ChicaPC-Shield - MBAM for Ladies...

Wow, they just killed the license. Had to look through the registry of an old snapshot to find it, only to have it fail on ChicaPC-Shield as well.

Great treatment of "piracy".

 

Well you pirated it, so what do you expect?

I have 6 licenses for Chica, and they work interchangeably with MBAM.. Only apid $7 each for them!

 

Read the thread. Seriously what an ignorant comment.

 

I don't understand, did you use the Chica license for Chica or MBAM Pro?

 

Neither works anymore. So much for giveaways.

 

Strange J L. I installed ChicaPC on a friends 16 year old daughter when the Giveaway came out. I checked the program last night, all is well.

@MBAM, la muchachita loves the program and told me she is recommending it to all her friends.

Bo

 

I don't even run MBAM anymore, I run Chica. Security through obscurity applies, and I like the colors and tray icon better. Consider, all of the processes for Chica have different MD5's, therefore any malware that targets MBAM wouldn't find Chica.. I had to contact Webroot to get them to whitelist Chica, as their cloud apparently had no experience with it, and didn't recognize the processes as MBAM.

All good, have moved to deployment of Chica vs Mbam on requires systems. Especially since Chica runs $7.99 sales.

 

Can you PM me the license? My registry may be in the incorrect format.

 

Yup the license is killed for both MBAM and Chica. "You have entered invalid license information". Confirmed on a clean virtual machine.

Malwarebytes' treat giveaways as piracy, end of story.

 

No it was not an officially supported give-away as they were inadvertently giving away a license for which they did not have a license to do so. The Malwarebytes Corporation has sponsored and honored quite a few giveaways but we provide a license for each winner not a single unlimited user license which is why the license was black listed for both products.

We just ran our own even during the week leading up to Halloween but again each winner was provided their very own license, not an unlimited user license.

Thank you

 

About time an official explanation has come. How did this happen in the first place? Why was it allowed for a while, giving users a false sense of security, and then killed without warning just like that? OK, the "piracy" message could have been one, but nobody expected anything without clarification.

All in all, this could've been handled a lot better by posting the official response as soon as the giveaway started.

 

It wasn't our giveaway and no one told us about it either. Sorry but with well over a thousand different security blogs and forums out on the Internet there is no easy way to alert everyone even if we wanted to.

 

Problem with that argument is this isn't the first time you posted on the thread. You could've easily stated this giveaway was invalid, unless it wasn't determined to be so back then; or posted anything about its status and why people saw the "piracy" message. A copypasta or link would've been fine. Yet nothing was clarified until it's too late.

 

He only found out about it after the fact, just like us. Ron does not make policy at that Malwarebytes corporate level.

By purchasing your own license you are still receiving a terrific, lifetime, world-class product and service after the sale for $12 to $14USD.

 

Where did they indicate that? All they did was ignore the issue, then kill it, and then finally explain themselves as far as I know. I don't care who's fault it is, Malwarebytes' did not do the right job in this case.

I'll purchase when deemed necessary, tyvm.

 

Yeah this really isn't an issue.. Hell I got a stack of MBAM licenses for $7.99 each a couple months ago. Valid, with bill of sale, if they ever killed em they'd get a nice charge back. However they will not, as they weren't a giveaway. Point is, if you want MBAM, just buy it - it's worth it. Don't blame MBAM for what one of their thousands of affiliates did.

 

I think you are missing the point here. This was not a Malwarebytes issue. An affiliate made a mistake with a promotion, corrected it and after a long period of time we killed the key as it is no longer valid, for Chica or for MBAM. If you were part of the Chica promotion they would have taken care of you. If you used their key with our software you never were using it correctly to begin with so killing the key should not have affected you.

In essence the mistake let everyone willing to be a pirate use MBAM for free forever. I am not sure why anyone would look at that situation and expect the key to stay valid, especially for software that was not even the intended target of the promotion.

 

One thing. Chicalogic clearly uses the same licensing scheme as MBAM, since those licenses are interchangable. (barring the free giveaway ones) I prefer Chica, due to interface, and a better tray icon. But I was led to believe those keys would also work for MBAM. Will Chicalogic be updated to MBAM 2.0 when it launches? Then the question is - if it is not will the keys work with MBAM 2.0 so we aren't left with an obsolete product?

 

None of the 1.x keys will work with 2.0 - all currently paid licensed users will have their current license converted to a new license for 2.0

I have no idea if Chica will purchase the licensing rights to 2.0 or not. This was a special version made for them per a special negotiated contract.

 

How it is going to be converted because 2 of my licenses are gift from friends. And they bought it whith their email not mine. So the new code will be sent to their email?

 

I'm sure your missing my point as well. An affliate made a mistake with a promotion, corrected it without notifying the public, and when no one knew their keys are going to be killed you just pull the rug.

So it's currently working for ChicaPC users who registered early enough, right? My mistake for thinking it's interchangeable then, but once again, nobody clarified anything until it's too late.

Essentially blaming the user as a "pirate". Since you didn't get my point, I'm sure that's why you thought that. The problem is with the execution, not the results.