- Sep 8, 2019
- 461
Malwarebytes Premium V4 - A personal Opinion
- Thread starter EndangeredPootis
- Start date
it conflicted recernlt with kaspersky both v3 and v4 and made computer 100% unstable so i uninstalled - but at same time 4 just came out maybe give them time than judge too fast?
- Sep 8, 2019
- 461
Malwarebytes has always had garbage protection, I dont think they will improve, infact, malwarebytes had better protection 2 years ago than it has now
Was the 4.0 premium the only real time software on your machine when you tested it? The on-demand scanner was optimized with hyper-threading way back when 3.0 first came out. So this, of itself, should not be particularly "slow," relative to one's hardware and other installed software taking up room on the drive.
I totally wonder about its marketing approach in calling itself an antivirus replacement.
But in general, most vendors consider software optimization on various hardware a priority. So, conflicting real times may be an underlying culprit sometimes. Just trying to be fair here.
I totally wonder about its marketing approach in calling itself an antivirus replacement.
But in general, most vendors consider software optimization on various hardware a priority. So, conflicting real times may be an underlying culprit sometimes. Just trying to be fair here.
- Jan 27, 2018
- 1,409
Your cons will certainly not apply to everyone's computer.
It does poorly in AV tests becaue it does not detect all the same malware, in the same way, as other AV's. They base their detection's on behaviour based techniques rather than signatures. Saying it is an anti-virus is nonsense, its a anti-virus companion if its anything.
It does poorly in AV tests becaue it does not detect all the same malware, in the same way, as other AV's. They base their detection's on behaviour based techniques rather than signatures. Saying it is an anti-virus is nonsense, its a anti-virus companion if its anything.
- Aug 4, 2016
- 1,465
Malwarebytes seem to think it's a full replacement, but seem to say different things in different places, this says you need for example WD?
'You don't need to pay for a traditional AV anymore! At Malwarebytes, we have always approached things differently and, as many people know based on their own positive experience with Malwarebytes finding and remediating malware that gets past AVs, we know a thing or two about zero-day malware and their infection tactics. We have always believed that no one product can do it all, and the free AV that comes with modern operating systems, in conjunction with Malwarebytes is all you will ever need'
Mbam Blurb
I'm very unimpressed & have 4 (unused) lifetime licenses.
'You don't need to pay for a traditional AV anymore! At Malwarebytes, we have always approached things differently and, as many people know based on their own positive experience with Malwarebytes finding and remediating malware that gets past AVs, we know a thing or two about zero-day malware and their infection tactics. We have always believed that no one product can do it all, and the free AV that comes with modern operating systems, in conjunction with Malwarebytes is all you will ever need'
Mbam Blurb
I'm very unimpressed & have 4 (unused) lifetime licenses.
- Nov 15, 2017
- 1,083
- Aug 4, 2016
- 1,465
Malwarebytes did say with the previous version it is an AV replacement, but the latest blurb means nothing whatsoever - Though Emsisoft Anti-Malware is product in it's own right & as I recall Fabian did say it's all he uses, Mbam seem to be hedging their bets now - I can't think of a reason to use Mbam anymore but a while ago it was IMHO it was a must - Most badware is now Malware as opposed to viruses, although in essence they are the same? There was quite a few threads some time ago on their forums (stuff you don't want running on your systems that mess things up ware)
MBAM is just a signature-based real-time scanner, how can it block modern malware, it doesn't have any default-deny mechanism which is mandatory those day.
All malware aren't exploit so it's anti-exploit module won't do much, unless they widen its scope, things I not heard.
All malware aren't exploit so it's anti-exploit module won't do much, unless they widen its scope, things I not heard.
- Nov 15, 2017
- 1,083
It's no use having it in real time, just a second opinion. What I like is the module for the Ransomware that is really effective. But I can use the Beta of that layer of protection that is free.
- Jun 24, 2016
- 2,484
I will second this. Since Kaspersky 2017 was launched and I very first tested and understood the magnitude of Application Control, anti-execution modules and restriction policies, I never again used any security suite or combo that didn't include at least on type of default-deny mechanism. Refusing to use a default-deny mechanism is just hoping you will never face a zero-day. It's just a stupid practice, blindly trusting signatures is ridiculous nowadays.
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
Signature based is becoming obsolete
- Jul 6, 2017
- 2,392
I feel more secure with Anti-Exe or SRP and virtualization.
Although the signatures are still valid. why?. because I don't know if I'm infected unless the signatures say so.
Although the signatures are still valid. why?. because I don't know if I'm infected unless the signatures say so.
- May 4, 2018
- 2,261
Above I have highlighted two quotes which is a complete alphabet spaghetti, which looks like a squirrel threw a nut at someones keyboard typing out a load of pseudo-intellectual mental gymanastics. This company used our members as bait, then through them back out to sea like by-catch. This companies products are factually only ever good as a web browser extension, Windows firewall companion or as a second opinion scanner.
Negative opinion to make, but like many companies of old; the nostalgia only goes so far.
~LDogg
Not becoming, it is. I keep telling it here since half a decade lol.
But the reason why it will never disappear is that the masses aren't capable to handle anything else. AI thingies were an attempt but failed as well.
The big winner is Microsoft, they slowly pushed WD and people now don't even bother use anything else, even me who heavily dislike AVs let WD run on my system, reason: it is there already, seems quite efficient, so why bother removing it or adding something else?
- May 26, 2014
- 1,130
Running it next to webroot,I can sleep easy knowing,I have the 2 best programs known to PC magazine,Signature based autograph, I believe from the owner of the company is considered a collectors item,maybe worth a little something for a rainy day
Last edited:
Malwarebytes does have the potential to improve they are a very capable company..... I believe they are improving but slowly let’s not forget it took windows defender awhile to improve as well.
Problem with MB is that they still seems to forget than some kind of default-deny component is mandatory.
Signatures are obsolete, reason they went down the hill. They can't even keep up with modern and sophisticated malware.
Signatures are obsolete, reason they went down the hill. They can't even keep up with modern and sophisticated malware.
Well good thing Kaspersky security cloud free has one of the best zero day components system watcher although not bullet proof I have yet to bypass it myself...
- Nov 15, 2017
- 1,083
It's not just signature-based, it has other technologies as well. Here's a link that explains how it really works.
Why Choose Malwarebytes
See why Malwarebytes is one of the most popular cybersecurity products today, with more research data and smarter technology than other antiviruses.
www.malwarebytes.com
Similar threads
