Malwarebytes and dpc latency

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by boombastik, Jan 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. boombastik

    boombastik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Posts:
    211
    Location:
    Greece
    Anyone who have bad dpc latency with website blocking?
    I use DPC latency checker and with website blocking i take 40 more μs average and spikes at 8000 μs. without it after a 3 hour usage (games movies music youtube) my max spike was 512 μs.

    All that with asus p5q last bios and drivers.
     
  2. Syobon

    Syobon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    469
    yes, its a known 'problem'.
     
  3. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Posts:
    567
    MBAM significantly increases DPC, to a level I do not find acceptable. Also, Bullguard Firewall(Agnitum) does the same thing, if not worse. I have disabled both to enhance browsing experience.

    I'd like a 'small' layer above what I have, but so far everything makes my DPC go haywire I have tried thus far.. o_O
     
  4. boombastik

    boombastik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Posts:
    211
    Location:
    Greece
    If i go only with file shield is ok, so i use it (only file shield) with avast and i am ok.
     
  5. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Posts:
    567
    I will try that. Interestingly - WebrootSA stacked with Bullguard offered NO DPC latency increase, at all. That might be a potent combo.

    Unfortunately both suck at Ransomware, and I was able to blow up a snapshot with ransomware in a few minutes. I wonder when they will take ransomware seriously? I will try MBAM with file shield only, thanks for the tip.
     
  6. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Posts:
    567
    MBAM even with just the file thing, seems to slow everything down slightly.

    My new test is Bullguard2013 with Avast and ONLY Web/Network/Script/Behave shields running. No major DPC issue, speed seems quite nice, and it has successfully protected the box during malware testing. This might be my go-to setup for machines I need to toughen up.
     
  7. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    I wish Avast would come out with a "browser" only version that would be compatiable with any existing AV/IS.
     
  8. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Posts:
    567
    Behave shield on Avast was a culprit for slowing things down, I re-snapshotted and removed that during the reinstallation. So now I am just running WebShield/NetworkShield/ScriptShield, alongside Bullguard. You can install Avast with only those 3 options, the install is very tiny and fast with only those three. This also allows Avast to be an optional on-demand scanner. All combined, only 5,000k ram, and no increase to DPC.

    This might be the most powerful combo out there, especially when you factor Bullguard's 4 engine system, and I detect NO increase to appload or browsing using this configuration.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    I'm running with all shields on and DPC is keeping in the green below 300 for me. Now, with MBAM website blocking? I'm hitting over 5000 at times, with regular treks being in the 3-4000 range. Whether I'm doing any sound-related stuff or not, that's performance eating that I just don't see a need to go through. MBAM can protect my files, Avast can take over website blocking for me since it's served me well for so long anyway.
     
  10. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Posts:
    567
    Mbam really seems to have performance issues overall, sadly.

    I ditched Avast already, the webshield seemed to conflict with Bullguard/Admuncher, but the network shield is really nice. Debating if I should put that and script on only. Bullguard has an astounding web shield already (Commtouch), but I am examining additional layers for high risk computers. So far, most offer too much of a performance hit, or are buggy(panda), etc.

    Mbam really is nice, but I think needs some major performance tweaks.
     
  11. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    I wonder how BD Free would act with AM? It's got an evidently really nice web "shield" in place as well, even if you can't play with it. MBAM is great for malware protection, but yeah, its system performance is a little ugly.
     
  12. boombastik

    boombastik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Posts:
    211
    Location:
    Greece
    Yeap with all shields on with avast and with only file system protection with malwarebytes i take only 125 dpc latency. And i dont think i loose nothing in security because the real security component in the malwarebytes is the file shield (shuriken).
     
  13. woomera

    woomera Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Posts:
    211
    yes! i can confirm this.
    i also have that problem with MBAM which is why i have the website-blcoker disabled, and dont worry it doesnt surpass WOT or trafficlight and most well-known AV's have much better website blocking.
    here is my post about it in MBAM forum:
    http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=109864&hl=&fromsearch=1
    though no responds, not really.
     
  14. Feandur

    Feandur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Posts:
    401
    Location:
    Australia
    boombastik :

    (1) Is MBAM's webshield still an issue in v 1.7 ?

    (2)
    Just confirming do you get good results / recommend just going with Avast's default install [ie, all shield installed]...

    -cheers,
    feandur
     
  15. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Posts:
    567
    MBAM is an issue up to current version, not sure about beta. This has been an ongoing issue with it, which was one reason I had to take it off resident last year. I really WANT to use it, it's powerful,but these performance hits have to be addressed, they are absolutely far too high to be acceptable.

    I have it enabled, even with the lag, and DPC issues on high risk machines because it is the best solution in those cases. But it still annoys me that this is an ongoing problem.
     
  16. Feandur

    Feandur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Posts:
    401
    Location:
    Australia
    Thanks Bodhitree

    :thumb:

    -cheers,
    feandur
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.