Advice Request Is Malwarebytes sufficient protection on Windows 7 ?

[DJ Panda]

Used to be a big fan of MB. After 3.0 it tanked in detection. Why don't you post your security config in the forms?

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Also Windows Defender has a pretty good reputation by now, some even argue it's better than third party AV software in general:
Google Chrome Engineer Says Windows Defender 'the Only Well Behaved Antivirus', Cites 'Tons of Empirical Data' - Slashdot

Microsoft has the advantage of being both a browser and antivirus developers. They also want their customers to be secure yet usable and stable without marketing with fear. But yeah, Google knows how to be secure since they created their stuff to be as secure and as usable as possible in the first place.

 

[Daniel G]

Basic version still comes in handy.

 

[ng4ever]

I use EMET.

 

[jerzy601]

Although I do not use Windows 7, I do not think it's enough
Same MBAM 3.

 

[Atlas147]

As you can see a lot of members agree that malwarebytes is no longer sufficient in protecting your system, even with them advertising as a full AV rather than a companion AV with their new version it still shows low detection rates compared to the industry average.

Several users also report of high resource usage which is definitely not a plus.

 

[Andrew999]

I like using Zemana Anti Malware Pro and something like Emsisoft, Bitdefender Free, Eset or something like that

I am currently using Crystal Security and Zemana Anti Malware Pro with Pandora Enabled. Also I use Avira Browser Safety which blocks Malicious Websites.

 

[spaceoctopus]

Yes Malwarebytes 3.0 is perfectly fine for protecting Win7, and it works well with windows defender. I use MB3 on my 'Email Pc' at work, and the countless times it blocked malicious links and ads, exploits and especially Ransomwares in email attachments, i don't see myself removing MB3 anytime soon. It works perfectly as advertised.

Those who say that MB3 performs poorly in AV official tests are perfectly right. But Malwarebytes explicitly explains that MB3 is an AV replacement, but not an AV. It will eventually fail in most tests that are designed for traditional AVs. If you put some malwares in a folder, and scan it with MB3, it will fail miserably against any traditional AV. But on an infected PC,where those malwares are already active, i'm sure after a scan, it will beat any main Internet Security suite in detecting infections of any kind.

So how can you trust a product who fails traditional AV tests?The real question is, can you trust official AV tests actually??How many times have we seen those products getting 100% detection rate, when tested by daily users and qualified testers fail? Sometimes those obtaining those 100% effectiveness certification are themselves bloatware. Why say that MB3 doesn't obtained AV certifications in independent tests, then the product is bad and useless?

I've been using Malwarebytes since it's early beginning, and i've seen it clean countless numbers of infected PCs,i doubt that it's a weak product. For years it has been used by computer technicians to cure infections. Even recommended on AV support forums when their product fail to protect their users. Of course, it's not perfect and it has bugs like many other softwares. The direction they've taken is good i think.A small, compact and agressive product, focused on being as much proactive and effective as possible, without the need of huge signature databases.