far. A Guy

 

[DavidE]

The final version of Malwarebytes 3.0.6 is now available.
Malwarebytes v. 3.0.6.1469 can be downloaded ..https://downloads.malwarebytes.com/file/mb3.
Malwarebytes 3.0.6 Released - Malwarebytes 3.0 - Malwarebytes Forums

 

[kado897]

Installed over the previous release with no issues so far.

 

[Brink]

New final version of Malwarebytes 3.0.6.1469 now available. See first post for more details.

 

[jadinolf]

Installed over the previous release with no issues so far.

Same here--fingers crossed.

Just installed it on one computer. Must learn to be patient.

 

[Golden]

I wonder if its even worth contemplating having it at all. Malwarebytes has an established history of screwing up with each major update, and that makes me wary.

Who recalls the very first major problem with it?

 

[A Guy]

Installed this yesterday, still the protection issue on startup

A Guy