Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0.3 Beta Test

mbamscheduler.exe

Is this in the free version too? I can see it looking for updates in the paid version because MBAM blocks web sites also and needs updates for those.

 

What I would like to see out of future versions of Malwarebytes, is a more optimized program. What we currently have now is clunky and sluggish.

I love Malwarebytes, but I really do hope its as optimized as what the older versions use to be (1. versions).

 

I see no "clunky and sluggish"
Runs very smooth on 7.

 

1) For many this is broken. When unchecked, MBAM will start with Windows. AdvancedSetup offered to fix it if I opened a ticket or posted up in their forum. But lots of others have posted up exactly the same so I never did so myself. And none of the workarounds/fixes pasted up there resolved anything. Nor did the toggle this and restart that. As much as I appreciate Advanced's offer, that would unfairly ignore every one else. Besides, I'm convinced it's a genuine bug and needs fixing in the code.

2) And Hyperscan.

Cheers.

 

Ditto.

 

I do know there was a bug in one of the older 2.0 versions so it's possible that it has remained this way on your system. Have you attempted a clean install yet using the instructions provided here? If not, then I suggest you give that a try if you're willing and hopefully that will correct the issue. My suspicion is that perhaps an older version of one or more of our executables remained after one of your version upgrades and so the bug remained in effect on your system. If I'm correct, then a clean install should fix it assuming you install the RC after using mbam-clean.exe.

 

Is A bug that IP blocking doesn't block malicious IP in Firefox fixed?
(In IE they correctly blocks)
I reported it in MBAM forum but got no response, and found others also reported it.

 

Is there an issue with HyperScan?

 

Hello 142395:

I sincerely apologize for us not picking up your original post on the Malwarebytes forum. I have answered your original post there and I will personally monitor the thread until its conclusion.

Again - I'm very sorry we missed this!

 

Can this be installed over the top of 2.0.2.1012 and then will the "final" install over the top of this RC? Sorry if this has already been asked. TIA

 

Tested program launch with AppTimer for Chromium and throughput with speedtest: all I can say, when final is released, people with performance issues on earlier releases of V2, could give this a second chance, because it all seems to work well and fast.

Surprise: although installed on host (Win7 32 bits ultimate), it works in Virtual PC (Sandboxed K-meleon in XP-mode)

 

If all goes well with testing, which it has so far, the RC build will be the final build of 2.0.3 so yes, you may install it over the top of 2.0.2 if you wish.

 

Yep, it hooks into the network stack of the host system, so the guest system in the VM's network connection gets routed through the host and thus shares in the same Malicious Website Protection as the host. That obviously doesn't apply to Malware Protection since it relies on being able to monitor the memory of the system directly to check processes as they execute (something a host cannot do to a guest in a VM), but Malicious Website Protection will be fully functional .

 

Still feels heavy on the 3 systems here all Win8 x64 and the many other users I've conversed with feel the same as well, most don't run the service in realtime anymore because of it's high RAM usage.

The mbamservice.exe fluctuates from 60 to 70Mb and the mbam.exe is currently sitting on 36Mb plus another 3Mb for the scheduler service, the resource usage since version 2 was released has been absolutely shocking imo, I have full security suites that use anywhere from 10 to 30Mb at peak so there is no excuse for the excessive RAM usage that Malwarebytes displays.

 

RAM usage cannot cause sluggish performance of a system unless the system is lacking in free RAM which I doubt for any system running Windows 8 x64 (most these days have a minimum of 4GB). CPU and HDD usage have a much greater impact on performance these days than RAM usage and us keeping our databases in memory (the reason for the higher RAM usage in 2.x) keeps impact on CPU and HDD to a minimum since we don't have to page the databases into memory the way most other security products do (the reason they cause a lag when launching programs and opening or accessing files and directories). In fact, we recently completed independent testing by PassMark that shows as much. Our Support team has been given the green light to show this report to customers/potential customers. I'll see if they're going to allow us to publish it somewhere so that I can point you to it.

 

Memory does not matter unless your system does not have enough RAM installed (e.g. your RAM usage is at 74% or higher).

But, that is probably due to them continually flushing unused RAM to the harddrive. This frees RAM, but reduces performance. Also, the peak memory usage will be much higher than this.

At the moment my antivirus (Avetix) is using 142MB of RAM, with 360MB peak RAM usage, and is one the lightest antiviruses I've ever used out of many different products I've tried. Unless you are short on RAM, if a security product is slowing your system down it is due to high CPU or disk use.

 

I have 3.46 GB RAM of which 636 MB is used by Virtual PC (512 for XP and 124 by Virtual PC), so RAM is a non-issue for me on 32 bits OS.

 

mbamscheduler.exe starts again at every boot............
----------------------------------------------------------

Already done, no results. =
#13:
http://i.imgur.com/iMEtvDY.png
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thre...-malware-2-0-3-beta-test.368830/#post-2414160

Done, no results. Bug remains.

Done, no results. Bug remains.

 

If you would, please contact Support directly here so that they can investigate and hopefully get it working properly for you. They'll gather additional info and will also report it to our Dev team if you've found a bug, which it sounds like you have.

Thanks

 

Click on the "My account" (or whatever it's phrased in english) link on the right part of the toolbar.
Then click on "Deactivate" (or whatever it's phrased in english).
It'll revert to free mode.
This way you'll probably stop to complain about the behaviour.
Free mode is the way you should use it for what you seem to expect getting.

 

The screen shot you're showing anon is for the older 2.x version. Please try doing a clean removal MBAM Clean Removal Process 2x and let us know if the issue remains.

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0.3.1025 (Released October, 13, 2014) The full change log can be viewed here

 

Yes. It's what I meant by "none of the workarounds/fixes pasted up there resolved anything" but I could have been more specific at the expense of cluttering up the thread here and repeating what is already been posted up at the MBAM forum in the many threads describing the same issue.

As a point of reference, I didn't buy Premium and set it to not start with Windows so I can use MBAM in a "free mode" or "on demand only." Apparently this is the main perception as to why one would not want MBAM to start with Windows.

I bought Premium for the Premium features. I don't want MBAM to start with Windows because I don't want MBAM to start with Windows. Only my primary Internet security app starts and when it and the OS settle down I then open the additional layers one at a time. I know that sounds tedious, but if it weren't for Patch Tuesdays, I could go for weeks without reboots/restarts.

Anyhow, I'm getting "new version" reminders from MBAM. I'll keep my fingers crossed - maybe the problem will have fixed itself..

Thanks.

 

Done*, no results. Bug remains (mbamscheduler.exe).

* =

 

Not in one OS and one PC only =

Windows Pro 8.1U1 32-bit & MBAM Premium 2.0.3.1025
Bug remains (mbamscheduler.exe).
-------------------------------
Laptop: Windows Pro 8.1U1 32-bit & MBAM Premium 2.0.3.1025
Bug remains (mbamscheduler.exe).
-------------------------------
Windows XP SP3 32-bit & MBAM Premium 2.0.3.1025
Bug remains (mbamscheduler.exe).

 

All systems are identical with i7 3Ghz, 16Gb ram and the OS is installed on 500Gb SSD's so all systems have plenty of grunt with very minimal programs set to start.
The ram usage is high with Malwarebytes no matter what but whether that's the root of it causing sluggish behaviour I can't say, what I can say is that once MBAM Pro is stopped opening programs becomes instantaneous so it quite obviously has a hit on system performance.

On a side note I've just updated to the latest release .1025 and it seems a bit better so far, I'll test for a while and see how it performs.