Author Topic: Malwarebytes 3.0 out (Read 24738 times)

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #25 on:** June 08, 2017, 06:20 AM »

Vienal, welcome to the forum. I've used and highly recommended Malwarebytes for years. And I'm still very happy with version 2. In theory, version 3 sounds like it has a lot going for it, but the feedback on the Malwarebytes forum and elsewhere has made me wary of upgrading. Although some folks here and on the MBAM forum have said that the newest update seems to have cured the problems they'd been experiencing, others are apparently still having problems. I tend to be conservative in these matters. I'm usually in no hurry to install new software until I feel confident that I have more to gain than to lose. But I'm still very very happy with Malwarebytes version 2. I know of no similar program I like as well.
-cyberdiva (February 15, 2017, 12:16 PM)

I can confirm I had a lot of problems with the early 3.0 versions (mainly starting up on switch on or restart). Recent versions seem to have fixed that and it runs smoothly now. Worth having for the anti-hijack and anti-rootkit features IMHO.

Arizona Hot · « **Reply #26 on:** June 08, 2017, 07:08 AM »

Malwarebytes 3.0 out

I now also have Malwarebytes 3.1.2.1733 on my 64-bit Win 10. No drama involved in installing it. I didn't even have to restart until after the scan found unwanted files.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #27 on:** June 08, 2017, 09:10 PM »

I have it too.

As others have found, early versions were troubling. None of my machines liked it, Microsoft Office wouldn't run, nor LibreOffice, nor... nor...

I'd been running without it until something made me check on progress; it slid into my systems like a greased weasel headed for a chicken house. No more detectable problems for me. I'm pleased because I always liked MBAM 2 and also they honoured lifetime licenses when upping their game to v3.

cyberdiva · « **Reply #28 on:** June 09, 2017, 10:24 AM »

Many thanks, Carol, Arizona Hot, and cranioscopical, for your very encouraging postings about recent versions of Malwarebytes 3. Normally, after reading your postings, I would upgrade to the present version 3. However, I'm about to move and to be on the road with a somewhat clunky shared laptop for a while, so I think I'll wait until I'm settled again (and using my desktop computer) before I upgrade. But I'm delighted to hear the good news.

4wd · « **Reply #29 on:** September 15, 2017, 08:07 AM »

Thought I'd give installing v3.2.2.2029 a go:

2017-09-15 22_38_39.png

Oh well, v2 still works ...

IainB · « **Reply #30 on:** September 15, 2017, 10:28 AM »

Yes, that error is seriously annoying.
Malwarebytes support forum people seem to have no idea as to what causes it either. All they do is feebly tell you stock answer No. 25 - to run some invasive software that looks all over your system and then you send them the resulting report(s).
Like that's going to happen.

I am fed up to the back teeth with it - had enough - and am currently investigating potential alternatives to MBAM.

Shades · « **Reply #31 on:** September 15, 2017, 11:47 AM »

I am fed up to the back teeth with it - had enough - and am currently investigating potential alternatives to MBAM.
-IainB (September 15, 2017, 10:28 AM)

JRT, rKill and ADWcleaner, that is the trifecta I always use to get rid of malware on a infected Windows PC.

wraith808 · « **Reply #32 on:** September 15, 2017, 12:32 PM »

I am fed up to the back teeth with it - had enough - and am currently investigating potential alternatives to MBAM.
-IainB (September 15, 2017, 10:28 AM)

JRT, rKill and ADWcleaner, that is the trifecta I always use to get rid of malware on a infected Windows PC.
-Shades (September 15, 2017, 11:47 AM)

I think this is before, rather than after. I'd rather not get the malware, than get infected and clean it.

4wd · « **Reply #33 on:** September 15, 2017, 07:51 PM »

Yes, that error is seriously annoying.
Malwarebytes support forum people seem to have no idea as to what causes it either. All they do is feebly tell you stock answer No. 25 - to run some invasive software that looks all over your system and then you send them the resulting report(s).
Like that's going to happen.
-IainB (September 15, 2017, 10:28 AM)

FRST, I've run it, looked over the output, removed a couple of lines that would have no bearing on MBAM installation (programs that have no services and leave no trace outside their dir tree), and sent it to them. Rest of the output is fairly standard for any system.
Never heard back from them last year, don't expect to hear back from them this year.

Instead of asking you to send stuff it would be more helpful to tell you what could be the cause of the install failing at that particular point.

eg. Is it because their installer is badly written and can't cope with running from an exFAT RAM drive?

ADDENDUM: Well there you go, thought I'd check the forum for a reply and guess what, my example is correct. MBAM can't cope with being installed from a RAM drive. Sheesh, why couldn't they mention this last year?

IainB · « **Reply #34 on:** September 16, 2017, 02:36 AM »

@4wd:
Very interesting. Thanks for your comments above.
Same as you, I ran the invasive analysis software and looked over the reports, and then realised that I could censor/redact the confidential bits before sending the reports to the Malwarebytes forum, but then I decided NOT to send the reports anyway as I could see that - with or without the confidential bits - the reports clearly gave no useful information that would help in problem analysis/resolution. So Malwarebytes were just jerking the users around.

Also, same as you, I went back (last time was a while ago though) to see if there were any developments on the problem resolution. There was zilch.
Oddly enough, I did actually play around with my RAM disc in temp, wondering whether that might be the causal problem - because it had been a known (avoidable) problem in the scripts that install/start up Google Drive. However, I still couldn't get the MBAM installer to work. Tried again last week.
Hmm...odd. If it worked for you though, then it should work for me (OTBE), so I may have made a mistake somewhere. Shall re-check today.

Curt · « **Reply #35 on:** September 16, 2017, 02:39 AM »

is there any chance (risk) it could be because of the overwhelming number of security updates (approx 60) for Microsoft Office 2010 that came a couple of days ago? I know my Waterfox turned from good to bad at that exact point in time, while my Firefox stayed okay.

4wd · « **Reply #36 on:** September 16, 2017, 03:28 AM »

If it worked for you though, then it should work for me (OTBE), so I may have made a mistake somewhere.
-IainB (September 16, 2017, 02:36 AM)

Haven't actually installed it yet so I can't say whether redirecting TEMP back to a physical drive has fixed the problem. Plus I'll have the same problem whenever they issue an update.
From their answer to me it seems like this issue has only just been highlighted and that a fix may be coming in a future update.

I'll leave it a couple of weeks before I have another look.

IainB · « **Reply #37 on:** September 16, 2017, 06:09 AM »

is there any chance (risk) it could be because of the overwhelming number of security updates (approx 60) for Microsoft Office 2010 that came a couple of days ago? I know my Waterfox turned from good to bad at that exact point in time, while my Firefox stayed okay.
_______________________
-Curt (September 16, 2017, 02:39 AM)

My 1st experience of this problem was about 6 months ago, since when there have been several MS Office updates and some Win10 major updates, so I suspect an MS Office update would be unlikely to be a main causal factor of the problem, though I suppose it could have been ancillary to it at some stage. We'll likely never know. The developers at Malwarebytes don't seem to know what is causing it, anyway.

4wd · « **Reply #38 on:** September 16, 2017, 06:27 AM »

is there any chance (risk) it could be because of the overwhelming number of security updates (approx 60) for Microsoft Office 2010 that came a couple of days ago?
-Curt (September 16, 2017, 02:39 AM)

And considering I don't have Office, it's very unlikely.

.... the reports clearly gave no useful information that would help in problem analysis/resolution.
-IainB (September 16, 2017, 02:36 AM)

In my case it did as they picked out the RAMdisk driver.

tomos · « **Reply #39 on:** October 06, 2017, 03:24 AM »

Was thinking of taking the jump
(my install is 1.70.0.1100 -- what can I say $:-\$ it doesnt auto-update nor even prompt)

Malwarebytes 3.0 out

4wd, wondering what the exact number of the file you installed was?
You can see there what they now offering -- I'm presuming they've updated it since, but cannot find release notes on their site

4wd · « **Reply #40 on:** October 06, 2017, 04:38 AM »

4wd, wondering what the exact number of the file you installed was?
-tomos (October 06, 2017, 03:24 AM)

The current version: 3.2.2.2029

Malwarebytes 3.0 out

You won't have any problem if you're not running %TEMP% on a RAM drive. I haven't installed it because I'd have to move %TEMP% back to C: for any program update that came along, I'd rather wait until they fix the problem.

In all the years I've run %TEMP% on a RAM drive, this is the only program that's had a problem with it.

4wd · « **Reply #41 on:** November 10, 2017, 08:48 PM »

MBAM 3.3.1.2183 - new version, same problem.

Really don't understand the problem here, they're using Inno Setup as the installer, same as other programs I've installed without a problem, (eg. DisplayFusion latest) ... same version of Inno Setup too.

IainB · « **Reply #42 on:** November 11, 2017, 08:31 PM »

Finally figured out how to sort this problem in my case:

I was using ImDisk Virtual Disk Driver. It's really very handy/flexible in that the \TEMP setting can be changed dynamically from (say) R:\TEMP (on the RAMdrive) to C:\TEMP, and then back again, as necessary. I used to switch it like this as a workaround for the installer script for GDU (Google Drive Update). The GDU script consistently failed if \TEMP was in a RAMdrive, and worked OK if \TEMP was in C:
But apparently this isn't enough for the MBAM (Malwarebytes) installer. To get the installer to run, the RAMdrive has to be disabled at Autostart, and then the PC rebooted, so it comes up with C:\TEMP at startup. Then the MBAM installer seems to work OK. I found this out by trial-and-error. I guess the system retains some pointers to the RAMdrive, even if the \TEMP setting has been re-pointed to C: - so it's a bit of a flaky installer if it can't adapt to there being a RAMdrive.
_________________________________

PITA.

Note that, once the MBAM update has been successfully installed, the \TEMP in RAMdrive can be reinstated at system startup, as normal, and MBAM seems to work fine with that. So it seems to be just the MBAM installer that has a problem with \TEMP being in a RAMdrive. The updated MBAM seems to works just fine with \TEMP being in a RAMdrive.

4wd · « **Reply #43 on:** November 12, 2017, 06:43 PM »

I know this, the problem is you'll have to do it for every program update, probably even incremental, since it most likely uses the same installer the same way.

It would be better if they fixed the problem.

IainB · « **Reply #44 on:** November 12, 2017, 08:19 PM »

I know this, the problem is you'll have to do it for every program update, probably even incremental, since it most likely uses the same installer the same way.
It would be better if they fixed the problem.
_____________________________________
-4wd (November 12, 2017, 06:43 PM)

Oh yes, absolutely. You will probably be proven right by events.
Just my opinion, mind, and not really relevant, but I feel obliged to mention that I generally feel nothing but disgust for developers who decide to leave things to remain in some sort of bad shape for the hapless users to sort out. Ultimately, such decisions tend to backfire on the authors. One does not easily forget.

4wd · « **Reply #45 on:** August 03, 2018, 01:09 AM »

It appears that at some point between November 17, 2017 and now they have managed to fix the problem re. installing with an active RAM drive.

3.5.1.2522 installed without a problem today.

Now, if I can get it to stop moaning about having Web Protection turned off ...