Malwarebytes Anti-Malware

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by jpcummins, Mar 23, 2015.

  1. daman1

    daman1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    1,292
    Location:
    USA, MICHIGAN
    Really? start a scan as you jump in the shower or run uptown for a burger, simple. 2.x.x is taking longer because it covers more files, doing a more thorough scan, etc,etc.
     
  2. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,185
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    So the previous versions witch did not take so long to scan were no good? Really? Blah blah blah!
     
  3. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    10,210
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    A "Threat Scan" on my machines takes just under half an hour and the so called "Hyper Scan" takes almost as long. :confused:
     
  4. RJK3

    RJK3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    862
    No wonder you're unhappy, that's a slow scan.

    Out of curiosity, how long do quick scans from HMP, HerdProtect, or Avira PC Cleaner take?

    First two are portable, and the last one can be converted to a portable tool and then taken around with you from that point on ("save to USB" and then copy to a local folder; need Cleaner-launcher.exe and Avira-PC-Cleaner folder).
     
  5. fblais

    fblais Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Posts:
    1,340
    Location:
    Québec, Canada
    I just installed HMP and the scan took 48 minutes... :(
     
  6. RJK3

    RJK3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    862
    That's the longest I've heard of with HMP! Mine literally just took 1:00 minute to finish.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2015
  7. fblais

    fblais Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Posts:
    1,340
    Location:
    Québec, Canada
    Maybe it's because it had to upload many files to the cloud.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2015
  8. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    6,219
    Location:
    USA
    Exactly; the time a scan takes can vary dramatically depending on the number and size of files on the PC plus broadband upload speed. A meaningful comparison of scan times between products requires running the tests on the same machine and network speed.

    Also what seems to help shorten scan times is to run Disk Cleanup and Ccleaner (or something similar) to empty temp folders and browser caches, so the app doesn't have to take the time to evaluate those files.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2015
  9. RJK3

    RJK3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    862
    Have you run an additional scan to see the difference, assuming it already uploaded anything it found interesting?
     
  10. fblais

    fblais Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Posts:
    1,340
    Location:
    Québec, Canada
    Did that.
    Scan ran for about 5 minutes, than got the "Classification (100%)" message for about an hour...
    CPU at 100%, almost totally irresponsive... Had to do a cold boot to end that...
    Only running Avira free AV and MBAE in freeware mode.
    But let's stop this OT thread here.
    I'll put a link in the HMP thread for Erikloman.
     
  11. erikloman

    erikloman Developer

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Posts:
    3,152
    Location:
    Hengelo, The Netherlands
    Thanks for the heads-up. I will PM with some instructions to pin point the issue on your rig.
     
  12. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,185
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    I run CCleaner, takes on average about 2:00 minutes. I defrag every week using the Windows7 built in one. I use Total 360 and have SuperAntiSpyware installed as well. I have 417GB free of 446GB on my disk drive. My link speed is 200 - 300 bps.

    Always,
    Wildman
     
  13. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,982
    Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
    Version: 2.01.6.1022
    Scan Type: Threat Scan
    Objects Scanned: 300624
    Time Elapsed: 10 min, 6 sec
    Memory: Enabled
    Startup: Enabled
    Filesystem: Enabled
    Archives: Enabled
    Rootkits: Enabled
    Heuristics: Enabled
    PUP: Enabled
    PUM: Enabled
    ----------------------------------
    Scan Type: Hyper Scan
    Objects Scanned: 261335
    Time Elapsed: 3 min, 16 sec
    Memory: Enabled
    Startup: Enabled
    Filesystem: Disabled
    Archives: Enabled
    Rootkits: Enabled
    Heuristics: Enabled
    PUP: Enabled
    PUM: Enabled
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  14. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    10,210
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    These are two I dragged out of my History. The Threat Scan was the latest, the Hyper Scan was a while ago.

    Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
    www.malwarebytes.org

    Scan Date: 13/03/2015
    Scan Time: 6:07:41 PM
    Logfile:
    Administrator: Yes

    Version: 2.01.3.1017
    Malware Database: v2015.03.13.04
    Rootkit Database: v2015.02.25.01
    License: Premium
    Malware Protection: Enabled
    Malicious Website Protection: Enabled
    Self-protection: Enabled

    OS: Windows 7 Service Pack 1
    CPU: x64
    File System: NTFS
    User: Dave

    Scan Type: Hyper Scan
    Result: Completed
    Objects Scanned: 289282
    Time Elapsed: 13 min, 44 sec

    Memory: Enabled
    Startup: Enabled
    Filesystem: Disabled
    Archives: Enabled
    Rootkits: Enabled
    Heuristics: Enabled
    PUP: Enabled
    PUM: Enabled

    Processes: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Modules: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Registry Keys: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Registry Values: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Registry Data: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Folders: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Files: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Physical Sectors: 0
    (No malicious items detected)


    (end)

    Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
    www.malwarebytes.org

    Scan Date: 27/04/2015
    Scan Time: 11:00:00 AM
    Logfile:
    Administrator: Yes

    Version: 2.01.6.1022
    Malware Database: v2015.04.26.05
    Rootkit Database: v2015.04.21.01
    License: Premium
    Malware Protection: Enabled
    Malicious Website Protection: Enabled
    Self-protection: Enabled

    OS: Windows 7 Service Pack 1
    CPU: x64
    File System: NTFS
    User: Dave

    Scan Type: Threat Scan
    Result: Completed
    Objects Scanned: 336535
    Time Elapsed: 22 min, 56 sec

    Memory: Enabled
    Startup: Enabled
    Filesystem: Enabled
    Archives: Enabled
    Rootkits: Enabled
    Heuristics: Enabled
    PUP: Enabled
    PUM: Enabled

    Processes: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Modules: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Registry Keys: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Registry Values: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Registry Data: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Folders: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Files: 0
    (No malicious items detected)

    Physical Sectors: 0
    (No malicious items detected)


    (end)
     
  15. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,982
    The Objects Scanned are more or less the same.
    Re the time difference between mine and yours: hardware is the reason that I can find.
    Windows 8.1 Pro, 32-bit, 4GB RAM, CPU: AMD FX 6-Core Black Edition
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  16. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    10,210
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    The system I that I used for those scans is Windows 7 64-bit SP1, Intel Core I3 CPU M330 @2.13GHz, 4.0GB RAM.

    Do I need a Super Computer to get decent scan times with MBAM now?

    Edit: FWIW, my other machine is Windows 7 64-bit SP1, Intel Core I5-3210M CPU @2.50Ghz, 4.0GB RAM with similar scan times.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  17. RJK3

    RJK3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    862
    Actually I don't think hardware is the critical reason at all. MBAM can run quick even on old, slow hardware. It's the setup that's key IMO.

    Look at the consistency in scan speeds for 3 of my machines, from a fast 8.1 machine to an old, slow XP3 Atom:

    Windows 8.1, SSD, i7-3630QM.
    2.1.6.1022

    Scan Type: Threat Scan
    Objects Scanned: 332124
    Time Elapsed: 4 min, 57 sec

    Scan Type: Hyper Scan
    Objects Scanned: 283786
    Time Elapsed: 1 min, 40 sec

    Windows 7 SP1, SSD, i5 520m.
    2.1.6.1022

    Scan Type: Threat Scan
    Objects Scanned: 323824
    Time Elapsed: 5 min, 12 sec.

    Scan Type: Hyper Scan
    Objects Scanned: 277596
    Time Elapsed: 1 min, 34 sec


    Windows XP SP3, 150gb HDD, Atom N270 1.6ghz.
    1.75.0.1300

    Scan type: Quick scan
    Objects scanned: 284962
    Time elapsed: 5 minute(s), 40 second(s)

    Scan type: Flash scan
    Objects scanned: 258880
    Time elapsed: 1 minute(s), 48 second(s)

    2.1.6.1022
    Scan type: Threat Scan
    Objects Scanned: 284955
    Time Elapsed: 7 min, 32 sec

    Scan type: Hyper Scan
    Objects Scanned: 258871
    Time Elapsed: 4 min, 46 sec

    As you can see scans are uniformly quick. The old N270 suffers a bit in the hyper scan but still performs well overall - maybe because I'd upgraded 1.75 to the latest version instead of uninstalling first, and it detected its own MBAM.sys as an unknown rootkit?

    Having used MBAM for years on many machines and setups, I've found that having minimal programs running makes the biggest difference - particularly avoiding slugs like iTunes. This, as well as basic performance optimisations and service rationalisations. Even in the 1.x days a quick scan shouldn't be much longer than 5-10 minutes.

    My general rule of thumb when I worked with machines from clients that above 15-20 minutes showed they hadn't setup their machines properly, and 35+minutes would mean there was likely a hidden rootkit interfering with MBAM.
     
  18. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,982
    @ RJK3,
    Thanks for the info! :thumb:
     
  19. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,185
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    The default option for SuperAntiSpyware scan took 2:00 minutes. The default option for Malwarebytes scan took 26:10 minutes. Buy buy Malwarebytes. When they can once again give me a default scan option that can compare I may be back other than that they can to to (guess where)! Oh yes I intend to bad mouth this product as well because of this.

    Always,
    Wildman
     
  20. siketa

    siketa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Posts:
    2,718
    Location:
    Gaia
    "buy buy" or "bye bye"?
    :confused:
     
  21. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,185
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    So long farewell. Wish these threads had a edit option because the previous thread should read "go to" vice "to to".

    Always,
    Wildman
     
  22. siketa

    siketa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Posts:
    2,718
    Location:
    Gaia
    I do have Edit, Delete and Report buttons at the lower left corner of my posts.
    Don't you?
     
  23. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,752
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Updated to the latest build and still lovin it.
     
  24. daman1

    daman1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    1,292
    Location:
    USA, MICHIGAN
    X100 no issues, scans are fine here..
     
  25. RJK3

    RJK3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    862
    This may reflect more on you, than it does on Malwarebytes Anti-Malware.

    All this needs to be viewed in the context that it's a free product that's helped clean millions of PCs, which has consistently demonstrated far better detections than something like SAS in independent testing.

    A more balanced view is that the product doesn't run efficiently on your machine, but that other people's mileage may vary.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.