Jump to content
Posted 15 November 2016 - 10:08 AM
Posted 15 November 2016 - 10:16 AM
I have used Malwarebytes for years and never encounters a single problem. It is a good AM but it should be run alongside a primary AV software to provide complete protection to your computer. Keep in mind that there is NO single best AV or AM solution, most of the time the best one is the one that you likes.
Edit: Starting Malwarebytes 3.0, MBAM will finally replace your AV and combines Anti-Malware, Anti-Exploit and other technologies into a single product. You can read more here: https://forums.malwarebytes.org/topic/190369-announcing-beta-of-malwarebytes-30-a-next-generation-antivirus-replacement/
Edited by batman1234, 15 November 2016 - 10:20 AM.
CPU: Intel i7-8700K 5.3 GHz ------ RAM: 32GB TridentZ 3600 MHz CL16 ----- Motherboard: Asus ROG Maximus X Formula ----- GPU: Zotac GTX 1080 Ti Amp! Extreme ----- Storage: Samsung 960 Pro 1TB -- Samsung 850 Pro 2TB x4
Posted 15 November 2016 - 12:49 PM
What anti virus do you run it along side.
I just use Defender in Win 10 along side MBAM Premium.
Posted 15 November 2016 - 07:12 PM
Posted 16 November 2016 - 11:39 PM
Hello,I would use Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Premium,to get that real-time Protection,I have used it for 2 years without problems.
Posted 17 November 2016 - 06:36 AM
Posted 20 November 2016 - 01:24 PM
Edited by Kakuzu, 20 November 2016 - 01:25 PM.
Posted 22 November 2016 - 07:46 AM
Let me try to answer to answer to some of your thoughts because some of them are debatable and need demystifying
MBAM updates more often than Zemana and has better detection rates
Not sure have you had in mind program update or database update, but Zemana has cloud database and any new signature is instantly available to all customers as the opposite to MalwareBytes database which gets updated every couple of hours. Detection rate is also open to debate because Zemana has its Pandora technology and anything suspicious or new to its cloud should be blocked with suspicious or dangerous warning. For what I've seen Zemana has better protection solely based on how it works with support of AV engine while MalwareBytes does not have such technology.
Zemana has much more false positives than MBAM, and can even detect harmless add-ons on a web browser. The Zemana team may not have that good of a philosophy on PUPs (potentially unwanted programs).
Both products have FP detections and you can see it on Mbam forums:
As for Zemana, we do have them but it is very low amount and mostly based on low reputation or first time seen by our network. We have insignificantly low amount of FPs made by workers in the process of creating signatures. We constantly work on improvements to decrease amount of FPs.
Our philosophy is the same or even stronger than MBAMs and we consider PUPs equally dangerous as real malware and remove them. We even remove some PUPs that MalwareBytes does not.
I'll gladly answer more questions if you have.
Edited by TwinHeadedEagle, 22 November 2016 - 09:06 AM.
Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:49 PM
Although you have points about Zemana, which I appreciate; you are just stating opposites of what I said on some points without verifiable data. It would help if you point me to tests and resources that can provide evidence for such things.
I was not looking to be countered, nonetheless, but rather, that is my experience, which I noted. I really believe Zemana's products have potential. I was a beta tester for Zemana for three years. I also used MBAM otherwise, and had noted such differences.
Per the inference of my experiences, I supposed to just do normal browsing as I would. I did not test any malware, so my experience cannot be calculated as a real test. This makes my experience an ineffective test. Please don't get the wrong idea. I'm glad you are willing to answer to this, but experiences are experiences... what works on one machine might work differently on another. If a user doesn't mind that Zemana's product is more paranoid than MBAM, then that is their decision alone. I believe it is all a matter of decision.
Of course, I remember long ago having a paranoid antivirus, to which I answered notifications on all day, but once I went to a better antivirus, I noticed I did not ever have to deal with paranoia. I loved the idea of not dealing with paranoia. Whether or not, I choose one or the other, I am making a choice to protect my PC, and such companies provide the benefit of it: We all work together in unity & harmony!
Posted 22 November 2016 - 03:23 PM
I tried to be as impartial as possible in my answer and by being Zemana employee I should but I am not trying to favor one product over another, so that's why I used to say only the facts that I had a chance to experience by using both products and to try to bring your answer closer to the real shape of things.
That being said, I don't wish to and cannot give you any tests or evidences because I truly believe that all of them (with respect to the exceptions) or majority of them are nothing but marketing or unprofessional work. Youtube is full of them. There are too many conditions to take into consideration while conducting such tests and there is a term in statistics called deviation meaning that there has to be some test that will fail (maybe also by human error) and people can fall for it and believe in it. Few months ago one person conducted a test with Zemana and he stated that it missed all of the 7 samples that I later proved to be wrong by showing evidence. It was his mistake or some unpredictable condition.
Everything I said is real experience because I know very well how both products work under the hood and what are the advantages/disadvantages of each.
There is no paranoia tech thing built in Zemana, because Pandora has many triggers and checks whether to allow some file to be executed or to show it as being suspicious (not know to our network) or as being dangerous (as a known threat). This tech reduces the possibility of zero day infection to the bare minimum unless we talk about some state sponsored malware :D
This combination makes Zemana very effective when it comes to protection of zero day threats.
Edited by TwinHeadedEagle, 23 November 2016 - 07:35 AM.
Posted 22 November 2016 - 03:58 PM
There are too many conditions to take into consideration while conducting such tests and there is a term in statistics called deviation meaning that there has to be some test that will fail (maybe also by human error) and people can fall for it and believe in it.
I have a similar philosophy. I stated such things because I believed you were stating facts against MBAM, instead of providing a neutral opinion. I provided a neutral opinion, because it was based purely on experience. There was no intention to challenge you. Of course, you may feel partial to the product/services you work for, and I am fine with that... but by no means am I a fanboy of either. All are a work-in-progress, because the realm of computer security is an extremely dynamic one. No one person could ever keep up with the trends going on daily across the world. However, as long as everyone does their part in improving security, they can help change the morale of the battle between villains, victims, and security professionals for the better! Too much infighting only causes less effectiveness, and ruins the intent of the security companies. Companies must be on to competing against the villains instead of competing against each other. No worries here, mate! Thanks for your answer... it was civil and polite.
Posted 23 November 2016 - 06:29 AM
Posted 08 May 2017 - 03:10 PM
A study done by MRG on the matter
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users