Battle Malwarebytes Premium or Emsisoft Anti-Malware 2021

[Moonhorse]

I''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 do

 

[Zartarra]

For web protection Malwarebytes is one of the bests. System protection is a different story. Emsisoft has very good signatures and their behavior blocker works better than Malwarebytes.

A nice combo is to choose Emsisoft for system protection and use the browser extension of Malwarebytes.

 

[gigi64]

i use Eset Is + Malwarebytes (off malware protection, only Web protection + Ransomware protection + Exploit protection)

 

[show-Zi]

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 file

winhelp2002.mvps.org

 

[NewbyUser]

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 file

winhelp2002.mvps.org

I thought Emsi incorporates their own hosts file in their product.?

 

[Minimalist]

I thought Emsi incorporates their own hosts file in their product.?

They don't use hosts file but they do check DNS requests against inbuilt list of malicious domains.

 

[NewbyUser]

They don't use hosts file but they do check DNS requests against inbuilt list of malicious domains.

How does this result in the weak web protection that's claimed? Or not being proactive?

 

[dabluez98]

i dont beleievd it replaces an anti virus but it is good however it creates performance problems

 

[show-Zi]

How does this result in the weak web protection that's claimed? Or not being proactive?

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.

I'm guessing that Emisi doesn't update the list of domains that have problems with web protection so often. That is the reason for the impression of weakness and reluctance. Of course I could be wrong.

I think it's better to rely on browser extensions for web protection, so it doesn't really affect my personal reputation for Emisi.

 

[NewbyUser]

I think it's better to rely on browser extensions for web protection, so it doesn't really affect my personal reputation for Emisi.

Yea, I vacillate between using http/ssl scanner to browser extension based products. Not totally convinced SSL scanning is wise.

 

[Aktiffiso]

Thanks guys, sorry for no answer but my grandma is in the last time (dying) . I continue this debate. I have 2 years licence in emsi, but i see mbam whith more protection capabilities. I have a bitdefender total security licence too. I forgot to say my pc is a lenovo workstation e31 (7 years old" and do not have secureboot enabled because it only allow install windows 8 and not have t he recovery media because i lost it .I have to disable secureboot because if i enable it lenovo logo dissapear and i can not boot whith usb or restore windows or reinstall or reestablish or use a system image.
1.- I use emsi too many years and is cool.
2.- I see mbam is too agressive and i like it, but never used as principal av.
3- I know bitdefender have a recovery enviroment and its too many inteeresting to me.

Is secure disable a secure boot? I use uefi whitout it
in this condition what protection you think is better i only stay in academic pages like redalyc or scielo or jstor only use the pc to play steam games original. Only have 2 pirate games (silent hill 2 and3 and i scan it and know are clean)

 

[The_King]

Use 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.

 

[Aktiffiso]

Use 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.

Can you tell me why bitdefender is good option? i see it is good, but i like to know your opinion

 

[The_King]

Can you tell me why bitdefender is good option? i see it is good, but i like to know your opinion

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.

 

[Aktiffiso]

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.

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?

 

[The_King]

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?

That is why I use Firefox. I don't use Chrome or Edge that much anymore, so I cant advise you there.

It's a matter of opinion for some, but I rate BD better than EMSisoft.
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.

 

[SeriousHoax]

i know bd is not compatible whith edge,and i use edge for all.

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.

 

[mkoundo]

+1 for emsisoft, which i've been using for 2+ years. No major issues. Yes, the behaviour blocker is sometimes sensitive when installing programs but the user can override the block by clicking on the popup, so no big deal.

 

[oldschool]

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.

 

[Nightwalker]

+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.

I used Malwarebytes as the only form of real-time protection for a certain period of time for testing and I liked the results.

It is definitely not an antivirus, it is a replacement, having clear limitations as listed below:

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.

That said, its protection against exploits (covering many files that its engine doesnt scan), PUPs and threats via the web (malvertising/phishing) are fantastic, the protection module against ransomware is far from perfect, but it is adequate and these are precisely such threats/vectors that predominate in the malware landscape.

I don't think it would be a good idea to replace a traditional antivirus with Malwarebytes, but for those who already have a license I recommend testing it, for example, together with Microsoft Defender it is an interesting security combo, although relatively impactful on the system performance of more modest machines.

I still think that solutions like Kaspersky, Bitdefender, ESET and even Emsisoft are better than Malwarebytes, but it doesnt mean that is bad or useless, for some users it actually could be better than some of those listed because of how agressive its web + pup protections are.