How to use Malwarebytes paid version

Topic

New Reply

I have just purchased and loaded this. Since it is active and monitoring all the time, when/how often should I do system scans?

Reply | Quote

Replies

I would say there is no set rule. Probably a once a week thing, on off hours, would feel enough for you?

Reply | Quote

Yes, I’m comfortable with that.

Thanks.

Reply | Quote

I have just purchased and loaded this. Since it is active and monitoring all the time, when/how often should I do system scans?

midnight,
Hello… There are two type of scans that you can have “MWB” perform that have minimal effect on your OS. One is a “Flash Scan”, and the other is a “Quick Scan”. Both only take a few minutes. You can set these to do this whenever you want …I have mine set to do this after checking for updates and Downloading Installing them… Full scans take a long time to complete, and can be set when convenient, and the PC is no too busy. Read through the screens (tabs) and take your time setting things up the way you want.:cheers: Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

So basically you treat it about the same way you treat the free version. I think that will be fine.

MWB has never found anything on my desktop or lap top, but my husband was playing with some coupon sites and his laptop got loaded with garbage. He doesn’t play there anymore!!

Reply | Quote

Also have the auto update set to update every hour..

Reply | Quote

Sounds reasonable, since I know that Norton Internet Security is constantly updating also.

Reply | Quote

Sounds reasonable, since I know that Norton Internet Security is constantly updating also.

It is in general a very bad idea to have two real-time A.V. products running at the same time.
They are more likely to conflict rather than cooperate.

Free M.W.B. should be able to scan whilst alternative A.V. protection is running.
Real-Time protection by M.W.B. in conjunction with Norton may be worse than depending upon only one or the other.

I am no expert on this topic, but that is my understanding.

Reply | Quote

On their forums there are users that notify them of new maleware and the reported maleware is usually included with a new signature file within the hour..

At least that’s the way I have noticed it being done.

Reply | Quote

notify them of new maleware

You really have to watch out for that “male” ware.

The Devil made me do it!

Reply | Quote

Yeah, especially if you live in San Francisco.

Reply | Quote

I’ll behave now.

Reply | Quote

Alan, MWB is not an Anti Virus program and runs just fine alongside my AV program

Reply | Quote

The pay version of Malwarebytes is a waste of money. Here’s what testing by PC Magazine had to say about the pay version: “Less effective at rootkit removal. Didn’t block all malware downloads. Poor malware blocking scores… the product’s malware removal capabilities are vastly better than its malware blocking abilities. That makes the free edition a better deal.” Since you are already using Norton Internet Security, then you already have adequate real-time protection – especially if you have your computer set up correctly (read e-mail and browse the internet from a limited account, not the administrator account).

Alan, MWB is not an Anti Virus program and runs just fine alongside my AV program

Malwarebytes pay version is more than just an anti-virus product. According to the product’s overview and features, it is intended to protect in real-time against all malware, not just viruses. But, as PC Magazine revealed, the pay version is not worth bothering with.

Reply | Quote

I was about to say the same thing. A quick look in previous WinSecrets messages will explain this for you.

Reply | Quote

One more footnote: The Malwarebytes Flash Scan (available only in their paid version) is meant to be used in real-time and on demand, when you suspect something malicious is attacking your computer. You disconnect from the Internet, and immediately start the Flash Scan. It scans the most critical areas of Windows and comes back with a report or actions to take if something suspicious is going on. A Flash Scan is very quick, taking only a few minutes to complete in most cases. This is not meant to be used for routine Quick Scans, which should be done every few days or daily. MBAM Quick Scans usually take about an hour or less to complete. Full Scans should be done weekly or biweekly, during off-use hours. They can take up to three or four hours on some computers.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

One more footnote: The Malwarebytes Flash Scan (available only in their paid version) is meant to be used in real-time and on demand, when you suspect something malicious is attacking your computer. You disconnect from the Internet, and immediately start the Flash Scan. It scans the most critical areas of Windows and comes back with a report or actions to take if something suspicious is going on. A Flash Scan is very quick, taking only a few minutes to complete in most cases. This is not meant to be used for routine Quick Scans, which should be done every few days or daily.

Why can a Flash Scan be scheduled then (as in the screen shot at post 4 of this thread)?

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Why can a Flash Scan be scheduled then (as in the screen shot at post 4 of this thread)?

Bruce

Marketing! Not the original intent. But it could be a nice thing to have running occasionally in the background, if you are doing particularly risky things on a multi-core computer system with plenty of RAM. Maybe that’s why you can schedule it (perhaps to run every two hours)?

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I read somewhere, I don’t remember where, that flash scans are used mostly after an infection has been found with the regular scan…

Reply | Quote

I read somewhere, I don’t remember where, that flash scans are used mostly after an infection has been found with the regular scan…

Also a recommended use.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I read somewhere, I don’t remember where, that flash scans are used mostly after an infection has been found with the regular scan…

Also a recommended use.

Why would you need to use flash scan after a quick or full scan, when it doesn’t check files, folders or registry like a quick or full scan?

Malwarebytes staff recommend the opposite:

If you perform a Quick Scan, there is no need to run a Flash Scan . The Quick Scan checks for all of the items checked in a Flash Scan along with many other items.

Flash Scan:
Note: If anything is found by a Flash Scan, then it is recommended that you also perform a Quick Scan to verify there are no additional infected items on your system

[/I]new Flash scan option
Bruce

Reply | Quote

Why would you need to use flash scan after a quick or full scan, when it doesn’t check files, folders or registry like a quick or full scan?

Malwarebytes staff recommend the opposite:

If you perform a Quick Scan, there is no need to run a Flash Scan . The Quick Scan checks for all of the items checked in a Flash Scan along with many other items.

Flash Scan:
Note: If anything is found by a Flash Scan, then it is recommended that you also perform a Quick Scan to verify there are no additional infected items on your system

[/I]new Flash scan option
Bruce

In other words, the paid version of Malwarebytes is just using “flash scans” as a marketing tool? No real use at all, if what you just posted is in any way true.

The one legitimate use of a Flash Scan which I can imagine is if suddenly while online you suspect something nasty has begun to infect your computer. Then it might be good to be able without logging off (but after shutting down all Internet access) to run a very rapid “first look” at critical Windows areas. Followed by a real scan, preferably a full file scan in Windows Safe Mode (logoff required).

Some Cloud Scanners have this sort of “rapid response” capability. But you really should disconnect from the Internet if something suspicious occurs. (Making Cloud Scanners more harmful than useful in this situation.)

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

In other words, the paid version of Malwarebytes is just using “flash scans” as a marketing tool? No real use at all, if what you just posted is in any way true.

I wouldn’t say that. Some people schedule Flash Scan to run hourly (with Quick Scan daily), which you reluctantly agreed could be useful, after originally telling us that Flash Scan was meant to be run on demand. And Malwarebytes staff recommend having it scheduled to run immediately after updates, for which there is a special option:

Flash Scan – This is a very quick check of your system for active infections running in memory, the registry as well as a heuristics check to look for new/unknown threats. It is less comprehensive than a Quick Scan, but is useful if you just updated MBAM and want to make sure that nothing that was added to the current update but wasn’t detected by the previous database has infected your system (this is why we have an option for it to run after a successful update in the Scheduler if you have the PRO version of Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware). http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=94491

The one legitimate use of a Flash Scan which I can imagine is if suddenly while online you suspect something nasty has begun to infect your computer. Then it might be good to be able without logging off (but after shutting down all Internet access) to run a very rapid “first look” at critical Windows areas. Followed by a real scan, preferably a full file scan in Windows Safe Mode (logoff required).

Perhaps if you find on-access scanning to be too troublesome and inefficient, which you have stated to be the case. But don’t most people who get the paid version of Malwarebytes get it specifically for the real-time on-access scanning not included with the free version? Why is your potential use the only legitimate use? I think most people would find scheduling Flash Scans more useful than running them on demand (despite your pronouncement that scheduling was not intended when clearly it IS the intended use).

Bruce

(P.S. It’s a bit unnecessary and insulting, when I’m just quoting official information from Malwarebytes own web site with links, to say “if what you just posted is in any way true”.)

Reply | Quote

I have the paid version.
It works for me and has been effective in keeping me safe and clean…

There are always reviews both pro and con over every piece of software ever written….I take all the reviews with a grain of salt..

PC Mag like other publications always have an agenda behind their reviews and I have more confidence in other users critiques then any publication who’s reviews may be compromised by their advertising revenue for competing products.

Reply | Quote

PC Mag like other publications always have an agenda behind their reviews and I have more confidence in other users critiques then any publication who’s reviews may be compromised by their advertising revenue for competing products.

This is a tired old conspiracy theory that doesn’t hold up. Also, users are capable of evaluating the usability of antivirus software, but do not have the resources to properly test technical characteristics such as blocking, detection, and removal. For that we must rely on specialists like PC Magazine, Virus Bulletin, AV-Comparatives, etc.

Reply | Quote

Here, Here!!!

Reply | Quote

I’m the one who started this thread and I do not feel like I wasted any money buying the pro version of Malwarebytes. I like that it updates constantly, and it is good to support a company that has provided a good useful free tool, and it was very cheap in a special offer.

Reply | Quote

Midnight and Others : When it comes to info on the Pro version of MBAM, perhaps it would be wise to read what they have written at http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=10138 . P.S. I do not know IF their Section J pertains only to Norton 360 or may include other Norton Security “Suite(s)” !?

Reply | Quote

If you re-read, it is clearly about Norton 360. No mention of Norton Internet Security, which I don’t believe classifies as a ‘suite’.

Reply | Quote

Midnight and Others : When it comes to info on the Pro version of MBAM, perhaps it would be wise to read what they have written at http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=10138 . P.S. I do not know IF their Section J pertains only to Norton 360 or may include other Norton Security “Suite(s)” !?

“SW” ,
Hello…I have used Norton 360, and now NIS 2012 along with Malwarebytes Pro for years without one conflict or problem on VIsta, XP, and “7” Just my 2¢:cheers: Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

I didn’t have any troubles with Norton scans and MBAM but since I saw the exclusions mentioned in the MBAM forums, I did put them in place in the Norton Internet Security Suite. It maybe wasn’t necessary but I think it can’t hurt to do so.

C:Program Files (x86)Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malwarembam.exe
C:Program Files (x86)Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malwarembamgui.exe
C:Program Files (x86)Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malwarembamservice.exe
C:WINDOWSsystem32driversmbam.sys
C:WINDOWSSysWOW64driversmbamswissarmy.sys

The last file entry above isn’t present on my W.7 64-bit system. It was copied into Norton exclusions before I knew that. It just sits there redundant and I suppose it could be removed.

Since Norton products like to disable other AV/AS products, your strategy is wise as a preventive measure. Malwarebytes also has a “Chameleon” folder in its Programs area, and the main executable in that Folder also needs to be excluded from Norton’s attentions.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

‘Specialists” have agendas also and as long as they are carrying ads for the products they are evaluating then I believe the possibility for a positive review is skewed in favor of the advertiser.

Reply | Quote