Latest Version of Malwarebytes

[mjf]

I reverted to an image made just before installing v3. I've gone back to v1.75.
I have v2.2.1.1043 on another PC but didn't have the installer - thanks for the link MoxieMomma. I might install it instead until Malwarebytes pull the plug.

 

[jadinolf]

Wouldn't hurt to install .1043.

 

[MoxieMomma]

Just to recap a bit for those not yet willing/able to upgrade to version 3:

Official Malwarebytes 2.2.1.1043 download link on their own site

MBAM2 Support/KB Portal

Malwarebytes Home Product Lifecycle Policy

Malwarebytes (Anti-Malware) Support Forum
(It is labeled for version 3.0; there is no specific sub-forum for MBAM2 at this time)

MM

 

[MoxieMomma]

Hi:

Wouldn't hurt to install .1043.

This is not meant to offend or to nitpick, only to clarify.

With MBAM (or any Malwarebytes product), the build number alone really is not enough to notate a product.
It's not quite the same as with Windows.

As of now, it's clear that "1043" refers to the last, current, stable build of MBAM 2.2.1.x.
Using only the last 4 digits of the build, however, might lead to confusion down the line.

For example:

The current version of MBAM is 2.2.1.1043

The current version of "MB3" is 3.0.4.1269

If they issue a patch, it might be 3.0.5.1043 or even 3.1.0.1043 (or something like that)


To reduce confusion for those unfamiliar with MBAM/MB3, I suggest referring to MBAM as "2.2.1.1043" or "MBAM2" or "MBAM 2.x", or something a bit more complete than "1043".

<just a friendly suggestion>

MM

 

[Brink]

New Malwarebytes 3.0.5.1299 WHQL released. See first post for more details.

 

[jadinolf]

New Malwarebytes 3.0.5.1299 WHQL released. See first post for more details.

Looks good so far.

Fingers crossed.

 

[AddRAM]

I`ll stick with Premium 2.2.1.1043 it does everything I need it to.

 

[jadinolf]

I`ll stick with Premium 2.2.1.1043 it does everything I need it to.

Well, yesterday I tried it on my i5 machine and it made a mess of it. Back to Version 2.

 

[Layback Bear]

As far as I know Malwarebytes does not care if the system is Intel i5 or i7.

Could you explain what this means in more detail.

Well, yesterday I tried it on my i5 machine and it made a mess of it.

I have used Premium 2.2.1.1043 for a long time without any problems.

Jack

 

[jadinolf]

As far as I know Malwarebytes does not care if the system is Intel i5 or i7.

Could you explain what this means in more detail.

Well, yesterday I tried it on my i5 machine and it made a mess of it.

I have used Premium 2.2.1.1043 for a long time without any problems.

Jack

Same here Jack.

I tried the new version (3) and it made a mess of my machine. I'm back to 2.2.1.1043

 

[jadinolf]

So strange that it works on two computers and ruins another computer using the same operating system.

Oh well,.....................

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Yea I'm in no hurry to see how 3.0... goes

 

[A Guy]

I've had no issues, they've had an update since then 3.0.5

Malwarebytes 3.0.5 Patch Release - now available - Malwarebytes 3.0 - Malwarebytes Forums

A Guy

 

[jadinolf]

Yep, perfect on two computers and destroyed my i5 machine.

Back to version 2 all is well.

 

[marsmimar]

Well this is discouraging, especially after using Malwarebytes Pro/Premium for many years. Windows 7 laptop (fully updated) froze about ten minutes into the installation of 3.0.5. When I checked the registry I found about 20 new Malwarebytes entries. Rather than edit the registry to clean things up I just used a system image and went back to 2.2.1.1043. Everything is working fine.

Tried installing 3.0.5 on my Windows 10 v1607. The install apparently worked but Malwarebytes did something to their coding and it's much more aggressive in removing what THEY consider to be PUPs.

Several years ago, I blogged that we would be increasing how aggressive we would be in detecting Potentially Unwanted Programs (PUPs) and our fantastic malware intelligence and research teams have delivered on that promise. Last year, we removed approximately 500 million traces of PUPs per month!

In response, a lot of the PUP developers are making efforts to circumvent our criteria and continue distributing their damaging software to users. This is why we are getting even more critical about what we call a PUP, and what we are going to be detecting and removing from user systems.

Source: Malwarebytes gets tougher on PUPs | Malwarebytes Labs

Malwarebyes also decided to change their criteria on what constitutes a PUP.

Here are some of the criteria we use:

• obtrusive, misleading, or deceptive advertising, branding, or search practices
• excessive or deceptive distribution, affiliate or opt-out bundling practices
• aggressive or deceptive behavior especially surrounding purchasing or licensing
• unwarranted, unnecessary, excessive, illegitimate, or deceptive modifications of system settings or configuration (including browser settings and toolbars)
• difficulty uninstalling or removing the software
• predominantly negative feedback or ratings from the user community
• diminishes user experience
• other practices generally accepted as riskware, scareware, adware, greyware, or otherwise commonly unwanted software by the user community

Source: Malwarebytes | PUP Reconsideration Information & Request Form

I have to ask, who made Malwarebytes king. Especially since it now flags and removed my ESET Online Scanner, SUPERAntispyware, and Sophos Virus Removal Tool; all of which have worked flawlessly side by side with 2.2.1.1023 as additional on-demand scanners. Once again a system image saved the day.

It's almost as though Malwarebytes is trying to be king of the hill. If any competitor tries to plant their own flag next to Malwarebyes, MB will just destroy the flag and push the participants off the hill. Not cool IMHO.

 

[AddRAM]

Always set it to warn user about detections, so it doesn`t delete it.

Then you can decide whether to get rid of whatever shows up.

There should never be anything on your PC unless you put it there anyway

 

[kado897]

Always set it to warn user about detections, so it doesn`t delete it.

Then you can decide whether to get rid of whatever shows up.

There should never be anything on your PC unless you put it there anyway

That's good advice Brian especially as there have been some false positives recently. That is one of the first settings I change.

 

[AddRAM]

I installed MMUltra Player on this AMD PC, and MBAM thought the installer was a PUP.

My fault for not removing the installer when I was done.

So there you can see why you wouldn`t want MBAM to automatically Quarantine an item, although you can just put the item back to where it was.

It won`t delete it until you tell it to.

 

[kado897]

I installed MMUltra Player on this AMD PC, and MBAM thought the installer was a PUP.

My fault for not removing the installer when I was done.

So there you can see why you wouldn`t want MBAM to automatically Quarantine an item, although you can just put the item back to where it was.

It won`t delete it until you tell it to.

It's latest overreaction is Auslogics Disk Defrag. Yes the installer has a nasty pup but the exec doesn't but it flags that.

 

[AddRAM]

Good thing you don`t need it