MalWareBytes Real Time Test :)

You cant be serious , even our haters give us credit for being the best there is at dealing with rogues/fakealert infections . Hell even the bad guys give us credit here by going out of their way to attack us through these infections . The only reason you often have to rename MBAM to fight these is because they know they cant win on a level playing field against us . When you add in active protection we have 2 additional chances to prevent them from getting in
on top of blocking final fallout (IP source and main dropper/downloader) .

 

MBAM is the only antimalware effective against all types of malwares.
Also it detected allmost all rogues i had.

 

I'm never going to understand why people post statements like this.



@NoSirrah: Forgive me if the late hour has me misreading the last post, but I don't see where Brummerchen questioned your program? The way I read it was it was a request for the malware that your program helped the other poster with. Again, maybe it being 4am is messing with me.

 

Bcoz its the truth.

 

Sorry if this is OT but I run MBAM realtime but when I disable it the process still is running. Anything I can do about this?

 

Compare them to which their stand alone AV applications or their internet suites ?

or did you mean

Compare a botkiller to AntiVirus application ?

Just a little hint when you compare apples to oranges then of course there is going to be differences.

Where is the relevency in both your posts and which company are you working support for?

 

Do you have anything to offer up as proof besides your opinion?

Now that I'm more awake, Dr. Who has a good point. There are big differences between the suites and stand alone products of the mentioned companies. If it is being said that the suites provide a better value, I have to agree. If stand-alone products were being referred to, then value only comes into play if said products are indeed better at detection/removal than MBAM, which can only be found out through extensive, professional testing...not yet another YouTube video.

 

@Dr - only the AV versions. email-proxy, options at exclusions,
files to scan, actions etc. i use modified settings to run eset av smother
but with the necessary strength, thats not possible with mbam.
although i have a performance loss with eset and mbam working together
in background - but that was expected - to engines...
nevertheless mbam is doing its job what i was designed for.
additional on win7 i test malware defender. its firewall quality is settled
on the windows filtering platform - is mbam doing same or with its own
engine? (never read about it)

i'm not really getting it - but for me there is only ONE solution with an infected
system... so i asked for details.

like admin? or red cross?
i would deal it another way, my 2ct.

 

maybe a simple video but a real test doesnt have to be profesional to prove it's potential i personally tested with malware that almost all antiviruses that i tested and fail to protect the system from a disaster that is when malwarebytes cames to the rescue i am very convince that this is a strong and it is a good idea to have it along side your antivirus solution

 

Interesting stuff when you get talking about Malwarebytes. I like to lurk a few malware help sites, true it (MBAM) gets recommended for curing helluva lotta problems. But I notice the OP near enough ALWAYS returns with this frustrating reply "I can't load Malwarebytes" ... to which everyone replies "Rename the file" etc. So I wonder ... have the guys at Malwarebytes been working on a solution to this problem? A way to ensure Malwarebytes can be installed on an infected PC.

If they can at anytime soon pull that one off. Fair do's



EDIT can anyone explain the complexity of the problem/ and solution?

 

Nope, just a normal fella that likes to help other people.

And what is that "only ONE solution" Brummelchen?

 

let's just get real and put our hats off they deserve it
in alot of forums i see them recomend it to remove their malware with malwarebytes

 

Hi Brummelchen,

I will first admit that I am in way over my head in such a discussion as this.
However, I do know, as I have posted on other threads, that a friend to whom I gave a couple of safe site URLs in some manner got infected after clicking on one of them with antivir rogue. I clicked on the sites with no attempt by anything to infect, but that is how he said he got infected.

Immediately he got pop ups telling him he had malware on his computer and needed to buy what they were offering to rid himself of the malware. He was unable to get on the internet without such pop ups, and was prevented from downloading SAS by the rogue.
He was using Norton, which has shown itself in recent tests like AVC to be one of the top AVs.

Norton did not detect and prevent antivir and did not detect it on a subsequent scan.
He was finally able to download SAS and ran a scan which did find the rogue, but did not fully remove it as he had pop ups each time he went on the internet.

The next day I took a CD with MBAM free on it to him. We ran a Quick Scan which revealed the rogue, and removed it. He has had no more pop ups on his system. Based upon that experience I decided to buy MBAM for each computer and run them in realtime with KIS 2010.

Because Norton did not detect and prevent the infection I have no good reason to think my KIS is any better overall.

I realize that this is just one instance, and not meaningful in a mathematical sense. However, it is my real world experience, and that is what I have to go on.

My security set up has been called overkill on another forum, but as long as I do not have problems that seem to be associated with those applications I intend to continue using them.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Hey Jerry,
ive had alot of clients infected recently and being unable to install sas and mbam saved the day. it coulnt always update until after the first scan but it cleaned the infections undone the blocks the malware had put on the system and then allowed me to try other stuff.

 

you guys see the real life testimony is always the best recomendation

 

I agree, I think the original topic got lost (I didn't help with my comments either, I admit that.). MBAM would NOT be highly regarded in both the good and bad guy circles if it did not earn it. Detection rates can be both a blessing and a curse, if MBAM catches 5 samples but misses one that other products might have caught, some folks will turn it into a negative. The fact of the matter is, EVERY product has this problem, that's the exact reason a program like MBAM is recommended alongside another product usually.

My whole issue all along was the amount of samples used in this test. It simply is not enough, and, more than one link was dead, so therefore useless for testing. Does it HAVE to be 100s? Absolutely not. Does it HAVE to be more than 10, you're damn right if you want to convince me. I'm not too thrilled with the recent onset of Youtube shows being used to determine anything either (Unless AV-Comparatives decided to put one on, then fine).

 

dave i know i heard ya

 

jmonge - no worry - i know your purpose with that videos.

@Jerry - he had and you not? so must be some other active issues
on his system you didnt know. each issue has to be seen unique,
but the general direction should be clear!?

Franklin - using an image (pro) or new from scratch (beginner).
Any software can only find that whats it programmed for.
its like an idiot proofed trap - when the idiot improves the trap is also improved.
no software can prevent abuse - but it can make it harder to get to.
that and only that is reason for additional active security than passive LUA.
and if the last wall fails (in front of monitor) there should be a fast recovering solution.

this forum is full of that combinations - and its ok to give the main direction.
i have seen to much failure during the season around xmas.
the worst was - "i have visited xyz torr...0day and got infected by pdf exploit"
that is really ouch. "it cant happen to me"... oops

btw - did i mention what MS told about an infected system?

 

Brummelchen I think you're missing a major point.

I work in real world situations on non-Wilders members machines where the owners think that an image is when they look in the mirror.

It's even hard to explain to some people that the rogue av that they have installed is the actual problem.

 

Hi Lodore,

Thanks for the information. Everything I have read about cleaning machines indicates that MBAM is at the top of the heap.
Personally I prefer it to SAS as it runs and updates smoother. In addition in that one instance MBAM cleaned the system while SAS did not. That is the extent of my cleaning experience.

Hope you have a very Happy 2010, being well and prosperous.

Best Regards,
Jerry

 

I dont have any proof with me. I have cleaned a lot of computers of my friends relatives etc just with MBAM. I know it is the only effective product against all types of malwares. If u want proof , use it

 

Franklin - thats the point i am already beyond.

I AM the specialist - not the client who called ME to repair/prevent/aso.
so if client wants to deal with me he has to pay over and over again,
or he accepts my conditions how I deal the things.
i have time to write here over and over again the same thing - copy&paste
but in RL i dont waste much time about that, my nerves, my time, my money.

 

"I AM the specialist" me too . But free service (bcoz they are my frnds and relatives) I have rescued a lot of pcs.

 

/ot free for some groups is ok - sorry, forgot.
friends can balance it somehow, neighbors for the near relationship, but
limited - i got real life and real job elsewhere to spend too much time there.

 

Hi Brummelchen,

[@Jerry - he had and you not? so must be some other active issues
on his system you didnt know. each issue has to be seen unique,
but the general direction should be clear!?]

I cannot argue that, but my point is that MBAM detected and removed the antivir rogue that Norton did not catch or find on a scan. I find that on some forums the folks say that their particular AV/suite is enough. If Norton did not detect it, then Norton is not enough to prevent infection. If Norton did not then I have little confidence that any other AV would have done so.
Accordingly, one needs at least an anti-malware application running in real time to prevent such an infection as my friend experienced.

I do not want or have the expertise to trouble shoot various applications. I need protection that I do not have to tweak and that will offer excellent protection. Applications must run well together and have high detection and removal capabilities to be useful to me.
For me I am convinced that KIS and MBAM running real tiime will do the job.

Regards,
Jerery