- May 29, 2018
- 2,208
It has strong anti-exploit + web protection, and as long as it has 90% detection/protection rate on tests it will doI''d recommend Malwarebytes over Emsisoft, but I don't think MBAM is able to replace an antivirus...
It has strong anti-exploit + web protection, and as long as it has 90% detection/protection rate on tests it will doI''d recommend Malwarebytes over Emsisoft, but I don't think MBAM is able to replace an antivirus...
I thought Emsi incorporates their own hosts file in their product.?I have the impression that Emisi is not very proactive in protecting the web, and I have added the list published by MVPS as a blocked site.
Blocking Unwanted Connections with a Hosts File
This article provides details on blocking Ads, Banners, Parasites, and Hijackers, web bugs, possibly unwanted programs etc. with a custom HOSTS filewinhelp2002.mvps.org
They don't use hosts file but they do check DNS requests against inbuilt list of malicious domains.I thought Emsi incorporates their own hosts file in their product.?
How does this result in the weak web protection that's claimed? Or not being proactive?They don't use hosts file but they do check DNS requests against inbuilt list of malicious domains.
In my environment, there are few cases where Emisi blocked access. According to the log, it was confirmed that the block of the additionally registered site occasionally occurred.How does this result in the weak web protection that's claimed? Or not being proactive?
Yea, I vacillate between using http/ssl scanner to browser extension based products. Not totally convinced SSL scanning is wise.I think it's better to rely on browser extensions for web protection, so it doesn't really affect my personal reputation for Emisi.
Can you tell me why bitdefender is good option? i see it is good, but i like to know your opinionUse one of the license products that you already own.
There is no reason to pay for MB since you already have licenses for EMSi and BD.
I would choose Bitdefender over all other options and use that without hesitation.
Bitdefender has excellent Virus and Malware detection rates both off and online it's updated regularly, along with excellent web protection with its OTP and Trafficlight extension.Can you tell me why bitdefender is good option? i see it is good, but i like to know your opinion
I understand my xeon bro. I have all my passwords and favorite sites in edge, do you know any way to import it to chrome in easy way i know bd is not compatible whith edge,and i use edge for all. I am entered emsi uses same motor but i think bd is a litle good. Am i wrong?Bitdefender has excellent Virus and Malware detection rates both off and online it's updated regularly, along with excellent web protection with its OTP and Trafficlight extension.
It's what I use personally, and it's given me 0 issues. Also, very light on my system resources.
I was running an older Xeon E3 1241 V3, and it ran Bitdefender just fine for years.
That is why I use Firefox. I don't use Chrome or Edge that much anymore, so I cant advise you there.I understand my xeon bro. I have all my passwords and favorite sites in edge, do you know any way to import it to chrome in easy way i know bd is not compatible whith edge,and i use edge for all. I am entered emsi uses same motor but i think bd is a litle good. Am i wrong?
I'm not sure what you mean here because BD is compatible with Edge and other browsers. BD's web protection works 100% system-wide regardless of the browser. The same goes to Emsisoft and Malwarebytes also I think, but their method is different.i know bd is not compatible whith edge,and i use edge for all.
+1 on this. Use the licenses you have. I don't know anyone on the forums who uses Malwarebytes real-time on its own. Excellent web protection though!However, if I had Emsisoft on my system I would not upgrade or change to Bitdefender.
Just choose one and stick with it. You don't need the to run the number 1 rated AV to keep your PC secure.
+1 on this. Use the licenses you have. I don't know anyone on the forums who uses Malwarebytes real-time on its own. Excellent web protection though!
Check that. @Nightwalker ran MB solo for awhile I think.
MB does not target script files. That means MB will not target; JS, JSE, PY, .HTML, HTA, VBS, VBE, .CLASS, SWF, SQL, BAT, CMD, PDF, PHP, WSF, etc.
It also does not target document files such as; PDF, DOC, DOCx, DOCm, XLS, XLSx, PPT, PPS, ODF, RTF, etc.
It also does not target media files; MP3, WMV, JPG, GIF, etc.
Until MBAM, v1.75, MBAM could not access files in archives but with v1.75 came that ability so it can unarchive a Java Jar (which is a PKZip file) but it won't target the .CLASS files within. Same goes with CHM files (which is a PKZip file) but it doesn't target the HTML files within. MBAM v1.75 specifically will deal with; ZIP, RAR, 7z, CAB and MSI for archives. And self-Extracting; ZIP, 7z, RAR and NSIS executables (aka; SFX files).
MB specifically targets binaries that start with the first two characters being; MZ
They can be; EXE, CPL, SYS, DLL, SCR and OCX. Any of these files types can be renamed to be anything such as; TXT, JPG, CMD and BAT and they will still be targeted just as long as the binary starts with 'MZ'.
MB targets mainly non-viral malware. The exception being a virus dropper ( a malware file that drops a virus and starts a virus infection but is not infected with the virus ) and worms ( such as Internet worms and AutoRun worms ).
MB is incapable of removing malicious code that has been prepended, appended or cavity injected into a legitimate file. That means if a file infecting virus infects a legitimate file MBAM will be unable to remove the malicious code. An anti virus application should be able to remove malicious code from an infected file and hopefully bring it back to its preinfected state. Which may or may not return the file to its original, non infected, checksum value.
A file infecting virus will prepend, append or cavity inject malicious code into a legitimate file. Once infected, that infected file can further the infection by infecting other legitimate files.
On the other hand there are trojans that will prepend, append or cavity inject malicious code into a legitimate file. However that file can not infect other files. The infection stops with that targeted file. These files are either deemed to be "trojanized" or "patched". Since MB can not remove the added malicious code, at best MB will try to replace the trojanized file with a legitimate, unaltered, file.
MB is not a historical anti malware solution. That means it will not target old malware. It's intent is to target 0-Day malware. Malware that is infecting computers Today with malware found in-the-wild, Today. That means that something like the BugBear which infected years ago will not be targeted by MB. Malwarebytes will actually cull their signature database for malware that is no longer seen in-the-wild Today. This is why Malwarebytes requests samples that are submitted for detection consideration be no older than 3 months old.