Malwarebytes Anti-Malware

Author Comment
User avatar

Posts: 178

I swear by this scan ~ a new free version has been released ~ when you run a scan, it will automatically prompt you to update ~

Sooz

User avatar

Admin

Posts: 11073

If you need an older version, I have a few kicking around.

Or ... http://www.oldversion.com/windows/malwarebytes/

You don't need the latest, just so long as you can get signature updates.

It's a shame they have to resort to nags to try and fund their product.

User avatar

Posts: 178

Andrew, how does offering an update to the free version "fund their product"?

Sooz

User avatar

Admin

Posts: 11073

Because some people will actually pay and take the upgrade.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Are you talking about a signature database update rather than a software upgrade? If so, this has always been possible, which is why I made the (possibly incorrect) assumption.

User avatar

Posts: 178

It's not an upgrade from free to paid ~ it's an update to the free version ~ but it is an entirely new version ~ while I did the update just yesterday, I can't remember if it gave me a choice between upgrading or updating ~ I do remember the prior free version was removed and a new free version installed ~

Sooz

User avatar

Admin

Posts: 11073

Yes, there is a version 2 out now.

I can honestly say that I used 1.6x the other day and it updated just fine, without a prompt (I think), but there was a "news" item about the version 2.0 on the update tab.

I never allow these programs to auto-update, so, I would guess that if one did, then the 1.x line would eventually update to "oh, we have a new version for you!".

At a quick glance, the free version still gives the average user exactly what they need. I do not subscribe to using multiple security products simultaneously, UNLESS they will never interfere with one another. The paid version of MBAM *may* conflict with some security suites, while the free version of MBAM is only ever run on an as-required basis.

It is also important to stress that if running a tool such as this on suspicion there is an issue, it is potentially vital that the signature database is NOT updated, whether this be automatically or by the User. Reason: The update process could be compromised to the extent that it updates the product with a dodgy set of signatures, allowing whatever is desired to go undetected. Run UN-updated first, update and then run again. (Of course, every-day maintenance use doesn't require the additional caution.)

Many of us have used these tools over the years to assist in the cleaning and protection of our systems. Ad-Aware, SpyBot Search and Destroy, were the former front runners before Malwarebytes came along. MBAM was not long in consistently bettering these in multiple areas and has remained a "must have" tool for ALL Windows users - whether they think they need it or not.

SpyBot has an immunize feature, which I recommend to anyone. It has a few other tools, which may come in handy but other than that, you can park it at the end of the line, "just in case". I have not put Ad-Aware on a machine for many, many years now and I have absolutely no reason to do so. I found it to become a hog and felt it was intrusive. If memory serves me correctly, the free version almost faded away to provide next to nothing.

These days, people have no clue what the difference between a virus, worm, trojan, backdoor, rootkit or whatever are. The tendency is to haze these into a single "undesirable" entity, which they then tend to call a "virus". It's not, it is malware or badware. Nowadays, AV software *may* tackle some non-virus attacks but essentially, it still focuses on viruses. Viruses in themselves can be completely harmless because their purpose is to replicate. It is only if they also carry a harmful payload that they become an issue. So, what is the issue? The virus or what the virus carries? (It's the latter.)

One can try to prevent viruses, and hence never suffer the consequences of the payload they may carry. In reality, this is not that effective. It may be 90-95% effective but that still leaves a HUGE gap for malware to get through.

Spybot came close to getting the right mix of what was required but only close. It could also do harm when attempting removal of malware. (Not really that huge deals IF you know what you are doing with a PC.)

I've heard it said that MBAM has broken a system after malware removal but I cannot say that I ever recall encountering this issue. Yes, it is perfectly possible. Quite simply, it is not an "undo" and cannot necessarily put things back the way they were before: 1. because it has no clue how they were before. 2. files or settings may have been permanently removed or overwritten. In MOST cases though, it is both a VERY good anti-malware tool as well as being safe enough for the less technically able to use with confidence.

The good news is that it looks like this trend is set to continue. We should see MBAM as a "must have" tool for Windows users, as well as a valuable tool for Android users.



All credit to SpyBot in trying to improve and maybe in some ways they are. The new Interface is lousy for one! Valuable for its immunize feature and as a backup to MBAM, just in case...

I'm not really sure what these updated versions mean in real terms. I found older versions adequate, they can still be used and are very effective.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group