I currently run Malwarebytes Premium on different systems with Norton, Cylance, McAfee, and CrowdStrike. No issues of any kind.There is a setting in MB3 that can be checked that allows both it and WD to be ran together without any issues at all.
You need to mention, dynamic detection is almost always performed by Malware-Hub-Testers!If MBAM is tested in Malware Hub -- this is exactly the type of testing that MBAM says is ineffective and unreliable and produces worthless results. They state that a static test like that does not evaluate the different protective layers of the product as malware is introduced to a system. You can read more about their thoughts on this at their website.
View attachment 210579
Everything in this quote is mistaken.Cause MBAM went full AV since 3.0, is no longer supposed to be run as suplement.
Plus running MBAM and Windows Defender in the same machine, I can't even imagine the performance impact, both of the heaviest AVs in the market running side by side.
Not to mention Windows Defender is disabled when MBAM is installed, exactly for that reason (MBAM is a full AV now, a bad one at that as shown and said by everyone here).
This test is for the Malwarebytes Endpoint protection which is obsolete. It used the old version 1 engine and does not have the modules of version 3.Here's the most recent test I'm aware of.
Products were tested against socially engineered malware, exploits, blended threats, unknown threats, evasions, offline capabilities and resistance to tampering. Testing spanned four months and included over 56,000 test cases across multiple categories.
Of the 14 products that passed, Malwarebytes finished last.
Test is from (now), March 2019.
View attachment 210637
So you're the only BIAS here, I'm not going to waste my time in arguments.Everything in this quote is mistaken.
The performance impact is minimal, the software is supposed to play well with most AV's in the market, especially Defender, and MBAM does not disable Defender. It only registers in the Security center if it detects that Defender or any other main AV is disabled.
Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection Detection and ResponseThis test is for the Malwarebytes Endpoint protection which is obsolete. It used the old version 1 engine and does not have the modules of version 3.
Burrito, if you had done your homework you would know that the Endpoint protection suite of Malwarebytes consists of MBAM version 1 + an old version of Antiexploit + an old version of Antiransomware + a console.Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection Detection and Response
It's actually more advanced than the consumer Malwarebytes. And it's current.
As stated above.... It appears your bias is showing..
Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection Detection and ResponseBurrito, if you had done your homework you would know that the Endpoint protection suite of Malwarebytes consists of MBAM version 1 + an old version of Antiexploit + an old version of Antiransomware + a console. Compared to the competition it is literally crap.
Consumer Version 3 uses much newer technology.
MBAM is still designed to be used as an companion AV/AM, however since 3.0 MBAM is claimed ("can be used") to be able to be the sole AV/AM program.Cause MBAM went full AV since 3.0, is no longer supposed to be run as suplement.
Whatever dude.. I'm getting tired of this conversation.Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection Detection and Response
There is more than one business version. Just look at the website.
And with you.... I'm done.
I agree that is you would test MBAM (as a companion AV) alongside Windows Defender and WD catches everything that MBAM is not being tested.Also, let's point out the obvious. It makes no sense to test MBAM side-by-side with Windows Defender. What happens when 500 samples are thrown at the test system and WIndows Defender catches them before MBAM. MBAM is not even being tested in such a case. For the test to be relevant, one would have to locate samples that only MBAM detects - in which case you are back to the original testing of MBAM all by itself. Testing MBAM alongside another active protection solution is just complete nonsense.
Well said. All tests are for standalone MBAM which we can all agree is sub-par to the competition.I agree that is you would test MBAM (as a companion AV) alongside Windows Defender and WD catches everything that MBAM is not being tested.
The conclusion that this makes that one is back to the orignal testing of MBAM all by itself is something I disagree with. (IMHO testing should be more than just throwing malware samples at an AV). The task of an companion AV is (IMHO) to catch what the main AV missed/would miss. Every resource the companion spends on detecting/stopping malware that the main AV could catch as well is wasted, thus leaving the malware that the main AV can deal with out of the scope of the companion AV. Thus all samples/vectors/exploits that the main AV detects are to be removed from the test (not a succes, not a failure). Thus a test where all samples (etc.) are detected by windows defender is effectively a test with zero samples (etc.). Which is an insufficient test that does not say anything about the quality of the companion (except perhapts about conflicts with the main AV). I do not make any statements about how hard it is to make a sufficient test for a companion AV.
In a short analogy:
If I try to test a scriptblocker but can't find any scripts to test it with I should look harder or conclude that I can't test it, not throw executables at it.
Isn't it the other way around? They call it an "antivirus replacement" and say it "makes antivirus obsolete"In response to the following:
MBAM is still designed to be used as an companion AV/AM, however since 3.0 MBAM is claimed ("can be used") to be able to be the sole AV/AM program.
Announcing Malwarebytes 3.0, a next-generation antivirus replacement - Malwarebytes Labs (in the FAQ)