Is ZAL or ZAM and Malwarebytes 3 Sufficient

[SearchLight]

I have been experimenting the last few days with Windows Defender, Malwarebytes 3, and Zemana Anti-Logger, and it seems that many articles that I read on the net refer to WD as mediocre at best.

Being that the focus is on zero day threats, and ransomware, and the non-effectiveness of signature based AV, I am now wondering whether the combo of just Malwarebytes 3 and ZAL is sufficient to address these concerns, and will both provide more than adequate protection for my Windows 10 Desktop PC if I turn WD off.

I tried VoodooShield but the balloon tips are not very user friendly.

What would you recommend that would cover all bases. Thanks.

 

[DeepWeb]

IMO anything is sufficient if you have a great brain.exe

 

[RoboMan]

Well if you're focusing on the sig-less area you're doing wrong mate. If you know what you're doing, you could just go AppCheck and VoodooShield, and have some on-demand scanners stored. If you just don't like antivirus you can go HitmanPro with realtime protection or some basic antivirus like WD or Avast, always combined with VoodooShield. VS is like bread it goes with everything.

 

[Duotone]

@SearchLight
WD and Voodooshield are already sufficient if your worried about exploits add HMP.A or MBAE for exploit protection, its rare unless you go to suspicious sites. If you always do online transaction ZAL on the other hand would be a good alternative if your not gonna use something like HMP.A.

If you like testing software then might want to add Shadow Defender and Macrium for such cases.

 

[jerzy601]

Already WD + VS + ZAM
It is enough if you do not want to have any antivirus but the antivirus might not hurt.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

none of those 3 products can protect against nonpetya, perhaps, wannacry also when they were just released for the first time

smartscreen should be bypassed because the payload is not downloaded from the internet
MB3 was demonstrated to be bypassed by nonpetya
ZAL highly depends on its signatures, not sure if pandora can block the payloads or not, very unlikely

appcheck free can't protect against MBR ransomwares. only appcheck pro can

VS seems to be the only one mentioned above that can block nonpetya and wannacry
avast, maybe

 

[tonibalas]

If you worry about zero day malware and you think WD combined with others are not enough then you have 2 choices.
1) Default Deny set up ( you can check Umbra's set up)
2) Isolation set up ( Shadow Defender my recommendation)
Personally Default deny i think is the strongest config but you have to spend quite some time to learn how it's working.
That's why i prefer Isolation Shadow Defender especially.

 

[SearchLight]

I discovered that I had some remaining time left on a McAfee Internet Security License, so I decided to install that next to Zemana Anti-Logger both have the other listed as an exclusion. I think I am covered now but if there is something else I should add, let me know.

All of you seem to like VS, so maybe I should give that one another go?

 

[TheMalwareMaster]

I have been experimenting the last few days with Windows Defender, Malwarebytes 3, and Zemana Anti-Logger, and it seems that many articles that I read on the net refer to WD as mediocre at best.

Being that the focus is on zero day threats, and ransomware, and the non-effectiveness of signature based AV, I am now wondering whether the combo of just Malwarebytes 3 and ZAL is sufficient to address these concerns, and will both provide more than adequate protection for my Windows 10 Desktop PC if I turn WD off.

I tried VoodooShield but the balloon tips are not very user friendly.

What would you recommend that would cover all bases. Thanks.

If you don't like VoodooShield, you can try COMODO firewall at my default-deny settings. With Windows Defender, of course. You don't need all those anti-malwares with this combo

 

[bribon77]

Good to all, Well I think that mawarebytes is a little loose I have a license for always and I do not use version 3 also comsume much ram and Zemana I see it more as a second opinion scanner, if it is preucupado by rasomware of zero Days the best in my opinion is an antiexe as no virus thanks, or something like that,
greetings to all

 

[ispx]

malwarebytes + windows defender + zemana anti logger = more than enough.

 

[GonzitoVir]

none of those 3 products can protect against nonpetya, perhaps, wannacry also when they were just released for the first time

MB3 was demonstrated to be bypassed by nonpetya
ZAL highly depends on its signatures, not sure if pandora can block the payloads or not, very unlikely

appcheck free can't protect against MBR ransomwares. only appcheck pro can

VS seems to be the only one mentioned above that can block nonpetya and wannacry
avast, maybe

According to Zemana website: "Do you want to see your data encrypted with ransomware? Definitely no. Use the best ransomware protection in the market as according to MRG Effitas (report here) and build your defense system."

I haven't seen -yet- Zemana Antilogger tests against latest ramsomwares. I will look for those videos.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

According to Zemana website: "Do you want to see your data encrypted with ransomware? Definitely no. Use the best ransomware protection in the market as according to MRG Effitas (report here) and build your defense system."

I haven't seen -yet- Zemana Antilogger tests against latest ramsomwares. I will look for those videos.

the developer can say whatever they want but the reality can be different. Zemana has failed against so so many samples I have tested in malware hub. They have good signatures, otherwise, can be easily bypassed

 

[SearchLight]

the developer can say whatever they want but the reality can be different. Zemana has failed against so so many samples I have tested in malware hub. They have good signatures, otherwise, can be easily bypassed

That being said, are you more inclined towards using Malwarebytes 3 or would you recommend something else as an adjunct to my McAfee Internet Security?

I tried VS again but it displayed a message for a file that it would provide very little detail about so I could not decide yes or no. I had to Google the file to find out that it was part of my VPN, and was harmless. Frustrated about that lack of info, I removed VS for the second time. Like they say knowledge is power, and unless one knows the specific components of their programs in their individual folders, for me VS becomes useless, and by then, something could slip through.

 

[BearHug]

I think WD + VS will be enough!

 

[SearchLight]

I want to thank everyone here so far for their input.

Regarding Malwarebytes, I was perusing the net when I came across a review in which someone referred to Project Zero run by Google in which they identified flaws in the different versions of Malwarebytes over time which Malwarebytes supposedly fixed. However, what got my attention was reference to the fact that Malwarebytes does not participate in tests run by the independent AV labs so it is hard to judge the program's effectiveness. That being said, the recommendation was to wait for more lab results. I have read elsewhere, that Malwarebytes does not believe in the efficacy of these tests anyway.

I guess, I, like many other newbies, fell victim to the famous Malwarebytes PR hype.

Voodoo Shield would be great if it would provide more detailed info about newly detected programs than individual program pieces, so unless I am doing something wrong using it, it is out for me.

Now I am reconsidering Zemana AL again. Regardless, no program provides 100% effectiveness so it is just a question of installing the right layered approach. More food for thought, now.

 

[codswollip]

Park MB3, or use it on-demand. There's little evidence the v3 offers real-time protection apart from PUPs and some website FPs. There's certainly no "proof" that it works (even the MB web site is devoid of videos showing v3 in action).

Maybe their developers figure it out in a year. IDK. I have lifetime licenses and I don't entrust my key machines to MB3 as it has caused me more headaches and reimages than the malware it alleges to protect against.

As others have said WD (or Avast free) + VS will do everything. HMP.A is interesting, but required too much tweaking for my daily use. Or go with an "all-in" product like KIS.

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

Agreed.. Park MB3. Not worth it.

I'd go with Forticlient(Free) + VS.. Very lightweight and probably over the top protection. What Forticlient Free lacks, VS will surely pick up. Plus the web filtration in FC is absolutely amazing. Use my XML tweaks for Forticlient to turn on the deep signature database and you are good to go. I have 10 unused licenses for Zemana, I no longer trust it, also they never addressed the exposure of their cloud scanning systems to the greater internet that I brought up. Forget it!

 

[GonzitoVir]

the developer can say whatever they want but the reality can be different. Zemana has failed against so so many samples I have tested in malware hub. They have good signatures, otherwise, can be easily bypassed

That is marketing . ALL sellers/developers/manufacturers/etc will say that their products are the best
Anyway, I will always recognise that Zemana cleaned my laptop of a fileless malware that was causing overheatings for almost two years! Nor Emsisoft, Panda, Kaspersky, Malwarebytes nor Superspyware could catch that malware.
As @SearchLight says, no program provides 100% effectiveness. So I regularly scan my laptop with various products.

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

IMO Zemana used to be good. They've seemingly declined over the last year or so.

Also the very fact they seemingly ripped off HMP has turned me off - even the icon was snagged. Erik brought this up elsewhere and they've gone into it in great detail. That was a poor way to treat a partner IMO. Also Zemana never responded about my disclosure of their 'distributed' cloud scanning computers being exposed to the internet with all of the intimate details of these machines leading a potential security exploit or at the least a DDOS. Also, if they are paying VirusTotal then why are they using rotating clusters of scanning systems spread around the world? See this thread;

Insight into Zemana's strange cloud scanning..

Fileless Malware is a big concern. I've seen a few every week in 2017 and common AV products run in the background totally oblivious to their operation. HitmanPro is very good at finding fileless malware if that's the case. Zemana is OK at it, but once again, I've seen detection decline from them. That's personal experience based on several hundred malware removals a month I supervise for the MSP I work for.