Malwarebytes standalone or w/AV

MalwareBytes v3 removes malware as good as ever and does it faster than v2. Why care about their marketing? It is not uncommon that good products are poorly marketed.

 

More like an interested observation. It's great that you're a successful user, but that doesn't seem to be universal yet. Besides, as earlier posts stated, the marketing dept. put a ton of pressure on the developers to hustle the product out prematurely. Then all this robot/awesome/antivirus replacement stuff on an unfinished product. But that was then.

 

Yes many issues with the early first MB3 releases but since MB 3.0.6 CU4 (the last is CU4.1) MB3 works smoothly and without issues alongside Bitdefender on my two Windows 10 Creators update PC

 

I fear you have fallen for the biased hype against Microsoft, and in turn, Windows Defender.

Scanning speed is not a problem unless you are just sitting there waiting for it to finish. And that would be a waste of my time. But more importantly, one of the main reasons Microsoft did not code WD to be a speed demon is because it is designed to work in the background without hogging all your resources so you can continue your work while the scans take place. Many (including me) find that as an advantage. Also, I rarely ever start a manual scan because (1) you shouldn't need to with an effective real-time "behavior" scanner (which WD is). And (2), how could there be threats found if they were blocked on the way in? If you have threats on your computer, there was a breakdown in security (or more likely, user discipline ) already!

That is exactly why those synthetic lab tests are do NOT represent real-world scenarios - in spite of what your image claims.

Yeah - as mentioned back in Post #8.

Also way back in Post #8, I claimed it was rushed out the door "before the holidays before it was properly and fully beta tested. ". And that is clearly the case. I did not say it was the marketing dept but it is their job to generate sales. So it is safe to assume marketing was behind it and the execs allowed it to happen.

And I am confident when I say it was not the developers who rushed it out because I know several of them from way back in CastleCops days before they even started MBAM. And they are some of the most dedicated developers I know (and I used to work as a hardware guy in a company with 400 programmers).

I am not defending Malwarebytes, the company. They messed up - big time by pushing MB3.x out before it was ready. And they took too long to fix it (IMO) while keeping consumers in the dark. But it has been fixed and Malwarebytes 3.x is now a viable and recommended option. And less expensive that most competing paid products too.

And where are you seeing these reviews? Again the new version of Malwarebytes is NOT MBAM. MBAM is version 2.x and older and NEVER marketed as a standalone AV.

The new version as discussed in this thread is just Malwarebytes or MB3.x and I have not seen any real reviews of that - yet.

 

Victek, look at many of the posts, you clearly see most are on MB's side, including me. The role of corporate dynamics and its lasting impacts on this product and user perception is where I'm coming from. No need to be a fly on the wall at Malwarebytes HQ all the time. (Or Microsoft's ) This is a discussion, with varying perspectives. I don't see any product-bashing here.

I don't feel obliged to answer this. The "consensus opinion" is: if using current MB, use it with a main security. I'll end it here.

 

I don't use VM's and based on the problems that were reported I was not willing to risk my machine.

 

No offense meant and you're right it is a discussion.

 

I am not sure how Defender and MBAM real time scanners work( not using either one) but if they scan on disk read I will never recommend this approach. However if they scan on execution then one might use these settings.

 

WD is on access. MBAM 3.0 i have no idea, didn't and will never use it.

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2455577,00.asp

 

I saw a review on YouTube and it didn't do too well.

Thanks, not bad but also not good enough. For anti-ransom I will probably install a standalone tool, and for exploits I'm already covered. But they did a great job with the GUI though, it looks nice and clean.

 

That PCMag still rates it as Good. You don't need an Abrams tank to drive around safely. And 1 review does not mean much. By "real review", I meant lab testing. But also, 3.0.4 is not current. 3.0.6 is the most recent and as the PC Mag reviewer correctly noted,

This is particularly important in this case because MB3.x is basically a whole new product that was just released and there were some significant improvements between the tested ver 3.0.4 and the current 3.0.6. Even within the 3.0.6 version, there have been several improvement updates.

No program is perfect right out of the gate.

I am quite certain if MB3.x didn't stumble out the gate, and the current version is what was initially released, this discussion would have a totally different tone.

Again, this discussion is not about MBAM. That legacy product is obsolete, superseded and and is approaching its end of life.

This is really a silly and tunnel visioned comment. Any half-way decent "real-time" scanner uses various methods for detecting malware and malicious "activity". And of course, that does and should include on disk reads. If you insert or connect an external drive, your anti-malware solution better scan what is being read into your computer's memory!

MB3.x and WD (as do most popular solutions) use several approaches to include signature/definition files (locally and up-to-the-latest second cloud-based signatures) and they use "behavior" analysis to detect and block suspicious/malicious activity in memory.

 

Currently using 3.0 with no ill effects.

 

No, I speak from a personal experience.

Even so there should be an option to choose the amount of resources to use (to set the priority of the scanning from High to Low and to run at background).

Believe me or not there are many topics where I provide malware removal assistance and WD was enabled the computers were infected anyway.

I know that the test results shouldn't be taken too seriously but from what I've seen so far they are not in favor of WD. And I also have many years of experience cleaning malware off user computers and also thing that WD detection rate could be better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxiDcmkTrm8

Even Microsoft admitted that third-party antivirus are more effective than MSE/WD a few years ago.

I never got infected while using WD but I never used it alone on my system. I suggest that you add at least anti-ransomware next to it just in case.

 

What for ? i'm using an old i5 3230 with 6Gb RAM and when i do a scan , i barely feel any slowdown...You either have a even older hardware or too many stuff running in the background. only some geeks will use the option you propose, Average Joe won't.

I did too, my very same customers on Win7 (with 3rd party AVs) were far more infected than when they moved to Win8/10. Now they don't need any 3rd party AVs anymore.
Most people don't update their AVs or even have one installed, WD is present, do it automatically and silently
Of course , i teach them safe habits, how to use UAC and enabled Smartscreen. Happy Clickers will be infected , whatever the product.

You don't get the point with WD, WD was built-in to give basic protection to users while being totally compatible with the system, its detection is oriented to prevalence. Also WD is pat of a wider security background, which is SUA, UAC and smartscreen. If the user ignore those, it is their fault, not WD insufficiency.
Not the best sure, but at least it does it job properly without bricking the system.

Ransomware are not a problem, if you have safe and smart habits, it will never hit you even if you don't have any security softs, i use security products for more insidious attacks than those weak ransomware. Ransomware are beginners/happy clicker's trap. whose security-aware user will open a unknown mail, execute a unknown installer or executable while in same time ignoring Smartscreen or UAC? none.

 

If the Intel Core i5-3230M @ 2.60GHz with 6GB is old, the Intel Atom N450 @ 1.66GHz with 1GB what it is?
With WD the notebook is not running at all, with Avira or Avast or Webroot or Panda, etc: No problems.

 

i have a similar mini-laptop (Asus X102BA) ; whatever you use on , it is still slow, i also used Webroot on it, the gain is minimal so i removed it.
Then i tried put Win7, even Linux Mint XFCE to get rid of the slowdowns, nothing avail. This hardware is just slow, that is it. Maybe only XP would run normally.
now , i just use Appguard and HMPA; this machine can't handle Real Time AVs.

 

A lot of people have older hardware. My fastest laptop has only a 2nd generation i3 CPU, which was released six years ago. As I've posted a number of times before, WD runs really well on computers with a fast CPU (and is a good choice for an AV on them), but on slower CPUs it causes very noticable slowdowns at times and I've seen no improvement in performance from WD after upgrading to Creators Update.

 

My low-end Asus was shipped with Win8, i can see slight improvement with CU than 1607, but anyway , 2Gb RAM is the weak spot, no OS can run fast enough on it. As i said earlier, maybe XP.

 

My hardware is old but still powerful and no, I don't have any useless background processes/services. I keep my OS in order and I am very pleased with the result. It isn't about the slowdown. It should be up to the user to choose how to manage the resources usage. If the scan priority is set to background it will let you use your PC while the scan is in progress but the scan will take longer to complete. If you set it to high then the scan will take a lot more resources but it will complete a lot more faster. But not the scanning speed is the main problem here. I already posted more than those 2 points quoted by Bill in my previous post.

I think you misunderstood why I said that. Of course, that the user could be infected with a third-party AV as well. What I meant was that you need to run a scan even if your AV real-time protection was turned on from a time to time just in case. Bill said that if your AV real-time protection is enabled then a on-demand scan is not needed anymore and this is not quite true. It may find only a few inactive traces in the registry or so but it could still find something missed by the real-time protection. But I agree, with relying only on signature based defense you are asking for problems. Unfortunately it is hard to recommend something more complex to the users since I can't use the computers instead of them. It is up to users to choose what will work best for them.

No, I got it and I respect the MS decision to integrate an AV software to their OS. That way they are giving the user a choice to use it or not. For most of the users it could be enough (especially when used in a good combo) and like you said the false positive ration is minimal. But there are a lot of built-in tools in Windows and although most of them work fine they may lack some features. What I am saying is that the built-in tools are fine to be there but they are not necessarily better and I don't see nothing wrong if a user decide to go with a third-party solution instead. (or add a layered protection next to WD).

I don't think so. There are many attack vectors at the moment and starting a infected exe or suspicious JS/VBS e-mail attachment are not the only ways to get infected with ransomware nowadays. And there are auto-elevate malware in the wild that could bypass UAC if not set to max security. UAC is not bullet-proof but still better than nothing.

 

Yes but not many will use it. so i guess it won't be implemented even if it can be useful for people like us.

We agree on that , Even MS, in Win10 they alert you to do a manual scan sometime.

Same here , i don't say built-in tools are better, i just say they provide enough protection to the basic user, and are often underrated because some users are careless and ignore/disable them.

I know very well, fileless malwares, metasploits, transverse attacks, etc... but the chances a home user got one those most advanced vectors is minimal because those need particular situation to be deployed and infect the user.

 

They are also often underrated because some people are simply biased against anything that says Microsoft on it. And many in the IT Press underrate them just because they are seeking headlines and sensationalized headlines attract readers. And others underrate them because they read those IT Press bashings and if it was written on the Internet, it must be true!

As guest correctly alludes to, the user is ALWAYS the weakest link in security. If the user simply had good user discipline and kept Windows (and thus those basic built-in tools) current, avoided risky behavior, and was not carelessly "click-happy" on unsolicited links, downloads, attachments and popups, they would be fine with the built-in tools.

But even the most advanced and robust security and easily be thwarted if the user opens the door and lets the bad guy in.

 

Exact. some biased "experts" need attentions (aka $$$) > they write an article bashing MS > the incompetent press rely the article , because after all it comes from "experts", add some big fancy clickbait headlines > the average Joe parrot the press and take it as absolute truth. and the cycle goes on.

 

I thought this thread was about Malwarebytes.

 

You're right, it was