I have a lifetime licence on MBAM. When I tried to install it on my new Windows 10 system a few months ago, my system kept crashing and I had to uninstall it. Probably this bug has been fixed, but now I am thinking if antimalware sotfware have already lost its usefullness in real-time protection. They, of course, can still be useful in cleaning an infected system. Has anyone of you ever encountered a situation, where your antimalware prevented an infection when your antivirus was silent? There aren't many left: Malwarebytes, Zemana, Superantispyware, Trojan Hunter - what else?
Malwarebytes is living on borrowed time. It was good in its early days when Windows had some obvious vulnerabilities, but it has passed its "use by" date. Today, you don't need it. I think it's a "Feel Good" thing for some who still use it.
Actually you do not need AV, when you have AM installed. The proper name should be AM ayway, not AV, since AM's name covers everything, unlike AV. MBAM 3 is the example, Zemana will follow.
There used to be time (a long time ago) when antivirus was only an antivirus. Now antivirus always tries to combine everything - antimalware may combine everything (Emsisoft) or only "malware" (SAS).
MalwareBytes AntiMalware has recently undergone a major upgrade from version 2 to version 3. There are still some issues in v3 that are being worked on. It actually works fine for me; not everyone has problems. You didn't say what version of MBAM you tried to install. You also didn't say what build of Windows 10 you had at the time. Windows 10 is upgraded fairly often, especially if you are using insider builds. If you would like help trying to get MBAM working you need to provide more information. Personally, I think MBAM v3 has a good feature set and once the bugs are worked out it will continue to be a good "second opinion" product, both on-demand and real-time.
Sorry, but that makes no sense. "Malware" is a generalized term for the entire category of any programming code (software) that is malicious software. That category includes viruses, Trojans, worms, rootkits, spyware, some adware, and more. To say "malware and only viruses" or "everything or only" is like saying "trees and only pine trees". Or "bugs and only cockroaches". This is because of marketing weenies using the wrong terminology (again! ) and consumers not wanting to bog down our systems with 6 different programs that do the same thing. The "virus" was the first known malicious software, thus the first known anti-malware were developed to block viruses. Then when Trojans were discovered, developers came out with anti-Trojans, then anti-spyware, and so on. But since the technologies to "watch" and "protect" all computer resources became the same (or very similar) regardless the threat, malware (thus anti-malware) became the "term" used to describe the entire category. But marketing departments didn't want to confuse their client based so in many cases, they just kept the name of the product anti-virus even though their programs addressed all kinds of malware. Any security program today that only addresses one type of malware is not worth its salt. It is not what they protect for, but how that makes them different (or so the marketing weenies would want us to think). I agree. The problem with MB3.x is it [apparently] was rushed out the door before the holidays and most importantly, before thorough and complete beta testing. There were too many (with some being rather critical) bugs in the new version. Compounding that problem is the rushed out "fix", in many cases, either didn't fix the major issues, or introduced more issues. These indications of poor management decisions tarnished Malwarebytes long-standing reputation for quality. I disagree. Simply because no single security application can do it all with 100% certainty 100% of the time, users must not rely on just one security program. It is, and always has been unwise to put all your eggs in one basket. So regardless our primary anti-malware solution of choice, we all should still have a secondary scanner to double-check to make sure we (as users and ALWAYS the weakest link in security) or our primary scanner did not let something malicious slip by. And Malwarebytes (free or paid) is an excellent choice for that. I am perfectly happy running Windows Defender on all my W10 systems, along with Windows Firewall and have been since W7 and MSE. But I have either the free or premium version of Malwarebytes on all my systems too as secondary scanners just to make sure WD/MSE did not miss something. And since W7/MSE came out in Oct 2009, Malwarebytes has found nothing but a couple PUPs that were not unwanted at all. The fact of the matter is, most any 1/2 way decent security program will keep us safe IF the user simply follows good safe computing practices. That is, if the user keeps their OS and security programs current and avoids being "click-happy" on unsolicited downloads, attachments, links and pop-ups, they will thwart all security threats except those from a determined professional badguy who is specifically targeting that specific user because the badguy knows that computer has something on it he/she wants. Badguys are lazy opportunists. If they see any organized resistance, they quickly move on to look for easier pickings. The best locks and home security systems only keep honest people, nosy neighbors, and the wannabe pros out.
Most of the AM's came about not as full time security, but for cleaning up the system after infected. Now days many have full time protection, but their strengths still lie in what they were originally designed for.
It is worth trying now. V3.0.6 build 1469 is the latest and is very stable on my systems and (so far) I have not received any notices protection was turned off (the big issue before). If unhappy, you can easily uninstall it and go back to version 2 found here. But note support (and updates) for V2 will not continue forever.
I put my trust in my anti-exploit and anti--executable. Personally, I've moved on from anti-malware suites, all your eggs are in one basket.
Another reason why I use MBAM, HitmanPro, TDSSkiller, etc, is because many of the AVs I see on people's computers don't appear to be capable of detecting anything.
This makes the assumption the suite uses just one method/technology to detect malicious activity. That is simply wrong. Even the baseline Windows Defender uses several methods to not only look for suspicious files, but suspicious "behavior" too. My reference to "all your eggs in one basket" had to do with relying on one provider, not a single technology/method. That said, another problem with suites is they tend to have a single common UI. That's great for convenience and gentle learning curves, but also means there is another single point of failure. I think it important to reiterate what I said above. The weakest link in security is always the user. You can apply layer after layer of security programs on your system, but if you, the user, open the door and let the bad guy in by being carelessly "click-happy", you have defeated all those security programs. The reason the socially engineered method of malware distribution is the most successful at by-passing even the best security is because the user falls for the scam. So again, the best security is good user discipline. Do anti-exploit programs work? Yes. But do you need it? Not if you are a security aware and disciplined user.
I often wonder what happened to the Nigerian "Prince" who needed to lose several million dollars into our bank accounts
I ain't wrong, I just didn't come out and say it properly. Improvements in Windows Defender technology make it worthwhile having around, albeit with some added protections. HitmanPro Alert is anti-exploit plus, I'm not going without it under any circumstances. I'd rather have standalones in case something goes awry--which isn't likely with this setup--right, fellow Defender/HMPA/VS users? Didn't want to unnecessarily jump on the bandwagon with MBAM issues; this comment was geared more toward technical issues versus detection--besides, if you have technical issues with a suite, what does that do to your protection?
According to an email I got the other day, the wife (one of the wives?) of that Nigerian prince is now working to get that money. All I have to do is deposit "1000$USD" to her account and I can have 1/2 of those millions! I disagree. You don't need those extras if you simply avoid risky behavior. Don't be "click-happy" on Nigerian emails, for example. But if you haphazardly click on unsolicited links, attachments, popups, and downloads, participate in illegal filesharing via torrents or P2P sites, visit illegal pornography or gambling sites, or if you have other users of your computer who are not security aware, then by all means, pile up on your security. And don't forget regular back ups. That is too generalized a question to answer. It depends on what specifically the technical issues are. In the case of the MB3.0 debacle, one of the more common "technical issues" was the UI was reporting protection was turned off when in reality, it was working fine. So protection was not compromised. The UI just didn't give the user any confidence it was not compromised. And to me, that's a big issue.
Let's not forget that the vast majority of the Windows users out there don't have layer upon layer of security software on their systems and the vast majority of those computers have NOT been compromised. Why? Because the latest versions of Windows stay current automatically by default and in the case of W10, WD is automatically enabled and stays current too. IF that was as necessary as you suggest it is, the vast majority of Windows users would be infected. And that is simply not the case. Contrary to what many would want us to believe, Microsoft has every incentive to rid the world of malware and to keep Windows and its users safe and secure. And they do a darn good job of it too. What incentive do the 3rd party security programs have to rid the world of malware? Absolutely none! They need and rely on malware and the badguys to thrive! If malware went away, those companies would go out of business.
Not a user of MBAM's suite but it seems like if you use a fully working MBAM suite plus Windows Defender, you're the one "piling it on." Malware gets very sophisticated lately, the minute you're fiddling around with your broken suite while on a crummy site is the second you get smacked with something nasty. Where is malware going? Where?!
I hear what Bill is saying but last year was very bad for companies hit by ransomeware and is suppose to double again this year. Social Engineering has improved way over that Nigerian scam.
Broken suite? Using extreme exceptions to make a point doesn't make the point. First, most security programs do a decent job. And second, of those, the vast majority are not broken. So your point about broken suites really makes no sense at all, and certainly is not applicable to this topic. There are two apparent facts here. (1) As you admitted, you are not a user of MBAM (it is NOT a suite, BTW). And (2) you don't know MBAM. Windows Defender and MBAM work in different ways so they complement each other, not pile on. Malwarebytes (which is NOT MBAM, but replaces MBAM) combines several functions, but is not a suite either. Suites typically include a firewall for example, and all sorts of extras (junk!) most users don't need, like parental control, password safes and more. Malwarebytes 3.x is marketed as no longer being a complementary program but a replacement or competing program for other security apps like AVG, AVAST, AVIRA, Norton, McAfee, WD, Kaspersky and more. That said, unlike many competing products, MB3.x is designed to work side-by-side without interfering or causing conflicts. So again, MB3.x and WD work fine together, without piling on. Sadly, malware is here to stay. But why? Because it is too late now. It is so entrenched it is almost impossible to get rid of it now. But who's fault is that? Microsoft got blamed but it was the bad guys who perpetrated the offensives and the anti-malware companies who failed to stop them, in spite of their claiming it was their job to do so. Remember, Microsoft wanted to put anti-malware code into XP but Norton, McAfee, TrendMicro and the others whined and cried "monopoly" to Congress and the EU claiming it was their job to rid the world of malware. And it might have happened if they did their job way back then. But again, why would they? It would put them out of business. So Congress and the EU threatened to dismantle and separate Microsoft if they put that code in XP while Norton, McAfee and the others (including the bad guys) got filthy rich - off of us. Ask yourself why isn't Congress and the EU saying anything today about Windows Defender being included in Windows 10? It is simple. Because Congress and the EU know they screwed up! They let the wrong people have their way. They heard "monopoly" and closed their ears to any logic. Why don't ISPs block malware (and spam) at the source? Because they would rather force their customers to buy bigger bandwidth. Why don't the big Internet backbone telecommunications carriers block malware and spam from going through their pipes? Again, because they would rather sell consumers more expensive routers and bandwidth. Why doesn't law enforcement crack down on those offenders? Because Congress and EU and the UN have failed to support and fund law enforcement to give them the necessary resources. And taxpayers are not demanding it, or willing to pay the necessary taxes to fund it now.
Very true. And it is through social engineering (relying on users being click happy) that ransomeware works so well. If I get an email from my bank, I never click on any links in that email even when I am certain the email is legitimate. Instead, I plug the bank's url in my browser and go from there.
I'm not talking about the usual suspects to get infected, I'm talking about unforeseen things like Microsoft delaying its updates (including the critical flash player ones) an entire month. That means, for Edge and Internet Explorer users, your security better be immaculate because flash is a black hole. If I was a Malwarebytes 3 user, at the minimum, I would enable Windows Defender....or use something else.
