Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0.X releases

I'll try again if you think that will help but I have already done that.

 

Success!

After uninstalling / reinstalling again all protection is enabled on that machine.

Thanks!

 

If you are receiving a message inside the MBAM program that Malicious Website Protection is disabled please do the following to correct the issue.

• On the Dashboard click "Update now" to get the latest database version
• Right click the Malwarebytes tray icon and click "Exit"
• Restart the Malwarebytes application from the programs menu or desktop shortcut.
• In most cases this resolves the issue, however if the issue still persists, reboot the computer and the issue should be resolved.
• If the above procedures still do not correct the issue for you then please download the MBAM installer and reinstall the program which will fix the issue for you.

 

I performed all the above fixes, and finally fixed the problem by downloading the installer and re-installing. I would suggest bypassing the first 4 suggestions and just do the re-install. It's faster.

 

Is MBAM killing 1.75x lifetime keys? As it seems to be the case, at least for me.

I had a couple keys from Chicalogic/MBAM 1.75.. Worked fine on MBAM all versions(for 2-3 years), but upgraded to 2x and after a day or two it said invalid database, and refused to update. Uninstalled/Reinstalled, same issue. Seems to me it's preventing it updating. I rolled back to 1.75, and it worked fine. Is MBAM killing all non-2x keys now eventually?

A client I installed it for also reports 2 licenses he has aren't updating anymore after he upgraded to the latest version of 2.

 

Everything was working well yesterday however on booting up this morning I did get the message "Malicious Website Protection is disabled " clicked update now, updated and clicked exit. Logged off later and just rebooted just now and all seems to be O.K. at the present time. Will keep monitoring and am waiting to see how the auto updater is going to work.

 

^^^^ Same here since update 2014.10.14.9

 

Wrapping up my earlier posts 13 & 17, for me the Malicious Website Protection failure began when 2014.10.14.2 rolled in. With 2014.10.14.3 and a click on Fix Now, and only that, it was fixed.

For others, the fix was different and, by comparison, more complicated.

Interesting how a database update can fudge things up so badly as MBAM has demonstrated once again. Not to point at any one entity, we've seen this occur in other solutions too, some with far greater disaster. The database, historically, has shown itself far more involved in the scheme of these matters than one might assume. As well, the service of a consistent stream of updates presenting to some degree a false sense of security.

Cheers.

 

Are licenses being decayed, or is all of this tied into the extensive database errors/issues we seem to be seeing?

Guess it's back to 1.75...

 

@Mayahana

There should be no correlation with any licensing issues. The 2.x version uses its own licensing mechanism and is not tied into the 1.x licensing.
As for your Chica licensing there was a license released that should not have been released last year and that license was black listed for use on the main MBAM product. The Chica version is slightly different and if you have a valid license for the Chica version it should still work, just not on our own main product.

Lifetime licenses of 1.x are valid for 2.x but again they need to be valid non black listed ID and Key. If you're having issues and are unable to resolve it then I would suggest opening a ticket on our Help Desk and having one of the Support members assist you with any licensing issues you're having.

Thank you

 

Hello I am still using 1.75, because the context scan on version 2 was taking up to 3 minutes. This issue was acknowledged at the time. Has it been fixed. Thanks

 

Chicalogic licenses were purchased discounted from Chicalogic directly, and billed as workable licenses for Malwarebytes AND Chicalogic, and as such - they've worked on MBAM for the last 2 years. I am aware of the Chicalogic license for a giveaway-of-the-day, that's not these licenses, as I never knew about that giveaway until after the fact. However I think it would be bad form to decay those giveaway licenses even if I am not involved. Nevertheless, Chicalogic (legit) licenses aren't being decayed? So far it seems like a couple of them I have are being decayed. The only difference between 1.75x of Chica and Mbam I can find are purely cosmetic.

So I guess the question is; Are you decaying 'legit' Chicalogic licenses in any way?

 

The same thing here. I have unchecked Delay protection at Startup in advanced settings and upon checking that setting again the box is automatically checked again. Have repeated this process a number of times. Same conclusion, box is rechecked automatically again. Any answers ? Also have not seen any automatic data base def. updates yet and I have that checked for every 4 hours.

 

I went over to the MBAM forum yesterday to post this up. And I stopped and thought... every time I do this some one already did. Like with the "Start with Windows" disabled not disabling and the Website Protection failure. Lo and behold, there's a topic in which more than one user is reporting this Delay protection issue, too. For what it's worth.

IMHO, it's probably just another "cosmetic" issue, like the one that plagued the Malware Exclusions displsy in 2.0.2 and previous.

Cheers.

 

Thanks for the reply. I'll run this version for another week and see what happens. Meanwhile I've got my eye on the 1.75 installer which is close at hand ready to go.

 

I haven't auto updated yet so I guess I can wait for this issue to be resolved.

 

I don't believe this is an issue related to the new program version 2.0.3.1025... because I still have 2.0.2.1012, and am experiencing the same problem (Website protection disabled). I can click on the button to enable it on the Settings / Detection and Protection tab; and also, separately, by RIGHT-clicking on the MBAM icon in my system tray; and even doing both, the dashboard is still not acknowledging this.

So I would tend to hope it's a server/definitions issue, as had been asserted above. I have no plans to "mess-around" with what may turn out to be needless reinstallations.

By the way, having accessed the test website for protection, I can confirm the Malicious Website protection is indeed OFF, despite my having clicked both option locations to enable it.

 

Thanks...just downloaded over previous version, smooth!

 

Anyone noticing that Threat Scans are slower with 2.03?

 

As I said, legit licenses remain lifetime and should work for either program. The one from the giveaway was black listed but don't forget we have millions of users and what are or were valid license keys do get black listed from time to time because user x gives their license to user y and we are more than lenient about it before we black list but at some point once we see that the key is now being used illegally in numbers it can get black listed. The last part of my reply still stands. If you have valid license keys and you have the purchase information you can contact the help desk and they can work with you to get it resolved. No purchase information though and we will not be able to assist you but we are not disabling old keys. We have keys from years ago too and they work just fine still.

Thanks again

Ron

 

2.0.3.1025 running fine for me on a couple of 7x64 machines.

 

Seems that all scans are slower with 2.30

 

No need to go through the arduous procedure of uninstall and reinstall of MBAM, simply deleting the rules.ref file solved the problem with "Malicious Website Protection" for me.

 

Absolutely - but with millions of customers and most of them not technically savvy it's not a solution we want them to try. However if you're abilities with a computer are at least a bit more advanced then that really is the easiest and fastest method I find. Reinstalling over the top though is also pretty quick. I can reinstall over the top and reboot in under 3 minutes so that's not too bad either.

 

Here too.
It's even somewhat faster. (11 minutes versus 15 with 2.02)