Advice Request Have you tried the Malwarebytes extension for Chrome?

[Gabriele Olmi]

have you tried the new malwarebytes extension for google chrome?

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

I used it and like it alot. I have not run into any issues running it thus far, but I would suggest giving it a try and see for yourself. There's a thread created by @Evjl's Rain who has done some extensive testing with it and other exentions alike if you would like to see how it held up [Updated 25/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

As I mentioned the only way to know for sure is to try it out yourself and see what you think. Also keep in mind that while these extensions are handy, they aren't fool proof and you still need to practice safe browsing habits regardless.

 

[LDogg]

Definitely install the extension and see how you get on with it. It's highly recommended by people here at MWT Forum!

~LDogg

 

[Ink]

No, do not need any more extensions.

Already got Chrome, which has Safe Browsing enabled by default. And got a brain to not blindly visit some shady site, or download unknown executables.

Modern Content blockers such as uBlock Origin can block more than Ads and Trackers. You can add custom lists to block bad domains, coin mining sites and more.

 

[Moonhorse]

No, do not need any more extensions.

Already got Chrome, which has Safe Browsing enabled by default. And got a brain to not blindly visit some shady site, or download unknown executables.

Modern Content blockers such as uBlock Origin can block more than Ads and Trackers. You can add custom lists to block bad domains, coin mining sites and more.

sure ublock has capability to do all this, but someone that wont add custom filters could benefit from malwarebytes extension in that case, its up to user what he wants

so instead of asking is something good, do research and find out what you need or not

 

[slash/]

No, do not need any more extensions.

Already got Chrome, which has Safe Browsing enabled by default. And got a brain to not blindly visit some shady site, or download unknown executables.

Modern Content blockers such as uBlock Origin can block more than Ads and Trackers. You can add custom lists to block bad domains, coin mining sites and more.

Common Sense Security has some great features that some people aren't aware of. Just gotta enable them since it isn't a default setting.

 

[Ink]

sure ublock has capability to do all this, but someone that wont add custom filters could benefit from malwarebytes extension in that case, its up to user what he wants

The "someone that won't add custom filters" is probably lacking to see the full potential of a content blocker. That "someone" probably uses an Adblocker that does not allow custom filters.

Less is more, not more is better.

 

[HarborFront]

Anyone knows whether need to use Malwarebytes extension with either Malwarebytes Premium for Android or the desktop Malwarebytes version?

Anything that the extension has that the android/desktop version lacks?

Thanks

 

[Brie]

i used malwarebytes extension on firefox. it blocked common safe sites, often. i had to

remove it. i have chrome now and emsisoft extension and windows defender extension.

i have ublock for ads, trackers and annoyances.

 

[Captain Awesome]

No, do not need any more extensions.

 

[Windows_Security]

No, do not need any more extensions.
Modern Content blockers such as uBlock Origin can block more than Ads and Trackers. You can add custom lists to block bad domains, coin mining sites and more.

All your uBlock blocklists have at best 100.000-200.000 URL's total, better use a malware blocklist from an Antivirus company using cloud look-up (with millions of bad URL's). All those 'community' driven blocklist depend on public sources. So when security enthusiasts start testing malware URL's from public sources they are basically testing their own sources They also assume that a reported link always contains active/working malware without actually testing it.

I liked your advice less is more, would even like appreciate it more when you helped un-airing the myth and value of custom blocklists.

 

[bribon77]

Yes, I've tested it, but not with malicious page tests. But I trust that MT has been tested and has turned out well.
but in the end I changed it to Emsisoft browser Security, because it is lighter. I did some testing and I think it's good too.

 

[LDogg]

It's all fine and dandy having uBlock Origin, but if you wish to block malware domains and threats from pages public sourced url lists doesn't conduct a well enough job as an AV, dependent on the user another extension generally may or may not help.

Plus I do not trust Google enough for privacy reasons to have their Safe browsing feature enabled, so Emsisoft is suffice for me.

uBlock should primarily be for ads and trackers, not malware et al.

~LDogg

 

[Ink]

All your uBlock blocklists have at best 100.000-200.000 URL's total, better use a malware blocklist from an Antivirus company using cloud look-up (with millions of bad URL's). All those 'community' driven blocklist depend on public sources. So when security enthusiasts start testing malware URL's from public sources they are basically testing their own sources They also assume that a reported link always contains active/working malware without actually testing it.

I liked your advice less is more, would even like appreciate it more when you helped un-airing the myth and value of custom blocklists.

You're quoting an old reply of mine. Obviously my opinion of Malwarebytes for Chrome has changed, but I don't really know what you're asking anyway.

 

[Brie]

All your uBlock blocklists have at best 100.000-200.000 URL's total, better use a malware blocklist from an Antivirus company using cloud look-up (with millions of bad URL's). All those 'community' driven blocklist depend on public sources. So when security enthusiasts start testing malware URL's from public sources they are basically testing their own sources They also assume that a reported link always contains active/working malware without actually testing it.

I liked your advice less is more, would even like appreciate it more when you helped un-airing the myth and value of custom blocklists.

malwarebytes blocks safe famous websites. it blocks everything. just saying.

 

[LDogg]

It's a good extensions, but I would never suggest it for everyday for average home users. For past average users on here maybe, it's just too aggressive to a do a decent job. Emsisoft I find is the better alternative.

~LDogg

 

[Windows_Security]

My wife (although 52 now, typical non-technical girl-woman) always has issues with technology related stuff, has Chrome MBAM extension probably after third-four test of Evjl's. She is my proof-of-concept for average PC users. When something works flawlessly on her Yoga laptop, I dare to put it also on the PC's of older relatives. My wife has never complained

December last year three older relatives got new PC's (some companies in Holland sell old PC's to employees and give the money to charity). Although they run Linux Lite/Solus I have also put MBAM on their Chromium browser. I have not got a call from them for something not working okay. Maybe it is the two browser startegy (Chrome for 'secure' stuff with everything locked) and Chromium for other stuff, but I have not got a call from them either.

Older relatives tend to call me before they call their kids (because my mother of 85 is the oldest in the family, so for me they pick up things faster, so for them it seems I have more patience in regard to IT as their own kids). They call me when they accidentally delete a Chrome bookmark for their ISP's email client or bank. That is why switched to two browser approach, Chrome completely locked for just some websites (webmail, bank, TV replay, Skype and optionally Facebook) and Chromium for other stuff.

P.S. my mother still has Windows XP with GSWall and SSM on it

 

[bjm_]

What do you think of

Does "Send" send data that's really anonymous?
Does "Send" produce revenue for Malwarebytes?
Does "Send" help Malwarebytes and thereby help users?
What do you think.
Thanks

 

[Digmor Crusher]

No big deal bjm. Who would you rather send data too, Malwarebytes or Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft etc etc. If your on the internet you've basically given up all your privacy, this applies to 99.9% of users. I trust Malwarebytes and am very certain that this produces 0 revenue for them and is basically meant to "help users" by providing threat data.

 

[LDogg]

No big deal bjm. Who would you rather send data too, Malwarebytes or Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft etc etc. If your on the internet you've basically given up all your privacy, this applies to 99.9% of users. I trust Malwarebytes and am very certain that this produces 0 revenue for them and is basically meant to "help users" by providing threat data.

Agree with you on the aspect of privacy, but so many users seem to get paranoid for no reason which can even learn oneself having an overkilled laptop with realtime protection everywhere. Both of these two aspects even lead to a bad attack surface that can be exploited via malicious people.

Where does it start with Privacy vs Security, from the user themselves, knowledge & how they act on the net, how they think alongside daily habits, everyone is different with this regard.

~LDogg