Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
General Security Discussions
Is Using Free Malwarebytes Scanner as a 2nd Opinion Provider Viable Advice for 'Typical' Consumers?
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wrecker4923" data-source="post: 1116995" data-attributes="member: 110877"><p>Hello,</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 18px">Background</span></strong></p><p></p><p>Nowadays, I keep hearing that Windows Defender is sufficient for a home user who is careful about downloads, links, phishing, and scams. However, whenever there is doubt, the usual second opinion provider is Malwarebytes, as it is trusted and has a good reputation.</p><p></p><p>The problem is that when I follow security news and look at the IOCs provided by security researchers and vendors, Malwarebytes doesn't seem to detect a lot of new malware. In fact, based on my impression (which is not based on systematic data collection), Malwarebytes appears to identify even fewer potentially new malware campaigns than Windows Defender itself.</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 18px">Sample Case</span></strong></p><p></p><p>News about 7-zip vulnerability that is exploited to load the SmokeLoader malware </p><p>* <a href="https://cybersecuritynews.com/7-zip-zero-day-vulnerability-smokeloader-malware/" target="_blank">Hackers Exploiting 7-Zip Zero-Day Vulnerability to Deploy SmokeLoader Malware</a></p><p></p><p>TrendMicro's IOCs of the report</p><p>* <a href="https://www.trendmicro.com/content/dam/trendmicro/global/en/research/25/a/cve-2025-0411-ukrainian-organizations-targeted-in-zero-day-campaign-and-homoglyph-attacks/ioc-CVE-2025-0411.txt" target="_blank">https://www.trendmicro.com/content/dam/trendmicro/global/en/research/25/a/cve-2025-0411-ukrainian-organizations-targeted-in-zero-day-campaign-and-homoglyph-attacks/ioc-CVE-2025-0411.txt</a></p><p></p><p>VirusTotal report on one of the IOCs:</p><p>* <a href="https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/554d9ddd6fd1ccb15d7686c8badb8653323c71884c7f20efb19b56324ff34fc1" target="_blank">VirusTotal</a></p><p></p><p>I note that at this point, Windows defender is not reported to have picked up the IOC whereas Avast/AVG, Avira, BitDefender, Emsisoft, Kaspersky, Symantec, TrendMicro, etc. have.</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 18px">Questions</span></strong></p><p></p><p>There are other offline/online scanners that don't require installations and seem to belong to vendors that appear to pick up new malware faster than Windows defender. Why aren't those recommended instead of MalwareBytes? </p><p></p><p>I'd rather like how fast BitDefender, Avast/AVG, Kaspersky pick up "new" malware. Of those, only Kaspersky has a one-time malware virus removal tool. Hiren's BootCD include ESET and McAfee virus removal tools.</p><p></p><p>What are your favorite one-time AV scanner/removal tools?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wrecker4923, post: 1116995, member: 110877"] Hello, [B][SIZE=5]Background[/SIZE][/B] Nowadays, I keep hearing that Windows Defender is sufficient for a home user who is careful about downloads, links, phishing, and scams. However, whenever there is doubt, the usual second opinion provider is Malwarebytes, as it is trusted and has a good reputation. The problem is that when I follow security news and look at the IOCs provided by security researchers and vendors, Malwarebytes doesn't seem to detect a lot of new malware. In fact, based on my impression (which is not based on systematic data collection), Malwarebytes appears to identify even fewer potentially new malware campaigns than Windows Defender itself. [B][SIZE=5]Sample Case[/SIZE][/B] News about 7-zip vulnerability that is exploited to load the SmokeLoader malware * [URL="https://cybersecuritynews.com/7-zip-zero-day-vulnerability-smokeloader-malware/"]Hackers Exploiting 7-Zip Zero-Day Vulnerability to Deploy SmokeLoader Malware[/URL] TrendMicro's IOCs of the report * [URL]https://www.trendmicro.com/content/dam/trendmicro/global/en/research/25/a/cve-2025-0411-ukrainian-organizations-targeted-in-zero-day-campaign-and-homoglyph-attacks/ioc-CVE-2025-0411.txt[/URL] VirusTotal report on one of the IOCs: * [URL="https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/554d9ddd6fd1ccb15d7686c8badb8653323c71884c7f20efb19b56324ff34fc1"]VirusTotal[/URL] I note that at this point, Windows defender is not reported to have picked up the IOC whereas Avast/AVG, Avira, BitDefender, Emsisoft, Kaspersky, Symantec, TrendMicro, etc. have. [B][SIZE=5]Questions[/SIZE][/B] There are other offline/online scanners that don't require installations and seem to belong to vendors that appear to pick up new malware faster than Windows defender. Why aren't those recommended instead of MalwareBytes? I'd rather like how fast BitDefender, Avast/AVG, Kaspersky pick up "new" malware. Of those, only Kaspersky has a one-time malware virus removal tool. Hiren's BootCD include ESET and McAfee virus removal tools. What are your favorite one-time AV scanner/removal tools? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
