Go Back   Web User Forums > Security > Security news and updates

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 18-10-18, 02:37
Madeline's Avatar
Madeline Madeline is offline
Top contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cymru
Posts: 52,104
Default A letter from Malwarebytes' CEO

Yesterday I had a pop-up on my PC from Malwarebytes about having a letter from their CEO. Has anyone else who's running the free version of Malwarebytes had this? The letter is shown here:

A Letter from Marcin Kleczynski, our CEO | Malwarebytes
__________________
"I'm Irish. We think sideways." Spike Milligan. 1918 - 2002
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18-10-18, 09:02
fossewayfella's Avatar
fossewayfella fossewayfella is offline
Highly valued member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,790
Default Re: A letter from Malwarebytes' CEO

I seem to remember an article in either WUser or CA on if the paid for versions of free software were worth the money, and in relation to MWB, as far as I recall, it was not. That of course is one person's view, so I wonder if anyone on the forum who has the paid version, has a view on the this or any other paid version of software which a lot of us probably use for free.

I'm always willing to pay for software if it is worthy of the cost, but if the differential is piddling then I'm not.

I think this letter is the precursor of the WWB freebie version going. No doubt ad blockers are the main reason, and we need to think hard of the future impact of our use of blockers on the software industry.

fosseway
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 18-10-18, 09:34
alanrwood's Avatar
alanrwood alanrwood is offline
Enthusiastic contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 922
Default Re: A letter from Malwarebytes' CEO

Just the security of automatic updates on 10 machines is worth every penny to me as is the live protection.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 18-10-18, 09:37
Cantrel Cantrel is offline
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 11,320
Default Re: A letter from Malwarebytes' CEO

I get my live protection from Norton Security so don't see the need for paying for another program to do the same job - and automatic updates on Win 10 has proven that it's not all that it is cracked up to be.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 18-10-18, 09:39
rogerman40's Avatar
rogerman40 rogerman40 is offline
Highly valued member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bedford
Posts: 2,884
Default Re: A letter from Malwarebytes' CEO

I have used the Premium version of Malwarebytes for quite some years with a licence key that never expires.
No doubt it has become an annual payment these days, I suspect.

This is one anti-malware program I would certainly pay for and recommend to users of the free version.
It quietly sits in the background "doing what it says on the tin" as the CEO says in his letter - While the free version gets rid of infections, the premium version stops them before they happen.
__________________
Errare humanum est
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 18-10-18, 12:16
Sneakybeaky's Avatar
Sneakybeaky Sneakybeaky is offline
Passionate member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Gosport Hants
Posts: 1,326
Default Re: A letter from Malwarebytes' CEO

rogerman40: I agree. I also paid for the life premium version on two machines. Well worth the original payment. Perhaps I should consider an annual donation.
Perhaps those who use the free version do not realise that it only removes threats when they run it, whereas the premium version runs in the background.
__________________
Contrariwise,continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18-10-18, 12:24
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Passionate member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,092
Default Re: A letter from Malwarebytes' CEO

Often the type of security on a user’s machine is determined by the user themselves.
What the machine is used for, ignorance, knowledge, experimentation, expenditure/finance, play a part as well as how the user treats emails, attachments, PUPs/PUAs, unknown websites etc.
The places/locations a user goes to on the Internet/Dark Net obviously play a significant part and equally as important what’s downloaded.

In regard to Malwarebytes, if a user has only used the Free version which allows a user to detect and try to remove malware that has already entered and infected their machine and is happy with that scenario, then they aren’t likely to listen to someone who tries to educate that user to the benefits of a Premium version which actually tries to stop the malware infecting their machine in the first place (real time protection) as well as the benefit of detecting what has got through by various means.

There are members in this forum who occasionally post links to either software or webpages that are known to be problematic (that covers a multitude of potential issues) and the Premium version either blocks the page/software download outright, or flags up in the form of a popup warning to the user to be wary/cautious if the user ventures further.
The worrying thing is that the poster(s) of these ‘potential problematic’ links don’t know anything about what Premium Malwarebytes is telling those that have it and are oblivious to the potential dangers and carry on regardless because they don’t know.
I have actually pointed out on a few occasions in this forum that the software/links that are being used/shown to others in the forum should be treated with caution and often you get back from the ignorant is – “my security doesn’t flag anything up so it is OK”.

If folks with that sort of attitude actually tried Malwarebytes Premium it may open their eyes to what others are being shown and might look at things differently in terms of their existing security and then and only then, can they determine if the Premium version is worth paying for.
There are of course those that just don’t care.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18-10-18, 13:15
rogerman40's Avatar
rogerman40 rogerman40 is offline
Highly valued member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bedford
Posts: 2,884
Default Re: A letter from Malwarebytes' CEO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantrel View Post
I get my live protection from Norton Security so don't see the need for paying for another program to do the same job - and automatic updates on Win 10 has proven that it's not all that it is cracked up to be.
Interesting comment. Care to elucidate, please, with details how Windows 10 has proven that to be the case.
__________________
Errare humanum est
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 18-10-18, 13:38
rogerman40's Avatar
rogerman40 rogerman40 is offline
Highly valued member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bedford
Posts: 2,884
Default Re: A letter from Malwarebytes' CEO

@ Moonshine. Valid comments indeed imho.

I used to use IObit Advaced System Care on my machine but quite some time ago following an update of MB Premium it blocked IObit`s program download from my machine totally. However, I found a way to download/install it and carried on using it without any problems. MB was flagging it as a "false positive" - nothing wrong with the program itself.

(Reading various reports I believe there was conflict and friction between IObit and MB companies which caused this.)

However, after a period of time I uninstalled Advanced System Care and now use CCleaner for general housekeeping.

If I download a program which has been allowed by MB but I have doubts about it I always run a scan of the download with both Avast Free Antivirus and MB prior to installing it just to be on the safe side.

"Caveat emptor" springs to mind if using MB Premium to be aware of any messages thrown up.
__________________
Errare humanum est
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 18-10-18, 13:47
Sneakybeaky's Avatar
Sneakybeaky Sneakybeaky is offline
Passionate member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Gosport Hants
Posts: 1,326
Default Re: A letter from Malwarebytes' CEO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantrel View Post
I get my live protection from Norton Security so don't see the need for paying for another program to do the same job - and automatic updates on Win 10 has proven that it's not all that it is cracked up to be.

MWB is not an AV. IMHO you need both.

A lengthy explanation as to why from the MWB forum:
Quote:
MBAM is not an anti virus application and does not replace an anti virus application. MBAM is an adjunct, complimentary, anti malware application.

In its role as a adjunct, complimentary, anti malware application it has limitations in aspects that the anti virus application ( in this case, NAV ) performs in its role.

MBAM does not target script files. That means MBAM 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).

MBAM 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'.

MBAM 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 ).

MBAM 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 MBAM can not remove the added malicious code, at best MBAM will try to replace the trojanized file with a legitimate, unaltered, file.

Where a traditional anti virus application is weak, MBAM is strong. Today's malware is much more complex than 10 years ago. When we saw the Melissa virus ( I-Worm via SMTP ), Lovsan/Blaster worm ( I-Worm via RPC/RPCSS @ TCP port 135 ) etc, they were distributed for the effect, damage and bragging rights. Today's malware is more sophisticated in that it is "all about the money". Malicious actors use malware to profit from. Either by stealing, distribution affiliation revenue, data exfiltration, personal identification impersonation, etc. To effect that the malicious actors don't want the victim to know that their system was compromised or they are so blatant about it by generating advertisements, Yesterday's malware was simple and less obtrusive. Today's malware is very intrusive and makes numerous modifications to the Operating System. Those numerous modifications to the Operating System is where the traditional anti virus application does poorly and where MBAM specializes.

MBAM 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 MBAM. 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.
A comparison can be found here: (The 'Available Features' section is interesting).
https://comparisons.financesonline.c...s-malwarebytes
__________________
Contrariwise,continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 13:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Dennis Publishing 2010, All rights reserved