Advice Request Malwarebytes Premium -- Has it 'Jumped the Shark?'

[Digmor Crusher]

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.

 

[Burrito]

Here's the most recent test I'm aware of.

NSS Labs.

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.

 

[Burrito]

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.

I currently run Malwarebytes Premium on different systems with Norton, Cylance, McAfee, and CrowdStrike. No issues of any kind.

Yes, even though I think MBAM has Jumped the Shark and is not that great anymore, I do feel better running with it onboard. Maybe my own bias..

And I've run it with other AVs and security programs in the past. It seems to me that Malwarebytes Premium plays very well with others.

 

[silversurfer]

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

You need to mention, dynamic detection is almost always performed by Malware-Hub-Testers!

Static (on-demand scan):
Dynamic (on execution):
Total:

 

[Gangelo]

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).

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.

 

[Gangelo]

Here's the most recent test I'm aware of.

NSS Labs.

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

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.

 

[Local Host]

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.

So you're the only BIAS here, I'm not going to waste my time in arguments.

There's more than enough evidence on this same community regarding performance impact and how ineffective MBAM is, the rest comes from Malwarebytes itself.

 

[Burrito]

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.

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..

 

[Gangelo]

Most posts in this thread are biased one way or another and are all based on personal opinions.
As for me, I have no attachment to MBAM, I would ditch it in a moment if someone showed me ACTUAL testing of the software along Windows Defender in Windows 10 with miserable results.

 

[Gangelo]

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..

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.

Consumer Version 3 uses much newer technology.

Anyway, I don't want to argue, I have no BIAS, but I have been reading this thread from day one and everything in here is just opinions.

 

[Burrito]

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. Compared to the competition it is literally crap.

Consumer Version 3 uses much newer technology.

Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection Detection and Response

There is more than one business version. Just look at the website.

And with you.... I'm done.

 

[Durew]

In response to the following:

Cause MBAM went full AV since 3.0, is no longer supposed to be run as suplement.

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)

 

[Gangelo]

Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection Detection and Response

There is more than one business version. Just look at the website.

And with you.... I'm done.

Whatever dude.. I'm getting tired of this conversation.
FYI, I had the Endpoint Protection installed some time ago. There is only one Business product.

 

[Burrito]

 

[Exterminator]

Please keep the replies civil or the thread will be closed.Thank You

 

[RoboMan]

Reciently I tested MBAM on a VM (note it will not perform as good as in a real host machine), and I can't tell it was light. It gave me a couple of issues:

-The Windows Security Center kept alerting of no AV installed, switch to Windows Defender installed, then MBAM installed, then none. Had to register MBAM manually as AV and it was still buggy.
-Lightness was not its best capability
-Static detection was really good! Dynamic... meh.

To be honest I think it's a good software, but they claim diamond and they just granite.

 

[Durew]

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.

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.

Regards,
Durew

 

[omidomi]

Hi all!
Well well, MBAM is not that bad, it just need to more improvement , they are not shark or turtule ,they just need to more time, I believe them,they are in good way!

 

[Gangelo]

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.

Regards,
Durew

Well said. All tests are for standalone MBAM which we can all agree is sub-par to the competition.
It is not being tested as a companion antimalware solution.
Malware detection aside, 2.5$ for a lifetime licence to complement Defender with additional exploit protection, Web protection and Ransomware protection is not too bad of a deal for a family PC.

 

[Threadripper]

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)

Isn't it the other way around? They call it an "antivirus replacement" and say it "makes antivirus obsolete"