PcMag Review MalWareBytes:)

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2345349,00.asp

 

If I were rating the Pro edition, which promises both cleaning and protection, I'd probably give it 2.5 stars

 

malwarebytes according to pcmag is weak at blocking keyloggers and rootkits

 

Yes, maybe block but not remove?

 

Does PCMag ever give good reviews to non-advertizers?

 

I personally don't know - I just think it can be an interesting read to take valid points from. You know that he gave Malwarebytes a decent score, right? Might just be extra harsh on the things that don't work good.

 

The overall score is actually good...
So, congratulation to MBAM well deserved!

Fax

 

MalWareBytes good work.

 

I must admit I just skimmed over the review but from what I read it didn't fare too well.

 

.
I recommend the review. It is complex, showing that MBAM does very well in some areas and poorly in others. How you interpret this depends on expectations. I haven't followed MBAM development closely and don't know how the developer positions it. For instance, some developers intentionally don't try to detect commercial keyloggers since these are often installed by companies to monitor employee computer activity. If that's the case with MBAM then don't fault it, just keep in mind that you need an additional product with that capability. Neil Rubenking treats the security products equally in the review (MBAM, Norton 360, Webroot, etc). That makes sense if you're looking for a single product that's strong in all areas. Personally I use MBAM as one of a number of backup on-demand scanners, not as my primary defense so I don't need it to be great at removing everything.

 

This question (or some version of it) gets asked every time Rubenking writes a review. Do you even know who the advertisers are? I mean, do you track that sort of thing, monthly, year over year? Who would know that? Certainly not me.

 

i think that malwarebytes is a decent security program and no matter what pcmag says it is still one of the best pound per pound malware removers in the market today

 

PCWorld, PCMag, zdnet personal computer reviews are garbage, not trustworthy, not in deep competent

 

Well,

What I make of it, the review is not the one you would like to get, but it also has the strongest endorsement a company would like to have: being advised and used by employees (security specialists) of the competition. Surely you must do something right when you get that status? Also MBAM explitely tells it focusses on a subset of the malware others leave behind. Now we have an idea what that is: fake security programs

 

Well i have to pitch in my opinion of PCMags rating system and it has nothing to do at all with MBAM'S results from what i seriously consider some very lame tests IMO.

A real product tester like kareldjag holds a ton more credibility IMHO then what is reported from that mediocre so-called PC publication which by the way is obviously well funded and can be easily encouraged to show bias in many ways. NOT a very reliable sign although i don;t doubt the results noted.

What does disturb me is that if you threw all those AS apps mentioned together and then some, and then pit their results against some top notch AV's, you would realize as i do a very scary scenario.

Yes, a "AFTER THE FACT" attack cleaning has importance indeed and a market, then so does an imaging application, or a virtual system, etc.

If you look hard at the long term, the AV's have been at it much more intently and before the onset of the AS groups, and much longer, so IMO although it might be meant to show what program A can do better then Program B when it comes to AS tests, detections, protections and removals, IMHO theres really no clear winner just some crude spot check percentages. In fact, if you want a clear winner, try on a solid HIPS for comparison testings.

I just don't feel it's fair to publicize the limitations as though Program A is the better choice for the money then the low percentage count of Program C for instance even if at this juncture of time they don't meet up with a Norton's or even Spyware Doctor which they seem to cream over but after my own tests with it tonite i harbor some serious doubts either of those could hold their own consistently over time given the nature of what they and we are really all up against, and thats destructive or disruptive malware in many forms and techniques.

I am not defending MBAM or any other AS even if it's top rated according to their tests results, but honestly and in my opinion as i see the whole picture clearly, they would learn a more valuable lesson IMO if they re-read some of kareldjag's unbiased and very raw testings in his archives, and weighed those findings between strenghts versus limitations and not lean negatively so openly in a widely distributed publication as PCMag as much as open a dialogue with the vendors who might need help the most to better their program, because all products rise and fall with what they must contend with not to mention at a time of serious transition between XP to Vista and soon to be Windows 7.

So in conclusion i stand firmly behind my remarks that it's not so much IMO that one program can out or underperform in comparison with the others by way of their choice of malware samples as much as pointing out that none of these programs on their own can carry the torch of master success regardless of this type of outcome or locally on a customer's or user's PC due to the nature of WHAT ELSE, MICROSOFT'S OWN LIMITATIONS that have produced an easy carte blanche for malware makers to circumvent their O/S platforms so successfully.

Therein, imo lies the real culprit and not the vendors who are giving it their all just to fill in wherever they can to help make our PC's a little more safe today then they were just a few years ago when viruses ran completely rampant all over M$'s great engineering feat of file programming.

No rant, just the facts as i see them.

EASTER

 

Review is good, seems valid.

 

I use MBAM and their real-time protection is weak. Since MBAM is relatively new their defination base includes more recent threats and that too more concentrated in the spyware area. Hence for an overall anti-malware test, the result are quite in-line with expectations.

Although the recommendation to stick to free version instead of the pro, would probably not be amusing to MB.

 

Theres no disputing the review as poor a showing MBAM made in it, it's the overall content i question and the fact they're commentary/conclusions border on a used car salesman instead of offering more in the way of the WHY certain apps don't match up and given their short history theres a legitamacy as to why MBAM isn't a SUPERantispyware league player at this point in time.

I agree they (MBAM) probably will take offence to tPCMags suggestion of sticking with the free offer and encouraging readers that it's not nearly ready for prime time marketing yet. But it's their axe to grind with them, not mine.

 

What are you saying here? Are you saying it is the opinion of the reviewer that "given their short history theres a legitamacy as to why MBAM isn't a SUPERantispyware league player at this point in time", or is that your opinion?

 

.
Perhaps we're saying something similar here. I feel that to properly evaluate a security program you have to start with what the developer says the program is designed to do. For instance, if MBAM is not designed to detect and remove commercial keyloggers then there's no point in testing and scoring it against those keyloggers. It should just be stated that the product is not designed to deal with them and users should look elsewhere if they need that capability (by the way, I don't know what the developer's position is RE commerical keyloggers). A security application doesn't have to be all things to all people - it just needs to be good at it's stated purpose so users know what to expect.

 

No sir, not me. Thats the impression THEY are making not me, i've used MBAM and why i harbor some reservations over their opinion that it's not marketable enough to buy instead of suggesting users are better off using free.

I hope that clears up my view over their impressions which i still say is biased.

 

Hi EASTER
If you infer that from Rubenking's review, then I'd say you have quite the vivid imagination.

SAS is never mentioned anywhere in the review, and when version 4.0 was reviewed by Rubenking (a year ago), it got a lower rating than MBAM.

Rubenking states, "Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware does a good job of cleaning up malware, especially those annoying rogue security programs". He adds, "support agents for other companies, Microsoft among them, use this tool".

SAS, according to Rubenking, "Doesn't remove or block malware as effectively as the top-tier standalone antispyware products".

It's not my intent to turn this thread into a competition between two products. I merely wish to comment on your impression of what the reviewer is saying. It appears that you have brought your own feelings forward (not a bad thing) and attributed them to the reviewer (not a good thing).

 

I don't take it that way either. No one AS can do it all be it whatever and normally i wouldn't even engage in these type discussions because my HIPS more or less serves the dual purpose of the best AS/AV together, and someplace a day or two ago i even admitted SAS allowed some of my bad samples to not even be recognized. Now had i engaged those sample in real-time it might not been so pretty, but what SAS ignored NOD32 certainly didn't think very much of them, and therein lies the dilema and why i've chosen to return to "real-time" guarding from either Avira 9 or NOD despite the fact i have what i think is a very formidable HIPS in old nearly unfashionable now EQS.

And i agree, theres a distinct line between detection and removal, but i think all will agree that detection "BEFORE THE FACT" is far more desirable then the cleaning up "AFTER A INFESTATION".

The reviewer for better or worse for me just doesn't bring enough viable "reasons" for his open decisions besides his own way of determining tyhe results, but then i'm sure that never was his intention in the first place, but it would be IMO much more credible as a public PC publication, especially when pitting security apps if he didn't come across as if when he says it's not marketable then we all should take his word for it because i can see many (especially new) readers can be easily persuaded these days to completely dismiss AS's altogether and moreover MBAM according to those results he alludes to. Every program needs time to mature and that should be his ending assumptions IMO rather then "stick to the free version" if you're smart. And maybe he's right after all, but it's just way too soon to accept this particular result as the only one ever to expect from that particular vendor.