Malwarebytes 3.0 Final released today!

[Tony Cole]

I will stick with AppGuard, blocks everything!

 

[Andytay70]

It seems from different forums Malwarebytes Anti-Ransomware lacks the ability to protect users, which I am surprised for such a company that leads the way in Malwarebytes Pro technologies.

Maybe @cruelsister will give this a test in the near future?

 

[Aura]

Tried it And removed it as it ate my ram and CPU like a kid in a candy store!
Back to zemana!!!

It's been said that the first scan on Malwarebytes can take a lot of resources (RAM and CPU). However, the subsequent scan should use less resources. Therefore, I suggest to everyone to let the first scan run, and then run a second one right after to see if it uses less resources than it did for the 1st one.

 

[Aura]

Maybe @cruelsister will give this a test in the near future?

Her tests are irrelevant if she doesn't share the samples with the vendors afterward. For all we know, she could have modified the samples herself to bypass the products she's testing.

 

[Tony Cole]

Aura
I do not believe in a million years cruelsister would do that, she use to work in the antivirus industry, and has degree's in computer sciences. It would depend on where the samples come from, she may not be allowed (for what ever reason) to share the samples.

 

[Cortex]

Still getting a pop-up on every reboot that real time protection is turned off. This occurs whatever I do, I've excluded all other security programs to no avail :-(

 

[Tony Cole]

That's why you should never bother with brand new software, leave it 1-2 months, let them iron out the bugs etc., Obviously if your using a test machine then yes, but not on a normal OS.

 

[cruelsister]

Tony- Thanks!

Andy- about MB3, I just finished up one and will release it this weekend (and I have the prefect song!).

Aura- the only samples that I don't share are those I code myself. These tend to be nasty things of novel mechanism and I don't trust anyone with them. Those samples that I have been using recently are all in the Wild and their types are obvious by their effects. God Forbid if the developers don't already have them and are unaware of their existence.

And yes, I could have easily modified the malware, but there is no need to inconvenience myself so as sadly older stuff, freely available, are more than adequate for breaching products (but I do admire your skepticism!).

 

[Andytay70]

It's been said that the first scan on Malwarebytes can take a lot of resources (RAM and CPU). However, the subsequent scan should use less resources. Therefore, I suggest to everyone to let the first scan run, and then run a second one right after to see if it uses less resources than it did for the 1st one.

Scanned twice rebooting inbetween and still hogging ram and cpu!

 

[adnage19]

That's why you should never bother with brand new software, leave it 1-2 months, let them iron out the bugs etc., Obviously if your using a test machine then yes, but not on a normal OS.

Well, beta tests were really fast, too fast probably. But that's the Malwarebyte's fault.

 

[Aura]

Aura
I do not believe in a million years cruelsister would do that, she use to work in the antivirus industry, and has degree's in computer sciences. It would depend on where the samples come from, she may not be allowed (for what ever reason) to share the samples.

Then what's the point of proving that a product fail to achieve his task in X situation but not say exactly what that X situation was?

Still getting a pop-up on every reboot that real time protection is turned off. This occurs whatever I do, I've excluded all other security programs to no avail :-(

It's a known issue with the current Malwarebytes 3.0 build. Even though the modules are being started or started already, you'll get that notification. Did you check in the Malwarebytes GUI to make sure all the modules were up and running?

Tony- Thanks!

Andy- about MB3, I just finished up one and will release it this weekend (and I have the prefect song!).

Aura- the only samples that I don't share are those I code myself. These tend to be nasty things of novel mechanism and I don't trust anyone with them. Those samples that I have been using recently are all in the Wild and their types are obvious by their effects. God Forbid if the developers don't already have them and are unaware of their existence.

And yes, I could have easily modified the malware, but there is no need to inconvenience myself so as sadly older stuff, freely available, are more than adequate for breaching products (but I do admire your skepticism!).

If you don't trust anyone with the samples you code, then why do you think some people don't trust your reviews? For all we know, these tests could have been easily falsified. You just admitted the use of self-coded samples and that you won't share them. Usually, when you discover a vulnerability, weakness, etc. in a security product (or any other product for that matter), you submit it to the vendor (with a PoC if possible) so they can address the issue. Right now, you're just saying "Hey, your program doesn't catch that self-coded sample I made but I won't tell you what it does exactly so yeah, you should really fix it." You're not helping them at all in my opinion.

 

[jamescv7]

Well the pressure for Malwarebytes is already at huge stake.

Their Ransomware module should be consistent at all as some irregularities on their stand-alone existed way back before, also signatures and generic detection should be maximized considering that some users will rely only one sole AV.

Antivirus = All package features, it can detect all variety of threats.

 

[HarborFront]

Well the pressure for Malwarebytes is already at huge stake.

Their Ransomware module should be consistent at all as some irregularities on their stand-alone existed way back before, also signatures and generic detection should be maximized considering that some users will rely only one sole AV.

Antivirus = All package features, it can detect all variety of threats.

Its AntiMalware was designed to be a companion to an AV product. It's not an AV

Ransomware is not a virus

So not sure which component can detect and remove viruses. If not, then they cannot claim this new version can replace an AV

 

[Cortex]

t's a known issue with the current Malwarebytes 3.0 build. Even though the modules are being started or started already, you'll get that notification. Did you check in the Malwarebytes GUI to make sure all the modules were up and running?

Tried everything, but the pop-up still appears, I've stopped it starting with Windows for now as got ZAM & WAR + HMP running so I'll wait for a later build. Still wondering whether to replace ZAM with Malwarebytes totally as I really like it & I don't seem to suffer with overley large RAM use like some seem too - But all in all I really like Malwarebytes.

 

[XhenEd]

For all we know, she could have modified the samples herself to bypass the products she's testing.

But does that not suppose that security software should at least be able to detect or block any modification of malware? If the sample is malicious, it should be blocked, regardless of whether it is modified or not. So, even if cruelsister modifies the samples, Malwarebytes should be able to block it still. After all, modification is what malcoders already do.

Anyway, I have no current plans to try and test the new Malwarebytes product. I just currently don't have any interest in it. Maybe, I'll test it in the future.

 

[HarborFront]

Somebody should do a malware test and ransomware test comparison between this final MalwareBytes 3.0 and HMPA to see which is better?

 

[KGBagent47]

So are the independent labs going to start testing this along side the other AVs?

 

[KGBagent47]

I never try new software (like a new car) let them iron out/fix the bugs.

I say that, but then as soon as the new version of X comes out I have to install it.

 

[sona]

now MBAM has been integrated with Windows Action Center like EAM.

 

[spaceoctopus]

I tried
ESET NOD32 Antivirus 10 + Malwarebytes 3.0
Avast Free + Malwarebytes 3.0
Emsisoft antimalware + Malwarebytes 3.0
All working fine, without any conflict.

RAM high usage seems to have been temporary. Now it's just stuck about 120mb-130mb all the time, with no slowdowns. Loving the agressive web protection.