Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2 released

Actually, everyone is OK with it.

So, you declare the owners of a cars recalled for a documented stall at speed inducing defect in a wiring harness can't criticize the manufacturer but also have to consider riding a bicycle? Besides, everyone else (the idiots they are) is driving cars not yet documented to be stalling at speed.

Of course. The crime is always the stupid victim's fault. Especially if they can't live in the newest elite neighborhoods. (And easily glossed over by the elitists is one Malwarebytes marketing point is MBAM provides protection for old software.)

Gosh. That's a tough one. Not compromised... not a problem? Not compromised... a problem? Who could know?? That will have to remain one of the Great Mysteries of The Universe.

[/sarc]

As I categorically and specifically mentioned MBAM Premium (repeat: MBAM PREMIUM) vulnerabilities, not a "the system" compromise, your reply has absolutely no relevance to my statement. An MBAM Premium installation subject to one or more of its documented several vulnerabilities which can result in a system compromise is a problem and the onus should be on Malwarebytes to provide a tool to its paying customers to test that. But a repaired product will suffice.

BTW, stop thinking.

 

On my system, CPU and GPU temp are not really a problem, but I get a bit nervous if system temp goes from 30C to 50C or more. But it would be cool if MBAM could use a little less of CPU time, the way I understood it is that 25% is in fact 100% usage of one CPU core.

Actually, I was speaking of system temp, the CPU temp stays the same strangely enough, at least according to Speedfan.

 

system temp? where is the sensor/thermometer?

 

You should check out SpeedFan to see what I mean:

http://www.almico.com/speedfan.php

 

False measurement, leading to wrong assumption, that there needs to be less cpu time usage.
25% CPU time does not mean that one core is fully used all the time. Windows does shift the load and cycles all cores and threads.

False measurement.
CPU temperature always rises first, before system temperature slowly rises .

You should check with another tool, like HWmonitor, or openhardwaremonitor, to proof.

 

I can provide an example of an extreme temperature vs CPU load...

Re-coding an m2ts video with my i7 on-board graphics loads all four cores to 95-99% (the application is given high priority). A 30GB file could run 15-20 minutes.

With an ambient of 21°C, the temp idles at 30° and hovers at 55° under that load. Of course, the fan (CM Hyper 212 EVO) doubles in speed from 750 to 1500 RPM.

So you're doing OK - not to worry. MBAM's scanner is a hard worker but your system won't suffer for it.

 

Really? A hard worker?
It's boring my computer to death.
Look at the CPU-temperatures and the CPU-fan spinning at 250RPM. (Mainboard Temp. is false static reading)

http://abload.de/img/mbam-usagec6sk4.jpg

I wish MBAM would use more CPU-time and more HDD-time, to speedup scanning.

 

Sarcasm noted, however I don't know that we understand each other yet. To continue with the auto analogy when a defect is discovered that causes a recall the car owner doesn't suddenly have the right to demand his money back. If the defect resulted in some loss or injury to the owner that's another matter and people in that situation are often compensated. My point RE MBAM is if people were not infected or otherwise harmed as a result of the discovered defects why should they expect a refund or otherwise be unhappy? I'm not saying people shouldn't be concerned and want to learn about the implications of the defects. I am saying that discovering and fixing defects is an ongoing process for pretty much all software. That's what I meant, which may or may not have anything to do with your point. If I'm not understanding you please restate.

 

OK got it. I did notice that SAS will also use 25% of CPU time, so seems like it's normal.

 

I would like to understand the strategy of Malwarebytes. They have an antimalware product (they say is not an AV), they have an anti exploit product and an anti ransomware product, and whatever anti comes next... they have everything and more compare with most AV's but still they don't call themselves AV.
There must be a plant to put everything together and make a compelling product.

 

their products may overlap but each hunts a separate issue.
why do other vendors offer similar solutions? eg Kaspersky TDSSkiller. or eset online scan (which seems to be an on-demand freeware eset av).
might not their focus to offer a complete suite - who will buy it?

 

The context of a refund does not exist in any of my posts on this topic. Based on that misconstrued injection alone, it is apparent an understanding will not be possible.

 

Well, I should have gone back and edited the post to say that I wasn't implying you specifically when I mentioned people asking for refunds. That did in fact happen though on the Malwarebytes forum and I was making a reference to that as an example of where I feel the company's obligations lie. I remain open to trying to understand your point, but if you'd rather not pursue it then no problem and all the best.

 

hi in the past i use malwarebytes pro (liftime licens)now i have
updates to malwarebytes premium 2.2.0.1024. Why is this
signature update search took so long for minutes mb search
for updates i dont like this,the older mbam was much better
in all ways the have ruin the software

 

Is there any new version of this report?
https://fr.malwarebytes.org/pdf/datasheets/MBAMVsCompetitors.pdf
Or any reporting comparing the performance of MBAM v2?

 

Hello,

MBAM 2.2.1.1043 has been released.

The announcement and a list of what is new/changed along with the download link is available here: MBAM 2.2.1 Patch Release.

 

Thanks Kent.

Updated successfully.

 

Hello Krusty13,

You are most welcome !

 

You are most welcome JR ...

 

What's up with the stupid Push Notifications on the mbam forums now? I don't want to enable Push Notifications but if I don't I'm bombarded with an annoying pop-up on every page I visit. It seems their forums have gone down hill with their new format.

Just another reason for me not to log in.

 

NOT FIXED!

 

To permanently disable or turn off Push notifications feature in Firefox

1.Visit about:config

2. Find the preference dom.webnotifications.enabled and change its value to false.

3. Done.

 

Does this

Does this patch address this vulnerability?
From the changelog, it would appear not - unless I've missed something?

 

The "Fixed security vulnerability to ensure database updates are downloaded over SSL connections only" entry in the changelog appears to address that problem.