New Update Malwarebytes Extension for Firefox

Status
Not open for further replies.

Windows_Security

Level 24
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Mar 13, 2016
1,298
not sure what the differences between this and hphosts are

I think they are the same thing. This extension is just an UI for hphosts (optimized version). I will check it out anyway

Exactly what I was thinking. MalwareBytes sponsores HPhosts. Hphosts blocklist are huge compared to most others.

upload_2018-1-13_21-49-31.png
 

AtlBo

Level 28
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Dec 29, 2014
1,711
Comodo Firewall with CruelSister' settings worked for me as the most complete off-line security solution.
I don't use another antivirus/antimalware, I don't even use Windows Defender.

However for browsing, I do use on-line protection:
1) UMatrix globally allowing just CSS and Images. This configuration breaks almost nothing, and blocks 90% of the ads, trackers and malicious staff. I don't use hosts.
2) When I need to unblock pages or to allow scripts, I use this new Malwarebytes add-on. I tested lot of other similar add-ons, and in comparison Malwarebytes for me is the best in terms of protection/performance.
3) I also use Decentraleyes, and a couple of very lightweight add-ons (popup-blocker and URL garbage remover/skipper).

Yes, Comodo is powerful protection I admit. Not net protection but NoVirusThanks OSArmor might be something you could look at adding since you don't use CF HIPs. OSA is so light on resources and dedicated in a HIPS/BB way to blocking specifically potentially malicious activities. BB is sorely missed in Comodo I feel. For now, Qihoo 360 is the answer I have chosen. It's very clever BB monitoring...not as good as OSA though. NVT is just getting started with OSA, but it's good already.

I like what you have. I can replace ScriptSafe and Privacy Badger without remorse. uMatrix was good when I last tried it, so maybe I will try it again. I went to uBlock for awhile before trying SS. Never got around to changing back to an alternative.

Even using some sort of hosts block type of program would work for me. I just don't know, and it's the entirety of net protection that I would like to find. There are sure a number of options, even, for example, Heimdal. This looks like the beginning of a very smart concept for blocking IPs. It's expensive though. I liked the net protection job Malwarebytes did from the tray when I tried 2.0 Pro. Avast seems to do a similar type of job. But...MBAM used too many resources for me. Maybe I will end up with ESET/sandboxie or something similar down the road. Maybe even AppGuard, but getting rid of Comodo would be very difficult. Maybe the firewall in CF will improve in time. For now, I guess I should make room for the MB extension and give it a try (while considering what might not be in the extension). :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Prorootect

Level 69
Verified
Nov 5, 2011
5,855
Yes this your website clicrbs.com.br/rs/ has MANY ads ...all these ads are blocked here by Policy Control (number on the icon I have: 109) - but after disable Policy Control, nothing is blocked by Malwarebytes on my Firefox ESR 52.5.3 ... so all ads are there.
In Protection - all is OK., all is enabled...
But I noticed, that after click on Malwarebytes blue icon, switch is switching in front of my eyes for green (Enabled for this site). Maybe this is normal?
So to me - Malwarebytes is not working here, with all protections enabled (natively)! - why?

Thank you for this link - maybe you have more links with ads to post here, please?
- Tell me if Malwarebytes block ads from my links above, please? All? Nothing? Some?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tonibalas and AtlBo

Decopi

Level 6
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
252
@AtlBo, thanks for your comment.

I tested Comodo Firewall/CruelSister' settings with tons of malwares. It stopped 100%.
I have nothing against OSArmor or other software. Most of them are great! But in my case, I just don't feel the need for other software.
With regard to HIPs, it took me time, lot of tests, and indeed CS is right, HIPs are not going to add security if you use CS' settings. Perhaps OSArmor or another software is useful only in case of Comodo' Cloud mistakes.

With regards to UMatrix, in my opinion is much more friendly than ScriptSafe. Also, is more granular and is possible to block cookies. I dropped ScriptSafe because didn't work when I blocked cookies in FF (it seems to be a FF bug).
Today UBlock, Umatrix, ScriptSafe, NoScript etc... all are great! At the end is only a matter of user preference. I tested all of them, and UMatrix is my preferred. I don't need ad blocker, anti-tracking, not even need hosts. Tthe UMatrix' firewall does 90% of the work. And it is lightweight! It is true that UMatrix is bigger than ScriptSafe or NoScript etc, but it has no effect with RAM/CPU.

You are right that UMatrix is not enough, specially when you need to unblock webpages/scripts.
There you need something extra external, or in my case an add-on (Malwarebytes etc).
Heimdal seems great, and as I said, most of the software are great. I just don't like overlapping, lot of software having similar functions. I don't care about perfection. For me is enough a balance between protection and performance. That is the reason I don't use Heimdal or other software.
But again, thank you for your recommendations!

If I am forced to pick another software in addition to my security combo (described in my previous comment to you), I choose AVAST Antivirus Free.
Heuristics or behavior analysis are the trend. However, in my opinion are still immature technologies.
AVAST with tons of users worldwide can detect malwares and zero-day-attacks very quickly. It is enough quickly for me. And AVAST has the less system performance impact.
Again, is only my personal opinion.

Finally and back to Malwarebytes new add-on, I tested UMatrix with hosts, and it resulted me heavier (RAM/CPU) than using other add-on exclusively dedicated to malwares. I exchanged some messages with UMatrix author (Gorhill), and he explained me that this is because UMatrix is based in another adblocker. In brief, I believe that is the reason why Malwarebytes add-on (or other security add-on) will perform better as antimalware than UMatrix with hosts.
 

Faybert

Level 24
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jan 8, 2017
1,318
Yes this your website clicrbs.com.br/rs/ has MANY ads ...all these ads are blocked here by Policy Control (number on the icon I have: 109) - but after disable Policy Control, nothing is blocked by Malwarebytes on my Firefox ESR 52.5.3 ... so all ads are there.
In Protection - all is OK., all is enabled...
But I noticed, that after click on Malwarebytes blue icon, switch is switching in front of my eyes for green (Enabled for this site). Maybe this is normal?
So to me - Malwarebytes is not working here, with all protections enabled (natively)! - why?

Thank you for this link - maybe you have more links with ads to post here, please?
- Tell me if Malwarebytes block ads from my links above, please? All? Nothing? Some?
There are sites that the extension does not block the ads, but in others it blocks: globoesporte.com
VKmaQ94.jpg
3jsC14L.jpg
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,684
I just performed a quick test between: malwarebytes extension, ublock origin with only hphosts (full + partial) enabled, avira browser safety and bitdefender trafficlight, bonus with my nortonDNS and adguardDNS on FF 54.0.4 x64
Links were collected from phishtank (valid & online phishings) and malc0de
here is my observations:
1/ malwarebytes has a slightly more updated database than hphosts. Tested with a lot of links and I picked 10 links blocked by MB to test against uBO. uBO scored 9/10. Without hphosts partial, hphosts full scored ~5-6/10
2/ BD trafficlight was an absolute crap. It failed to block ALMOST ALL LINKS which were mostly blocked by other extensions. This was the 3rd time I tested it and it still didn't do any better
3/ avira browser safety blocked most of the links and it obviously has the best database
4/ nortonDNS blocked less than avira but still much more than MB
5/ MB was struggling to block the latest phishings/malwares. It failed to block most links in the first page of phishtank but started to block more and more on the second page (older)
6/ during the test, no alert from adguardDNS, literally

malware/phishing protection: Avira > norton > MB >= hphosts full + partial >>>> adguardDNS ~ BD
 
Last edited:

Prorootect

Level 69
Verified
Nov 5, 2011
5,855
No change on block these ads, nothing is blocked, no number on blue icon, and as before, if click on this damn blue icon, switch is switching in front of my eyes for green (Enabled for this site). - is this normal behavior?


PS.
- in the meantime, I posted 3 new topics under Technology News section, well....
 
  • Like
Reactions: AtlBo

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,684
Exactly what I was thinking. MalwareBytes sponsores HPhosts. Hphosts blocklist are huge compared to most others.

View attachment 178016
(y)
although hphosts are huge but it's not as effective as stevenblack's hosts. stevenblack is much much smaller but it blocks much more common ads and trackers than hphosts in almost all of my test pages. hphosts failed to block a lot of trackers
hphosts is better at malwares, phishings, PUPs, exploits
 

Decopi

Level 6
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
252
@Prorootect, it is not the "switch", it is the "settings" button... it opens a kind of dashboard with many options, including the option of blocking or not ads.

But if you have interest and time to invest, the quickiest way is to download the portable version of FF ESR 52.5.3, and to do a clean test.
If MB add-on works, then your present ESR 52.5.3 has issues.
And if MB add-on doesn't work, then is a problem with the FF 52 version.
 

Prorootect

Level 69
Verified
Nov 5, 2011
5,855
thank you, but I'm sure now, that Malwarebytes doesn't work on FF ESR 52.5.3 version... why?
- cause my FF ESR browser is clean, I think.

Listen: if You click on this blue icon, switch "Enabled for this site" is switching in front of your eyes for green (Enabled for this site)?... - is this normal behavior?
 
  • Like
Reactions: frogboy and AtlBo

Decopi

Level 6
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
252
@Prorootect, if I click the blue icon => it opens => two buttons appear: "Switch" and "Settings".
If I click the "switch" button, the icon goes to black when "off", and blue when "on".
If I click the "settings" button, a kind of dashboard opens offering many options for block or unblock stuff.
That's all.
 

Faybert

Level 24
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jan 8, 2017
1,318
thank you, but I'm sure now, that Malwarebytes doesn't work on FF ESR 52.5.3 version... why?
- cause my FF ESR browser is clean, I think.

Listen: if You click on this blue icon, switch "Enabled for this site" is switching in front of your eyes for green (Enabled for this site)?... - is this normal behavior?
VWCu6Jk.jpg
Rcwu4YX.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prorootect

Prorootect

Level 69
Verified
Nov 5, 2011
5,855
@Prorootect, if I click the blue icon => it opens => two buttons appear: "Switch" and "Settings".
If I click the "switch" button, the icon goes to black when "off", and blue when "on".
If I click the "settings" button, a kind of dashboard opens offering many options for block or unblock stuff.
That's all.
I have little difference: if I click the blue M icon, it opens, and without clicking I see the switch button which pass from black to green position, to right. So I imagine, that before my click on blue Malwarebytes icon, Malwarebytes add-on is with the switch on off (black)! This is my problem, why Malwarebytes does not work here.
The other "if I click" is the same here.

Edit:
Now, I switch to bed, Good Night to you all!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tonibalas

Decopi

Level 6
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
252
@Prorootect, well... is a BETA version... so bugs are expected.
I tested the Malwarebytes add-on with Waterfox (legacy compatible), and it works 100%.
I tested with FF 52.5.2 (32-bit) and it also worked, but it just didn't show the counter. It blocks ads, but the counter is missing at the blue icon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top