Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Updates

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by puff-m-d, Nov 14, 2016.

  1. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    8,115
    I would never do a clean install to get Malwarebytes or any other software working, or for any other reason.

    In order to see if there were any issues caused by upgrading from v2 rather than doing a fresh install of Malwarebytes, I uninstalled it and removed any remaining traces with Comodo Programs Manager. I then ran the Malwarebytes Anti-Mwlare Cleanup Utility to remove any traces of MBAM v2.

    I reinstalled v3 again (and my license information had been retained), and started running a Threat Scan. I didn't take long for me to stop the scan, as just as last time I ran it, CPU use is ridiculously high, exceeding 90% at times. That's reason enough for me to give it a miss until a stable version is released, and I'm uninstalling it now.
     
  2. jadinolf

    jadinolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,047
    Location:
    Southern California
    Yeah, right.:D:D:D
     
  3. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    6,116
    Location:
    USA
    The thing is not everyone has these problems. Sometimes a little detective work can find the cause. The most common reason I think is interactions with other security software. You could experiment with turning off real time protection in other products just to see if that helps. It is ultimately up to the developer to improve compatibility, but sometimes we can help.
     
  4. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    Yes! With i7, it was running 90-96%. Yikes! But, the scan's duration for me was 40 seconds max, usually less. So, it's a trade-off, I'd best not do anything else while scan was running. With another standalone scanner, CPU use is 40% or so, duration 50 seconds. So, agreed: CPU is inordinately high here, and scan duration is not that much more with another software. Speedy scan of itself is not a decision-maker. Note: all premium modules were disabled.

    Screenshot (10).png
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2016
  5. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    6,116
    Location:
    USA
    I just ran a Hyper Scan; it took less than a minute and using Task Manager the CPU usage never went above 40%. I also have an i7/8 core CPU. This is with real time protections ON (except Exploit Protection), but I don't know that that makes any difference. As for a speedy scan not being a decision maker that depends on your priorities. If I was concerned that there was malware on my computer I would want the scan to run as fast as possible and use as much CPU as necessary.

    MBAM v2 has the option to "reduce priority of scans to improve multitasking". Perhaps the vendor could implement that in v3 if requested?
     
  6. Rainwalker

    Rainwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Posts:
    2,629
    Location:
    USA
    I was wondering the same thing.
     
  7. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    You're right of course, this was just for demo purposes. The CPU use actually peaks at 90+%, it doesn't remain at that level. Also, MBAM has uninstalled cleanly for me, no leftover drivers so far. I replaced above screenshot because it was crummy and second scan was only 18 seconds.

    Adding: I disabled other security to assure no interference/high CPU from those--there certainly would be a difference there. HMP Alert makes using this MBAM annoying, even when it's "disabled." It would be nice to have a switch or something when HMP Alert (or other conflicting app) is on the system

    MBAm SCAN.PNG
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2016
  8. Alpengreis

    Alpengreis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Posts:
    564
    Location:
    Switzerland
  9. JohnBurns

    JohnBurns Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Posts:
    777
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    I'm having problem with MBAM 3 freezing my pc at boot up, along with other slow down problems. I have narrowed these down to MBAM and am uninstalling it - at least temporarily until they get a working version that isn't buggy. To those who have already dumped MBAM, what are you replacing it with? Appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.
     
  10. Buddel

    Buddel Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Posts:
    1,603
    I dumped MB3, and there are currently no plans here to reinstall it any time soon. I'm also looking for a decent replacement but I haven't found one yet. For the time being, KIS 2017 is all I use (plus two on-demand scanners).
     
  11. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    For now a good replacement is mbam 2. It works very well.
     
  12. JohnBurns

    JohnBurns Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Posts:
    777
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    What site is reliable for getting MBAM2? Don't want to download a bunch of spyware trying to prevent them - lol.
     
  13. daman1

    daman1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    1,292
    Location:
    USA, MICHIGAN
  14. JohnBurns

    JohnBurns Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Posts:
    777
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    Thanks daman1
     
  15. Buddel

    Buddel Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Posts:
    1,603
    Thanks, @Peter2150 , but I'm actually looking for something different. What about ZAM, ZAL or HMP.A? Or can I do without additional security software if I use KIS 2017? Wouldn't it be "overkill" to use more than one real-time app? I would just like to avoid compatibility issues.
     
  16. jadinolf

    jadinolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,047
    Location:
    Southern California
    I agree!
     
  17. fblais

    fblais Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Posts:
    1,294
    Location:
    Québec, Canada
    Chicalogic's ChicaPC-Shield is a rebranded MBAM 2 and it accepts MBAM licences, for those interested.
     
  18. ozbadcat

    ozbadcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    43
    Call me a wuss - but as a non-techie person running premium MBAM 2.1043 and MBAE faultlessly ( touch wood ) for the past couple of years on 3 home computers, I am loathe to throw it all away and get burdened by installing MBAM 3 and running into a whole heap of problems that many of you 'experts' are presently experiencing and many can't seem to resolve.

    Hopefully Malwarebytes will continue to SUPPORT MBAM 2.1403 definitionwise until such time that the majority of issues of MBAM 3 have been sorted
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016
  19. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    The scheduled date is next june. And yes hopefully they get it sorted
     
  20. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    8,115
    It's only v1.75 and was released over three years ago, and according to the website it only support up to Windows 7. Using MBAM v2.x would be a much better option, as it is up to date, and is released by a trustworthy company.

    It seems that Chicalogic has not released updates for any of their products for some time, which is a good thing in my opinion.
     
  21. Tyrizian

    Tyrizian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Posts:
    2,838
    On my fast machine, with nothing else on my startup, and a tweaked system, Malwarebytes makes my system feel old.

    I appreciate everything that the Malwarebytes team is doing, but my goodness this thing feels sluggish

    I really do wish future updates concentrate way more on performance.
     
  22. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    8,115
    In my case a Threat Scan takes quite some time to run. The last time Malwarebytes was actually able to complete a scan it took over 30 minutes, as there are many gigabytes of files to scan on my system. If scan times were quick, CPU use wouldn't be an issue.

    I just reread this post from Marcin:
    I had read that when he originally posted it, and from memory I was sure he'd said the CPU use issue would be fixed before the final version was released. However, as you can read, that's not the case.
     
  23. JohnBurns

    JohnBurns Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Posts:
    777
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    Thank you Peter2150 and daman1 for getting me back to MBAM2. I uninstalled 3 on 2 pc's and reinstalled 2 and all is well now - no more freezing, etc and pc's are running great. Appreciate your help I hope the MBAM folks find solutions to make 3 a usable program since I have 3 lifetime subscriptions to MBAM. Thanks again for your help guys.
     
  24. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    6,116
    Location:
    USA
    Scan times can only be assessed if the number of "items scanned" is known. Obviously a system with more files is going to take longer to scan than one with fewer files. I just completed a "Threat Scan" where items scanned = 439,618 and time to complete scan = 12 minutes and 37 seconds. CPU usage varied between 10% & 20%. This is significantly faster than MBAM v2. I continued working in Firefox during the scan with only a slight slowdown in browsing.
     
  25. fblais

    fblais Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Posts:
    1,294
    Location:
    Québec, Canada
    I stand corrected, thanks Roger!
    It's a rebranded 1.75 indeed!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.