ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Malwarebytes is moving away from lifetime licenses

<< < (5/8) > >>

I actually came to remind what 4wd said: It is important to remember that the current license merely is good for a single pc. I have tested a licensed MBytes on this machine, so I had to purchase a new license, just to be able to test it again for a fair price on my next machine.

Am I wrong about that?  Is today's lifetime license good for 3 PCs?-mwb1100 (February 05, 2014, 05:40 PM)
--- End quote ---
Current Lifetime license is only good for 1 PC - as shown when purchasing.-4wd (February 05, 2014, 06:57 PM)
--- End quote ---
-Curt (March 11, 2014, 02:25 AM)
--- End quote ---

From the FAQ it looks like you can transfer a license from an old machine to a new:

How do I transfer a licensed Malwarebytes Anti-Malware PRO to my new computer?

The license (ID and Key) may be transferred from one PC to another by doing the following:

--- End quote ---

Steven Avery:
Thanks for the info.

While I frequently use the MBAM scan, if you have a system with say Avast and Online Armor and WinPatrol, do you find the extra Paid version stuff of MBAM to be very useful?

My understanding is that you are paying for the real-time protection aspect.  However, too many real-time programs gets cumbersome.

Your thoughts?

If it is positive enough I will likely spring for the $14.95 times 1, test it and then go for maybe 2 or 3.  (Yes, I know I could read Wilder's, you guys are usually clearer.)  In fact, I will download the trial.

Ok, I just activated it, and I see it can be my missing HIPS, and can probably fit in, with a couple of other goodies.  MBAM has been quite a fine company.

Neil Rubenking at PC World a year ago thought their realtime stuff was a little blahh... while lauding the malware cleanup. So it should should be close.  With a lifetime license you can look at at least one license as a sort of future investment and thank you .


All I can say concretely is that MBAM significantly helped to remove some malware - Conduit Search Protect - that got onto my wife's machine.  Technically, Search Protect is a "potentially unwanted program", but it's malware in my eyes since it actively attempts to prevent being uninstalled.

It's possible that the real-time aspect provided by MBAM Pro wasn't necessary for this - note that Search Protect got on the machine while MBAM Pro was running.

As an aside, a recent evaluation of Webroot SecureAnywhere that I did showed that product was effective in blocking Search Protect from getting on the machine in the first place.  I hope to write up some of my findings of that evaluation sometime soon.


I haven't used one of these in a long time. (   :o  )  So I am running a scan now just to see what pops up. I used HijackThis a couple of times years ago.

Steven Avery:
MBAM is really great on removing malware. I had the same good experience at a clients, and find their scans very fine.

So I think I will buy a one lifetime license, if still available, even if it is only for stuff like scheduling regular scans, and other goodies unknown, and not for the real-time mode.  Sometimes real-time seems to be CPU intensive.  Of course with a lifetime, if the real-time improves, you are already licensed.  Gotta check the cost.

Just some thoughts, have your grain of salt ready:
On Wilders and elsewhere, one guy got upset on a trick he claimed MBAM played, a few years ago, (placing in a dummy text file, blank I think, as a .dll and then finding it as malwre) .. he gets everyone annoyed by playing that trumpet, since MBAM people are generally spot-on, helpful, etc. However, when I went back, I think it may have occurred. (If so, it needed an apology.)  I got curious enough to think of trying to download a FileHippo type of old version and seeing if I can replicate the behaviour.  

Kaspersky is supposed to be an A-1 company, they got involved in a finger-pointing game with Microsoft about some unusual low-level behaviour, hooks that were said to damage some systems over time, and I still don't rush to try their products even many years later. (And I hesitate to install any product that seems to involve too much hooking or low-level, including rootkit stuff, I would like reviewers to pay more attention on that element.) That is without going into Comodo's CEO stuff, when they were soo tricky with toolbars, and moving away from Avira when they played games for a little while partnering with Uniblue. :) And BitDefender played a painful recurring billing scheme, a fairly common trick where they try to gotcha on the install, which may be part of some super-duper-special, and then a year later can bill you on a credit card that you might not notice. Bits du Jour just discussed that problem with Anvir Task Manager (which is partly a security program).

Even if the company is spot-on today, if they did not really come clean, you wonder whether you want to work with their products.

Right now my main companies are Avast on the anti-virus and Online Armor and Private Firewall on the firewall and Win Patrol on the start-up area control.  Not that those companies are perfect in every way, I have been quite happy with each one.  I use WinPatrol and Chameleon, WinPatrol for the security, Chameleon for the startup interface and control.  Don't use a dedicated HIPS, or file integrity control program, partly because Avast is part-hips, partly because no one program stands out.

And I always look around and saw some more goodies today that I might test out, although overall I am pretty placid.  Paltalk gives me jitters a bit, since it sets off Avast alarm bells about stopping Trojans.  That is the most problematic spot I visit.

My fav three static scans are Malwarebytes, SuperAntiSpyware and Emsi Emergency Kit, all of which give you a lot on freeware. It is interesting to see their small differences.  Occasionally I play with Hitman Pro, but it really is not a free scan if you want to do any cleaning and fixing.

Your thoughts?



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version