Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2 released

Here comes the rain spam again......

" Adguard, Adguard, Adguard...."
=

----------------------------

Short answer: MBAM beta tested by Adguard guys.......

 

Thanks I'll try that. In the meantime I'm keeping MBAM on-demand as always. If nothing helps I'll go to the Malwarebytes helpdesk.

 

Agree!

Same here.

I usually copy and update other pc's by copy/paste of:

C:\ProgramData\Malwarebytes\Malwarebytes Anti-Malware'rules.ref
C:\ProgramData\Malwarebytes\Malwarebytes Anti-Malware\Configuration\database.conf

Is that still sufficient to update manually in version2..?

 

At least Malwarebytes headquarters is 2.850 miles away from NSA headquarters

 

@ FleischmannTV,
Check your inbox.

 

Threat scan on this new(free) version with default settings takes twice as long as the quick scan took with the old 1.75 version.

WIN 7 SP1, 6 core CPU, 8 GB of memory.

 

I had to roll back as well. 1.75 is rock solid and I will stick with that until the new version is ironed out and offers something I actually need.

 

I've noticed it takes longer too, but can't say for certain that it's "twice as long". Obviously there's a reason - why not ask the developer why? Perhaps v2 is more thorough and has a higher malware detection and removal rate than 1.75?

On the other hand the Hyper Scan is very fast - finished in under 4 minutes - but I don't know if it's faster than 1.75 Flash Scan.

 

1.75 flash scan on my machine takes 22-28 seconds.

 

That great, but not a meaningful number by itself. Can you run Hyper Scan on your system for comparison?

 

Hyper/Flash scans only exist on the Pro version. I have a Pro license but use the free version instead. Pro is bloated and didn't offer anymore protection than I have w/Emsisoft Antimalware paid version.

When I did have the Pro version(1.75) installed, the flash scans took less than a min. as I recall.

EAM's quick scan takes seconds only, less than a minute, and it includes a scan for rootkits.

 

Encountered 3 bugs, two of which I've not yet seen mentioned:

1. Had detections via Website Protection for a process despite adding that process to the Web Exclusions;

2. MBAM crashed after turning notifications off while there were Website Protection notifications occurring. I've never had MBAM crash before even on heavily infected machines;

3. [already reported by others] After using System Restore, MBAM's web protection was disabled, and couldn't be enabled until after restarting the computer again.

I really feel this new version was rushed, as it was my expectation that these kind of bugs would have been ironed out in the beta process. This is not a finished product and falls below the high standards I'm used to as a longtime supporter of Malwarebytes.

I'm going to return to 1.75, as that version was unobtrusive and did the job without error.

 

I don't doubt your personal experience, but it's all anecdotal. Making claims about how EAM is better/faster than MBAM is meaningless without a controlled test. In any case if you see EAM as being so much better than MBAM why are you bothering with MBAM?

 

Hyper scan on the same machine is just over 3 minutes.

 

I just ran a flash scan in 1.75, and it took 9 seconds. The hyper scan in 2.0 took over 4 minutes.

 

Fair enough and thanks for checking it out. That's a big difference and it would be good for the developer to explain this. Hopefully it's not simply a loss of performance compared with 1.75.

 

Where is this thread going to, MODS please moderate: MBAM V2

 

Why would a mod need to moderate this thread? It is completely on topic. (until your post, and now mine)

 

Yes, exactly. Or just update it for them.

 

Lifetime means lifetime .

 

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. We're building quite a good spreadsheet of issues to work through.

I assure you, this was not rushed. We beta tested for 2 months with 10,000 users. These issues crop up due to several thousand configurations with software, hardware, and so on. One such example is our rootkit scanner, used by 250,000+ users during beta, it is causing issues in the real world with 2.0. We will work through these issues. When you're reading bytes directly from disk and bypassing the Windows disk driver, many things can go wrong as you can imagine!

 

That's GREAT news!

Thanks RubbeR DuckY!

 

thank you RubbeR DuckY

 

Thank you for the hard work. Like a fine wine, MBAM only gets better with time.

 

The Hyper Scan took over 6 minutes for me, whereas I think it was closer to a minute with v1.x However the scan speed is not really an issue for me, as only do scans occasionally.