Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit

Aren't we all supposed to be using multi-layered security? Malwarebytes has its place.

In the end it comes to convenience, you could just use backups/snapshots as security, but this requires a good library. If something goes wrong, it can be a pain to go back in time to work out when pre-infection was; and then workout what you have done since then to return to ‘now’.

Other security will more than likely keep the system clean, so it is just short trip back in time if all hell breaks loose.

If using a backup/snapshot only model, you want nothing but OS and programs on your C drive so nothing is lost with a restore. As well as a dual boot, this is just good housekeeping in general.

I recently moved all my data off the C drive on my machines, and it was a bit of messing around, but when I did something stupid, the restore was painless and only required installation/update of a few programs to fix, as all my emails and data was intact on another drive.

 

Thanks guest & Peter & XenMan for your helpful comments.

Per Peter's comment, I checked further on SD's Commit situation over HERE. The discussion of Commit goes on for several posts.

In that same discussion, I took note of guest's comment HERE re key logging. Since I image very very often, having a key logger get into my computer's skivvies is the one possible nasty that makes me shudder.

Bottom Line: (a) I will stick with MBAE and, (b) I have added NoScript to my beloved Firefox browser and, (c) I am on the hunt for an anti-logger.

 

fyi v1.12.1.107 =
https://malwarebytes.app.box.com/s/341m41qo10b0jkv6tkuj0w0jhlpaimus

 

Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit Beta 1.12 Build 109 (August 09, 2018)
https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/205865-malwarebytes-anti-exploit-112-build-109-released/

 

Thanks, it just updated, a short time ago.

 

https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/234884-the-system-tray-icon-appears-with-excessive-delay-107109-on-windows-xp/

 

From 1.12.1.109 to 1.12.1.124 via auto update.

Edit 1:
Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit Beta 1.12.1.124
https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/malwarebytes_anti_exploit_(formerly_exploitshield).html

Bitdefender Disables Anti-Exploit Monitoring in Chrome After Google Policy Change
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...itoring-in-chrome-after-google-policy-change/

Edit 2:

https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/205865-malwarebytes-anti-exploit-112-build-124-released/

 

Just auto updated, here, too.

 

Tit for tat -- Chrome is on my blacklist as well. Here's a bird for you Goon-gle.

 

Updated to 1.12.1.124 on Windows 10 - looks good.
I got worried a bit when I read that they removed protection for Chrome and thought Vivaldi might be affected. But Vivaldi is protected , as is SeaMonkey and Opera12, so I'm happy. Never used Chrome and don't plan to.

 

https://forums.malwarebytes.com/top...t-chrome-shield/?tab=comments#comment-1266738

 

So what,s the verdict on this new version for XP users...Icon slowness fixed now

 

No.
On Windows XP better to use the ver.90.

 

I can't test it on my XP desktop, since it wouldn't boot up. Just a black screen. Well, I can't complain, because my XP desktop lasted for 11 years.

 

@
Sampei Nihira..No.
On Windows XP better to use the ver.90.

Well thats the pits..was.hoping that this new version would fix it...very annoying!!

 

1.12.1.90 I presume?
I had trouble installing 1.11.1.48 version and 1.10.1.24 acted weird (something about object access trouble), so I have none on XP at this time, that's why I ask. I really want it back in.

I assume that the installer is common for both 64 and 32 version. I ask because I have the .90 installer on 64 bit windows 10 and can just push it over to XP.

EDIT: Never mind. The .90 installer copied from Windows10 worked fine on XP. All is well including the icon, Office programs, browsers.

 

Yes.

 

Google Chrome to block antimalware

Anti-Exploit 1.12.1.109 continues to protect Google Chrome (I have suppressed Anti-Exploit updates by blocking the update domain entry using HOSTS). I am curious to see what problems might beset Anti-Exploit/Google Chrome after forthcoming Google Chrome version updates. It remains to be seen if making the SWReporter folder inaccessible will continue to defeat Software Reporter's efforts to weaken security. So much for layers of defence. It is bizarre that Google should deliberately deprive its browser's users of tried and tested defences.

What protection is there for users from Google's complacency if it prevents third-party expert anti-malware software designers from being Devil's Advocates? We should all be concerned that user security and privacy is more likely to be jeopardised by Google's change of policy.

It appears that there is no obvious way to communicate user unhappiness to arrogant Google. Google seems to wish to bury its head in the sand. This is not good for Google or user.

Mozilla announced in August that Firefox will integrate anti-tracking later this year. Anti-tracking strips out any third-party trackers that follow you around the internet. Mozilla is providing what users actually want by listening to them. Unlike Google.

 

@loungehake

Is there really a need to block updates? Can't you just make a custom shield for Chrome?

 

Unfortunately not. I did try creating a custom shield for Google Chrome in MBAE 1.12.1.124 but it was deleted by MBAE.

 

Sooner or later Chrome (v72) will always block code injection and using of an old version of MBAE won't work anymore.

 

MBAE updated today to build 1.12.1.129. No release notes yet. Maybe it's a compatibility release for Windows 10 version 1809.

 

Yes, when I booted up earlier, today, I noticed that it had updated.

 

Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit Beta 1.12 Build 129 (October 05, 2018)
https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/205865-malwarebytes-anti-exploit-112-build-129-released/

 

If Google sweeps away the irritant of the third party anti-malware specialists and appoints its own personnel to be sole guards of its web browser, who will guard the guards? What pressures of expediency will in the future suppress due diligence among its own developers? This sort of change comes from higher up in a parent organisation. How will users know in future if Google Chrome is vulnerable to exploits when the alarm is silenced? If Google was infallible then it would not matter. The black hats must be rubbing their hands in glee.