Latest Version of Malwarebytes

[Seffrid]

I currently use Microsoft Security Essentials running in the background for basic ongoing AV protection including daily scheduled scans, and twice a week or so I run MBAM 1.75 free version manually for a back-up malware check. If the new MBAM version is finally sorted out and doesn't involve turning what is currently a 10 minutes quick scan into a 2 hour task then I'll switch to it when the 1.75 support ceases, but if not then I too would be interested in the best and nearest alternative. I use both my machines for basic online gaming (MMOs) and browsing, plus (until the end of the year) checking Word doc reports by way of my work. I don't download movies or music, but stream the odd video on YouTube etc.

 

[DavidE]

From what I've read, some people have issues with Ver. 2 and some don't.
I just updated my Test box W7 x64 MBAM version from ...1012 to the latest ...1025.
The Threat scan time is basically the same for me, apx. 9 minutes.

I don't store data on the drive, just the OS and Programs. My [C] drive is apx. 40 GB. My Test box is an old AMD dual core, OS installed on a spinner HD. I have the MBAM paid version, for the real-time protection. Also, on this OS I run real-time: Avast AV, EMET, Winpatrol. I think you would need to test the latest version on your system to know if the the scan time issue is fixed for you. I always create a System Backup Image before making changes to give me a quick way to undo things if they don't work out. hth, David

 

[Tookeri]

I also have MBAM Premium with real-time protection. So I don't see a point in doing manual scans like Threat scan. I don't do manual or scheduled scans with my AV either because of its real-time scan. The only time I do one is before making a new system image backup, but it's probably not necessary then either. If it would find anything, it's probably not anything dangerous. Otherwise the real-time scan would've detected it.

With the exception of a manual scan finding an executable file that real-time previously missed, because of updated definitions, but then I'm already in trouble.....

 

[DavidE]

I also have MBAM Premium with real-time protection. So I don't see a point in doing manual scans like Threat scan.

I agree.
I only did a manual scan to test the new program version.
Before I stated it's not taking 2 hours, I wanted to be sure ...

 

[A Guy]

I manually scan with everything once a week before making my weekly images. Just to be sure, the malware writers are sneaky...changing things that appear normal when 1st installed/downloaded. I don't expect that to happen, but hey, I'm making basically a rescue image, going to make sure it's clean

A Guy

 

[richc46]

I manually scan with everything once a week before making my weekly images. Just to be sure, the malware writers are sneaky...changing things that appear normal when 1st installed/downloaded. I don't expect that to happen, but hey, I'm making basically a rescue image, going to make sure it's clean

A Guy

Excellent advice. I do the same thing. It would be foolish to use an image that is infected.

 

[andrew129260]

I also have MBAM Premium with real-time protection. So I don't see a point in doing manual scans like Threat scan. I don't do manual or scheduled scans with my AV either because of its real-time scan. The only time I do one is before making a new system image backup, but it's probably not necessary then either. If it would find anything, it's probably not anything dangerous. Otherwise the real-time scan would've detected it.

With the exception of a manual scan finding an executable file that real-time previously missed, because of updated definitions, but then I'm already in trouble.....

For being a security enthusiast, I am very surprised you take this route. I would think you would know better then that.

 

[Tookeri]

I also have MBAM Premium with real-time protection. So I don't see a point in doing manual scans like Threat scan. I don't do manual or scheduled scans with my AV either because of its real-time scan. The only time I do one is before making a new system image backup, but it's probably not necessary then either. If it would find anything, it's probably not anything dangerous. Otherwise the real-time scan would've detected it.

With the exception of a manual scan finding an executable file that real-time previously missed, because of updated definitions, but then I'm already in trouble.....

For being a security enthusiast, I am very surprised you take this route. I would think you would know better then that.

I'll try to explain it better then:

I missed to explain the possibility of other benefits with a manual scan, like heuristics. Besides that I see no point in for example scanning all files in a manual scan. The most important thing is to scan all files used in real-time. Other files shouldn't pose any danger even if infected. As long as they are never used they pose no threat, and if/when they're used the real-time will check them.

In my experience, the only time a manual scan has detected something that real-time hasn't:

• an executable file type that hasn't been used/run lately (due to updated definitions)
  But if it would run after the definitions were updated then the real-time would pick it up
• an non-executable file type like zip (but if a process would've used the infected file in the zip then the real-time would pick it up)
• a heuristic detection (this might reveal something "bad" but has higher risk of false positives)
  But I rely more on my AV's HIPS protection than the heuristic detection from a manual scan

Note: This is based on experience of my AV. How exactly other AVs work with heuristics and HIPS (and detection rates) I can't say, or even if they have those features. Unlike many others here I wouldn't for example recommend MSE to anyone.

PS. I should also add that I'm more cautious than the average user and check downloaded files on VirusTotal and HerdProtect before using them. I often also do manual scans on the downloaded files to get the heuristics checked. And I check the digital signatures too. First time I launch a new program I check it in Process Explorer to see if it's a packed imaged which is unusual and more suspicious. I also check all DLL's the program uses(lower pane VirusTotal check in Process Explorer). If it's not a commonly used program I launch it through Sandboxie the first time.
Haven't had an infection in years and that's why I only do manual scans before creating new system images, like A Guy, I just don't do it as often.

 

[andrew129260]

I also have MBAM Premium with real-time protection. So I don't see a point in doing manual scans like Threat scan. I don't do manual or scheduled scans with my AV either because of its real-time scan. The only time I do one is before making a new system image backup, but it's probably not necessary then either. If it would find anything, it's probably not anything dangerous. Otherwise the real-time scan would've detected it.

With the exception of a manual scan finding an executable file that real-time previously missed, because of updated definitions, but then I'm already in trouble.....

For being a security enthusiast, I am very surprised you take this route. I would think you would know better then that.

I'll try to explain it better then:

I missed to explain the possibility of other benefits with a manual scan, like heuristics. Besides that I see no point in for example scanning all files in a manual scan. The most important thing is to scan all files used in real-time. Other files shouldn't pose any danger even if infected. As long as they are never used they pose no threat, and if/when they're used the real-time will check them.

In my experience, the only time a manual scan has detected something that real-time hasn't:

• an executable file type that hasn't been used/run lately (due to updated definitions)
  But if it would run after the definitions were updated then the real-time would pick it up
• an non-executable file type like zip (but if a process would've used the infected file in the zip then the real-time would pick it up)
• a heuristic detection (this might reveal something "bad" but has higher risk of false positives)
  But I rely more on my AV's HIPS protection than the heuristic detection from a manual scan

Note: This is based on experience of my AV. How exactly other AVs work with heuristics and HIPS (and detection rates) I can't say, or even if they have those features. Unlike many others here I wouldn't for example recommend MSE to anyone.

PS. I should also add that I'm more cautious than the average user and check downloaded files on VirusTotal and HerdProtect before using them. I often also do manual scans on the downloaded files to get the heuristics checked. And I check the digital signatures too. First time I launch a new program I check it in Process Explorer to see if it's a packed imaged which is unusual and more suspicious. I also check all DLL's the program uses(lower pane VirusTotal check in Process Explorer). If it's not a commonly used program I launch it through Sandboxie the first time.
Haven't had an infection in years and that's why I only do manual scans before creating new system images, like A Guy, I just don't do it as often.

I gotcha. Different strokes for different folks. I Appreciate the explanation though.

 

[ThrashZone]

Nice terms agreement via mbam,
Did y'all read mbam can abandon lifetime subscriptions at any time they want too and without notice
Malwarebytes | Website Terms of Service
Cheers.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Nice terms agreement via mbam,
Did y'all read mbam can abandon lifetime subscriptions at any time they want too and without notice
Malwarebytes | Website Terms of Service
Cheers.

I'm becoming more and more disenchanted with MBAM. I paid for lifetime licenses and, if they abandon them, I will sue them for a refund in small claims court. If they don't fix all the problems that keep cropping up with the new version before the previous one reaches EOL next year, I may go for the refund anyway.

 

[ThrashZone]

In my own peril I've never really read the terms before and probably read too much into that one but it seems pretty clear cancel at any time for any or no reason at all is the way I absorbed it :/
This is a good one,

Warranty Disclaimers
THE SERVICES AND CONTENT ARE PROVIDED “AS IS,” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, WE EXPLICITLY DISCLAIM ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, QUIET ENJOYMENT AND NON-INFRINGEMENT AND ANY WARRANTIES ARISING OUT OF COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE. We make no warranty that the Services will meet your requirements or be available on an uninterrupted, secure, or error-free basis. We make no warranty regarding the quality, accuracy, timeliness, truthfulness, completeness or reliability of any Content.

 

[richc46]

I do not think that is their intent at the present time. Its just protection if things change drastically, money wise, for them in the future.

 

[Callender]

MBAM possible upcoming changes

Possible upcoming changes to the user interface explained here:

A new UI for Malwarebytes Anti-Malware in the works

 

[ThrashZone]

I believe the wording in the actual upgrade agreement is different than the link I posted to ?
The link reads much more docile than the upgrade popup agreement
No copy and paste allowed of course in that dialog
View attachment 337697
View attachment 337698

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Possible upcoming changes to the user interface explained here:

A new UI for Malwarebytes Anti-Malware in the works

They haven't been able to get the current version consistently working correctly and they are wasting their energy coming up with a new one?

 

[ThrashZone]

I'll finish that sentence Lady..
Wasting time on Looks instead of functionality

I wouldn't care if it was in a brown paper bag as long as it functioned properly

 

[andrew129260]

I'll finish that sentence Lady..
Wasting time on Looks instead of functionality

I wouldn't care if it was in a brown paper bag as long as it functioned properly

The old ugly looking version was fine and stable. Why they had to go and update it making it 3 times worse baffles me. Why would I want prettyness with a protection program? I want stable and secure.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I'll finish that sentence Lady..
Wasting time on Looks instead of functionality

I wouldn't care if it was in a brown paper bag as long as it functioned properly

The old ugly looking version was fine and stable. Why they had to go and update it making it 3 times worse baffles me. Why would I want prettyness with a protection program? I want stable and secure.

Heck, I didn't even think the old version was ugly.

 

[ThrashZone]

I did either Lady.. I thought it was a little to straight forward to be ugly

Careful Andrew it's too close to Halloween to be agreeing with me :roflmao: