Discussion:
Malwarebytes BAD !
Add Reply
aiole
2018-05-08 16:58:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.

Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !

It keeps killing apps that I wrote.
They are NOT any kind of threat !


There is only the Restore option.

There is no IGNORE ALWAYS option !

What to do ?
Other than kill malwarebytes !
FredW
2018-05-08 17:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aiole
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.
Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !
No, it is not, you should learn how to use MBAM.
Post by aiole
It keeps killing apps that I wrote.
They are NOT any kind of threat !
How should MBAM know you wrote something and that you are not a threat?
Post by aiole
There is only the Restore option.
There is no IGNORE ALWAYS option !
Of course there is.
(Settings / Exclusions)
Post by aiole
What to do ?
Other than kill malwarebytes !
Learn how to use MBAM ?
--
Fred W. (nld)
KenW
2018-05-08 17:56:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FredW
Post by aiole
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.
Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !
No, it is not, you should learn how to use MBAM.
Post by aiole
It keeps killing apps that I wrote.
They are NOT any kind of threat !
How should MBAM know you wrote something and that you are not a threat?
Post by aiole
There is only the Restore option.
There is no IGNORE ALWAYS option !
Of course there is.
(Settings / Exclusions)
Post by aiole
What to do ?
Other than kill malwarebytes !
Learn how to use MBAM ?
+1


KenW
aiole
2018-05-08 18:13:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You TWIT.
I came here to get help figuring out how to do just that.

What kind of twit are you ?

You can drive a car but you cannot drive a grader ?
They both have wheels and controls.
Come on you twit, get in the grader and drive it.

(Oh yes, what the heck do all those knobs do ??? They have no
understandable icons or writing even)
FredW
2018-05-08 20:17:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aiole
You TWIT.
I came here to get help figuring out how to do just that.
And I gave you a clue to your main problem.
Post by aiole
(Oh yes, what the heck do all those knobs do ??? They have no
understandable icons or writing even)
On the main screen (called Dashboard) I can see some "knobs" with text
on the left side.

And if you select a "knob" (after you have read what its purpose is),
you get a screen with tabs, again all tabs with text.

Why do you not see the text/writing?
What is your problem?


(I am not taking you serious anymore, goodbye)
--
Fred W. (nld)
VanguardLH
2018-05-09 06:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FredW
Post by aiole
You TWIT.
I came here to get help figuring out how to do just that.
And I gave you a clue to your main problem.
Post by aiole
(Oh yes, what the heck do all those knobs do ??? They have no
understandable icons or writing even)
On the main screen (called Dashboard) I can see some "knobs" with text
on the left side.
And if you select a "knob" (after you have read what its purpose is),
you get a screen with tabs, again all tabs with text.
Why do you not see the text/writing?
What is your problem?
(I am not taking you serious anymore, goodbye)
The OP's post smacks of a prior one complaining about the same thing:
his programs that he wrote (wonder what programming or scripting
language that would be) were getting flagged as suspect. This looks
like a troll trying to flame a program that he hasn't a clue how to use
and too lazy to go look at its settings. His parents did a poor job
raising this kid as he thinks he's entitled: everything should cater to
his wants and the universe revolves around him. Looks like he mispelled
his "aiole" nym. He was off by one character: "i" instead of "h".
"a-hole" seems more fitting.

https://www.malwarebytes.com/support/guides/mbam-legacy/MalwareExclusions.html
https://support.malwarebytes.com/docs/DOC-1130
(those cover both versions 2 and 3 of MBAM to add excludes)

Wonder what a-hole's excuse will be now. Oh yes, such a complicated
GUI. Well, maybe that's true for toddlers since this software has more
"knobs" than an Etch-A-Sketch.

A(i|h)hole's self protrait: https://preview.tinyurl.com/y8l4el2t
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-09 15:12:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <1oe7dzm1z9drw$***@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <***@nguard.LH>
writes:
[]
Post by VanguardLH
Wonder what a-hole's excuse will be now. Oh yes, such a complicated
GUI. Well, maybe that's true for toddlers since this software has more
"knobs" than an Etch-A-Sketch.
[]
Not difficult - an Etch-A-Sketch only had two (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm tired of all this nonsense about beauty being only skin-deep. That's deep
enough. What do you want, an adorable pancreas?" - Jean Kerr
Nomen Nescio
2018-05-09 20:21:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by FredW
Post by aiole
You TWIT.
I came here to get help figuring out how to do just that.
And I gave you a clue to your main problem.
Post by aiole
(Oh yes, what the heck do all those knobs do ??? They have no
understandable icons or writing even)
On the main screen (called Dashboard) I can see some "knobs" with text
on the left side.
And if you select a "knob" (after you have read what its purpose is),
you get a screen with tabs, again all tabs with text.
Why do you not see the text/writing?
What is your problem?
(I am not taking you serious anymore, goodbye)
his programs that he wrote (wonder what programming or scripting
language that would be) were getting flagged as suspect. This looks
like a troll trying to flame a program that he hasn't a clue how to use
and too lazy to go look at its settings. His parents did a poor job
raising this kid as he thinks he's entitled: everything should cater to
his wants and the universe revolves around him. Looks like he mispelled
his "aiole" nym. He was off by one character: "i" instead of "h".
"a-hole" seems more fitting.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/support/guides/mbam-legacy/MalwareExclusions.html
https://support.malwarebytes.com/docs/DOC-1130
(those cover both versions 2 and 3 of MBAM to add excludes)
Wonder what a-hole's excuse will be now. Oh yes, such a complicated
GUI. Well, maybe that's true for toddlers since this software has more
"knobs" than an Etch-A-Sketch.
A(i|h)hole's self protrait: https://preview.tinyurl.com/y8l4el2t
It's Dustin Cook aka Diesel trying to cause more problems for
Malwarebytes for dumping him. The arrogant angry jerk has a
history of nym shifting to cause problems.

He's been on a rage in other groups doing his anti
Malwarebytes/Marcin rant.
Diesel
2018-05-13 06:11:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by FredW
Post by aiole
You TWIT.
I came here to get help figuring out how to do just that.
And I gave you a clue to your main problem.
Post by aiole
(Oh yes, what the heck do all those knobs do ??? They have no
understandable icons or writing even)
On the main screen (called Dashboard) I can see some "knobs" with
text on the left side.
And if you select a "knob" (after you have read what its purpose
is), you get a screen with tabs, again all tabs with text.
Why do you not see the text/writing?
What is your problem?
(I am not taking you serious anymore, goodbye)
The OP's post smacks of a prior one complaining about the same
thing: his programs that he wrote (wonder what programming or
scripting language that would be) were getting flagged as suspect.
Likely an HLL of some sort. MBAM is hitting his files due to a false
positive issue present in the database. It's either going by filename
and or filename/location, or, it's a variable string hit. Either way,
it is actually a problem with MBAM, not the user.
Post by VanguardLH
This looks like a troll trying to flame a program that he hasn't
a clue how to use and too lazy to go look at its settings.
While I agree that his comment labeling it as Malware wasn't a sound
one, he shouldn't have to specifically tell Malwarebytes to ignore
programs he wrote and compiled if they aren't malware. It *IS* a
false positive hit. And, that's a *problem* on MBAMs end, not his.
Post by VanguardLH
His parents did a poor job raising this kid as he thinks he's
entitled: everything should cater to his wants and the universe
revolves around him.
Hmm. I didn't get that impression. I don't believe it's an issue of
entitlement for an antimalware utility not to have to specifically be
told to ignore files you know for a fact are not malware. That's an
issue with the antimalware software. And, it should be corrected.
Post by VanguardLH
https://www.malwarebytes.com/support/guides/mbam-legacy/MalwareExcl
usions.html https://support.malwarebytes.com/docs/DOC-1130
(those cover both versions 2 and 3 of MBAM to add excludes)
Which is a bandaid fix for the issue. It doesn't actually resolve
anything. It's quite possible the bad definition isn't just hitting
*his* files, but that of others as well.

The erroneous definition(s) should be corrected or removed from the
database. In order to do that, he needs to contact Malwarebytes and
submit his files.
Post by VanguardLH
Wonder what a-hole's excuse will be now. Oh yes, such a
complicated GUI. Well, maybe that's true for toddlers since this
software has more "knobs" than an Etch-A-Sketch.
Hmm..How is it possible that of three replies I've read on this
thread so far, none credited Malwarebytes for the false positive,
but, all assumed the OP is an idiot? I know Malwarebytes has been
spammed to hell and back and koolaid has been drank by the metric
tons at this point, but, seriously... Has it become that blinding?

Are the three of you listed by MID below, really that fucking stupid?

Not *one* of you acknowledges the FALSE POSITIVE issue the OP is
complaining about, All *three* of you are blaming the OP for the
issue. As if it's their problem and theirs alone. Newsflash: it's
highly unlikely to be alerting on his programs and his alone
specifically. It is most likely, affecting other programs on machines
all over the world. It's also most likely, those people have no idea
why Malwarebytes thinks xxx file is malware. The OP would not only be
doing himself a favor by having it corrected, he'd be helping people
he doesn't even know who also use the product.

Demanding the OP tell Malwarebytes to ignore his files specifically
instead of having the actual issue corrected, IS A STUPID AND SELFISH
way of handling the issue. If you know for a fact you have clean
files that MBAM is hitting on, don't tell the damn program to just
ignore them, submit them so that the FALSE POSITIVES can be
corrected. As, it's most likely doing the same fucking thing to
someone else. Everybody benefits this way. Including Malwarebytes;
they can free up room for definitions which are necessary.
Post by VanguardLH
It keeps killing apps that I wrote.
They are NOT any kind of threat !
How should MBAM know you wrote something and that you are not a
threat?

Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <1oe7dzm1z9drw$***@v.nguard.lh>
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Guns don't kill people... death does.
FredW
2018-05-14 12:52:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diesel
Post by VanguardLH
Post by FredW
Post by aiole
You TWIT.
I came here to get help figuring out how to do just that.
And I gave you a clue to your main problem.
Post by aiole
(Oh yes, what the heck do all those knobs do ??? They have no
understandable icons or writing even)
On the main screen (called Dashboard) I can see some "knobs" with
text on the left side.
And if you select a "knob" (after you have read what its purpose
is), you get a screen with tabs, again all tabs with text.
Why do you not see the text/writing?
What is your problem?
(I am not taking you serious anymore, goodbye)
The OP's post smacks of a prior one complaining about the same
thing: his programs that he wrote (wonder what programming or
scripting language that would be) were getting flagged as suspect.
Likely an HLL of some sort. MBAM is hitting his files due to a false
positive issue present in the database. It's either going by filename
and or filename/location, or, it's a variable string hit. Either way,
it is actually a problem with MBAM, not the user.
Post by VanguardLH
This looks like a troll trying to flame a program that he hasn't
a clue how to use and too lazy to go look at its settings.
While I agree that his comment labeling it as Malware wasn't a sound
one, he shouldn't have to specifically tell Malwarebytes to ignore
programs he wrote and compiled if they aren't malware. It *IS* a
false positive hit. And, that's a *problem* on MBAMs end, not his.
Thank you for encouraging the troll to blame everybody for his
self-created problems, but himself.

He did not know (and did not want to know) how to specify his programs
as exclusions so he would not have the problems he is complaining about.
And when I gave the solution he switched to other fake problems.


According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at
the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they
made a false positive and why they made a false positive.
That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect Malwarebytes
to correct false positives when you do not want to tell anything?
--
Fred W. (nld)
Mayayana
2018-05-14 13:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"FredW" <***@ninmule.invalid> wrote

| According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at
| the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they
| made a false positive and why they made a false positive.
| That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect Malwarebytes
| to correct false positives when you do not want to tell anything?
|

The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware
and warn about it. Since MB is prone to melodrama
and false positives it's not a safe product to use for
most people. Why MB attracts such a zealous fan
base is a mystery to me. Just because you love MB
that doesn't grant them some kind of authority.

False positives are becoming a widespread problem.
Partly because the methods to identify malware are
faulty and partly because security software companies
risk their reputation less from false positives than
from not catching real malware. So they increasingly
err on the side of caution.

I would never recommend MB to anyone because
most of the people I know don't know enough to
assess MB's cries of wolf to decide whether one of
them is valid. Very few people do. My own experience
with MB showed it to be a dangerous program that
could easily do damage if allowed to make its own
decisions.

I've run into similar false positives with my own
software from Avira. Someone wrote to tell me about
it. Otherwise I would have had no idea. My attempt to
contact Avira resulted only in robo-responses. No one
was minding the store. But even if they were responsive,
why is it my job to make sure all security software
recognizes my software? Should I buy and/or install
all AV products on a test machine and run every
compile past them? That would be absurd. Their whole
job is to tell the difference between malware and
legitimate software. To put the responsibility on the
software author is to move toward a corporatizing
of the whole business, where unknown software is
automatically categorized as malware and thus only
large, corporate software products are used. It's
known as whitelisting. Guilty until proven innocent.
And who gets to create the whitelist? Big corporations
with money.

I ran into a similar situation awhile back with email.
Arnold Arboretum, a branch of Harvard University,
had set their email filter to a whitelist. Only known,
approved sources could get through. My ladyfriend was
volunteering there, leading student groups on plant
tours. But our ISP was not on their whitelist. (Even though
we use RCN, which is pretty big in these parts.) So she
couldn't get through. As it turned out, their IT man
was helpless to do anything because the whole system
had been subbed out. Harvard University.... with a $50B+
endowment and more brilliant bluebloods than you can
shake a stick at... yet they can't even manage to operate
their own email server. So their email system is gravely
faulty AND they don't realize it. They don't even have
a system in place to allow someone to realize it. It's
not part of the tech guy's job!
Further, that kind of bad management makes it difficult
for people to not give all their business to a few large
companies. I found myself in a situation where a potentially
anonymous, sleazy, spyware gmail account would be more
trusted than a legitimate ISP account.

In other words, what you're advocating is a kind
of whitelisting. Such a move would make MB, and other
AV-type software, even less useful than they are now.
FredW
2018-05-14 14:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mayayana
| According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at
| the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they
| made a false positive and why they made a false positive.
| That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect Malwarebytes
| to correct false positives when you do not want to tell anything?
|
The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware
and warn about it.
I am very sorry, but I prefer an answer of Dustin himself.


I know you do not like anti-virus and likewise software and your way of
your private testing of such software makes me wonder what you are
doing.

I have been using MBAM (Malware Bytes Anti Malware) for many years and I
never had problems, for me it is totally safe to use and I have never
problems with false positives.

Of course I use it as complimentary to my regular anti-virus program and
not as a single anti-whatever program.


As to your other stories about Avira (an excellent German anti-virus
program) and your whitelisting problems with your girl friend, they may
be very interesting, but I do not see the relevance to Malwarebytes.


Contrary to your assumption, I advocate nothing.
I have only suggested that OP learns how to use MBAM.
Even Dustin (Diesel) tells us that learning to use MBAM should not be
difficult, but nevertheless seems to be a huge problem to OP.
--
Fred W. (nld)
Mayayana
2018-05-14 16:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"FredW" <***@ninmule.invalid> wrote

| As to your other stories about Avira (an excellent German anti-virus
| program) and your whitelisting problems with your girl friend, they may
| be very interesting, but I do not see the relevance to Malwarebytes.
|

The point being that sloppy false positives well are
on the way to whitelisting, which in this case would
mean a positive for malware unless the software has
been submitted for approval and there's a byte signature
on hand to ID it. Submitting one's software to AV companies
for approval *is* whitelisting. That's what you were
suggesting.

The one time I tried MB it wanted to delete my boot
manager/imaging program, BootIt, and it wanted to change
several Registry settings. It offered no detailed explanation.
The settings were just classified "PUPs", with yellow alerts,
and the boot manager was given a "red alert" along with
a convincing name:

Backdoor Bifrose

In other words, MB didn't say, "We're not sure about this
one. You should check it further." Instead it said, "Red
Alert Will Robinson!! Kill This!! It's a monster known as
Backdoor Bifrose!!"

9 out of 10 people would have started to tremble
and allowed MB to delete the file, as well as change the
Registry settings. After all, it's malware, right? Whew.
Close call.... Then they would have had no idea what was
wrong later when their computer wouldn't boot.

That's not exageration. The MB people have no business
being so sloppy. Before saying something is known malware
and should be deleted, they should be very certain about it.
Obviously they are not.

If you're handy with computers and like MB that seems
fine to me. I've used it a couple of times when I needed
to check out someone's machine. A few opinions are always
handy and it's easy to check things out with free, portable
AV/malware programs. But I would never recommend MB
to a "civilian". In that context I'd have to say it's junk
that's likely to do more harm than good.

It's true that I don't think much of AV and think less of
MB. But I speak up mostly just to provide some
counterbalance to the general trend of people thinking
the more bug hunters they have, the better off they'll be.
There are real risks. Not to mention the false sense of
security. But I do install AV for friends who don't know
how to be careful. I then set it only to scan new files.
So it's a minimal resource risk but keeps an eye on
things.
FredW
2018-05-14 17:28:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mayayana
| As to your other stories about Avira (an excellent German anti-virus
| program) and your whitelisting problems with your girl friend, they may
| be very interesting, but I do not see the relevance to Malwarebytes.
|
The one time I tried MB it ..
Yes, on trying once you base your rant about Malwarebytes,

accusing Malwarebytes of melodrama,
accusing me of being a "lover" of Malwarebytes just because I defend
Malwarebytes against the stupid accusations of some troll,
never recommending Malwarebytes because of your single experience,
accusing Malwarebytes of being a dangerous program because of your
single experience,
not recommending Malwarebytes to anyone because of your single
experience

You present a typical example of the melodrama which you accuse
Malwarebytes of using.


Your immature reactions show that you have a heavy grudge against
Malwarebytes.
It is up to you (your problem) to have a grudge against Malwarebytes.

Your prejudices cause you spreading only negative gossip and doing
personal attacks.
I know you do not like anti-malware programs and I have seen the sloppy
way you do what you call testing to "prove" your grudge.

I accept that you do not like anti-malware programs, but I had expected
that you were able to give a more grown-up reaction than you gave so
far.

No use trying to discuss with you.
You do not want to discuss, you only want to rant at Malwarebytes.
The have insulted you and now it is payback time for you.


Have a nice day.
--
Fred W. (nld)
Paul
2018-05-14 19:24:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FredW
Post by Mayayana
| According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at
| the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they
| made a false positive and why they made a false positive.
| That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect Malwarebytes
| to correct false positives when you do not want to tell anything?
|
The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware
and warn about it.
I am very sorry, but I prefer an answer of Dustin himself.
I know you do not like anti-virus and likewise software
It's a lazy lazy AV company, that relies on "software popularity"
or "how many people downloaded this software", as a means
to detect "malware".

That is a ridiculous metric. Might as well hide inside an
App Store, with an umbrella over your head for protection.

Loading Image...

It's the antithesis of having a computer, if you
can't run anything on it because "you're too scared".

Some companies implement heuristics, but at least
when they fail, you understand why. When I would
use Kaspersky, half the programs in Sysinternals
web site, would trigger it. You couldn't run a Process Explorer
or a Process Monitor, because of the "suspicious" behavior
of a program actually looking at system innards. But
at least this is an honest mistake. A perfectly valid
algorithm is being used, even if the results
are not what you expected. I can't blame them for
doing that. It's pretty hard to whitelist every
valid program on the face of the earth, to stop
that outcome.

But if I compile my own little Hello World program
in gcc, and my MalwareBytes or Avira or whatever
quarantines that (based on the hash never having
been seen before), then I am living in a sad sad world.
Only the most lazy companies use that as a metric
and algorithm. Fuck, I could write software that dumb.
Maybe I should go into the AV business.

Paul
Mayayana
2018-05-14 19:37:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Paul" <***@needed.invalid> wrote

| Only the most lazy companies use that as a metric
| and algorithm. Fuck, I could write software that dumb.
| Maybe I should go into the AV business.
|

Sounds like a good idea. As long as you give
it away free I/m sure you'll clean up. :)
Diesel
2018-05-15 20:43:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 14 May 2018 09:27:27 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive
| but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to
| Malwarebytes that they made a false positive and why they made a
| false positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you
| really expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you
| do not want to tell anything?
|
The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware
and warn about it.
I am very sorry, but I prefer an answer of Dustin himself.
I've provided one. You're more than welcome to explain where you got
the silly idea that I was trying to keep how to fix the issue a
secret from Malwarebytes or anyone else though. I really don't know
where you got that idea, but, I'm certainly interested in learning.
I have been using MBAM (Malware Bytes Anti Malware) for many years
and I never had problems, for me it is totally safe to use and I
have never problems with false positives.
Good for you. You're in the minority though.
Of course I use it as complimentary to my regular anti-virus
program and not as a single anti-whatever program.
Why not? According to Malwarebytes, you don't need your antivirus
anymore; their product alone can take care of your needs.

In my opinion, you'd be a fool if you believed that, but, I digress,
that IS what they are claiming these days.
Contrary to your assumption, I advocate nothing.
I have only suggested that OP learns how to use MBAM.
You suggested the OP is to blame for the false positive hits and that
he should just add his programs to the exclusion list. That's bad
advice on a good day. The problem is with Malwarebytes. Samples of
the files it's hitting on need to be sent to them so that the bad
definitions can be isolated and corrected.
Even Dustin (Diesel) tells us that learning to use MBAM should not
be difficult, but nevertheless seems to be a huge problem to OP.
It has a very nice windows based hand holding gui. The problem the OP
is having isn't how to use the software, it's a false positive the
software is getting with his programs. Adding his work to the
exclusion list isn't going to fix the real issue. Do you expect him
to add each recompiled version from here on out to the exclusions
list? Or, wouldn't it make more sense to have the problem corrected?
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the
point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one --
George Bernard Shaw
FredW
2018-05-15 21:32:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diesel
On Mon, 14 May 2018 09:27:27 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive
| but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to
| Malwarebytes that they made a false positive and why they made a
| false positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you
| really expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you
| do not want to tell anything?
|
The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware
and warn about it.
I am very sorry, but I prefer an answer of Dustin himself.
I've provided one. You're more than welcome to explain where you got
the silly idea that I was trying to keep how to fix the issue a
secret from Malwarebytes or anyone else though. I really don't know
where you got that idea, but, I'm certainly interested in learning.
Thank you for calling my words a silly idea.
If you had read more carefully you would have understood.
Post by Diesel
I have been using MBAM (Malware Bytes Anti Malware) for many years
and I never had problems, for me it is totally safe to use and I
have never problems with false positives.
Good for you. You're in the minority though.
Minority in how many millions of users?
Post by Diesel
Of course I use it as complimentary to my regular anti-virus
program and not as a single anti-whatever program.
Why not? According to Malwarebytes, you don't need your antivirus
anymore; their product alone can take care of your needs.
I hoped for a serious answer, but I understand you are not willing and /
or able to do so.
Post by Diesel
In my opinion, you'd be a fool if you believed that, but, I digress,
that IS what they are claiming these days.
Oh dear, there we go again.
Mocking Malwarebytes in a condescending way.

No use talking to you anymore.

Have a nice day.
--
Fred W. (nld)
Diesel
2018-05-16 04:48:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FredW
Post by Diesel
On Mon, 14 May 2018 09:27:27 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive
| but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to
| Malwarebytes that they made a false positive and why they made
| a false positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you
| really expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you
| do not want to tell anything?
|
The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware
and warn about it.
I am very sorry, but I prefer an answer of Dustin himself.
I've provided one. You're more than welcome to explain where you
got the silly idea that I was trying to keep how to fix the issue
a secret from Malwarebytes or anyone else though. I really don't
know where you got that idea, but, I'm certainly interested in
learning.
Thank you for calling my words a silly idea.
If you had read more carefully you would have understood.
I read what you wrote. It's right here:

MID: <***@7ax.com>

According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at
the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they
made a false positive and why they made a false positive.
That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect
Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you do not want to tell
anything?

** end paste

Malwarebytes IS to blame for the false positive, but, I didn't try to
keep anything related to fixing it a secret. So, yes, you stating
that I had in some way done that, was a silly idea to me. Especially
when the first post I wrote on the subject, CLEARLY explains what the
OP should do to have it corrected. I made no effort to keep how to
fix it a secret from malwarebytes or anyone else.
Post by FredW
Post by Diesel
I have been using MBAM (Malware Bytes Anti Malware) for many
years and I never had problems, for me it is totally safe to use
and I have never problems with false positives.
Good for you. You're in the minority though.
Minority in how many millions of users?
I assure you, you're in the minority for having never recieved a
false positive (You probably have, but may have mistaken it for being
a legitimate hit). You're also in the minority if you've never
experienced even a single problem with the software. I dealt with
thousands of users on the forums alone who had issues with the
software. That doesn't include god only knows how many more users
were also having problems with the software, but, didn't post to the
forums.

As a certified technician responsible for keeping several small
business networks online as well as home users, I can't tell you
Malwarebytes is perfectly safe to use and wouldn't keep me up at
night if it was still allowed on the machines I'm responsible for.

I've seen too many false positives which resulted in the system being
unusable for the user as a result. I don't like cleaning up after
their messes (especially when I can't bill for the time).

As of their last little stunt with a false positive that took several
workstations completely down for one particular business, that was
the end of Malwarebytes being allowed to exist on any machines I
provide support for, unless the machines owner simply insists upon
having it AND understands that I will bill for my time if that
software breaks anything.

If I acquire a new client and I see Malwarebytes on the machine, we
have a discussion concerning it, right then. BEFORE I'll accept the
job. If they want to keep Malwarebytes, it's with the understanding
that when/if it does something that causes harm, I'm (a) not
responsible and (b) will bill for the time spent fixing the mess they
caused. if those two conditions are acceptable, I'll take the job and
allow the software to remain. As long as they completely understand,
I won't do free repair work when it trashes something the system
needs. And, it will. It's just a matter of time these days.
Post by FredW
Post by Diesel
Of course I use it as complimentary to my regular anti-virus
program and not as a single anti-whatever program.
Why not? According to Malwarebytes, you don't need your antivirus
anymore; their product alone can take care of your needs.
I hoped for a serious answer, but I understand you are not willing
and / or able to do so.
You didn't ask any question. My question was a serious one.
Malwarebytes (in the event you've been living under a rock) does
claim their software is good enough now that you no longer need your
antivirus program, they have your back, without it.

What question do you think you asked of me that I won't or otherwise
can't answer, Fred?
Post by FredW
Post by Diesel
In my opinion, you'd be a fool if you believed that, but, I
digress, that IS what they are claiming these days.
Oh dear, there we go again.
Mocking Malwarebytes in a condescending way.
Oh? Since when is it mocking when you rightfully call someone a fool
if they believe absurd marketing claims? Is that not one of the
definitions of a fool?

Malwarebytes is marketing itself as a total and complete REPLACEMENT
for your current antivirus. When it has nothing evidence wise,
independent test results, etc, nothing basically, to support the
claims.

They are touting the west coast labs AV certification.. But, that's
been called into question too, primarily because Malwarebytes engine
knows NOTHING about viruses. Several of us aren't quite sure how they
got that certification without having to scan for a single actual
virus. Perhaps a large amount of $$$ changed hands? Or, west coast
certification requirements were laxed so Malwarebytes could get
certified? Hard to say for sure. Only that somethings off with the
certification because the certified software doesn't deal with actual
viruses, at all.
Post by FredW
No use talking to you anymore.
Fred,

I'm sorry if you take facts as a personal attack on you or your
opinion of the software. Facts don't judge. they are what they are.
Post by FredW
Have a nice day.
You too.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Cats are good lapwarmers for modemers.
Jeff Barnett
2018-05-16 06:25:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FredW
Post by FredW
Post by Diesel
On Mon, 14 May 2018 09:27:27 -0400, "Mayayana"
Post by Mayayana
| According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive
| but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to
| Malwarebytes that they made a false positive and why they made
| a false positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you
| really expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you
| do not want to tell anything?
|
The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware
and warn about it.
I am very sorry, but I prefer an answer of Dustin himself.
I've provided one. You're more than welcome to explain where you
got the silly idea that I was trying to keep how to fix the issue
a secret from Malwarebytes or anyone else though. I really don't
know where you got that idea, but, I'm certainly interested in
learning.
Thank you for calling my words a silly idea.
If you had read more carefully you would have understood.
According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but at
the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that they
made a false positive and why they made a false positive.
That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect
Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you do not want to tell
anything?
** end paste
Malwarebytes IS to blame for the false positive, but, I didn't try to
keep anything related to fixing it a secret. So, yes, you stating
that I had in some way done that, was a silly idea to me. Especially
when the first post I wrote on the subject, CLEARLY explains what the
OP should do to have it corrected. I made no effort to keep how to
fix it a secret from malwarebytes or anyone else.
Post by FredW
Post by Diesel
I have been using MBAM (Malware Bytes Anti Malware) for many
years and I never had problems, for me it is totally safe to use
and I have never problems with false positives.
Good for you. You're in the minority though.
Minority in how many millions of users?
I assure you, you're in the minority for having never recieved a
false positive (You probably have, but may have mistaken it for being
a legitimate hit). You're also in the minority if you've never
experienced even a single problem with the software. I dealt with
thousands of users on the forums alone who had issues with the
software. That doesn't include god only knows how many more users
were also having problems with the software, but, didn't post to the
forums.
As a certified technician responsible for keeping several small
business networks online as well as home users, I can't tell you
Malwarebytes is perfectly safe to use and wouldn't keep me up at
night if it was still allowed on the machines I'm responsible for.
I've seen too many false positives which resulted in the system being
unusable for the user as a result. I don't like cleaning up after
their messes (especially when I can't bill for the time).
As of their last little stunt with a false positive that took several
workstations completely down for one particular business, that was
the end of Malwarebytes being allowed to exist on any machines I
provide support for, unless the machines owner simply insists upon
having it AND understands that I will bill for my time if that
software breaks anything.
If I acquire a new client and I see Malwarebytes on the machine, we
have a discussion concerning it, right then. BEFORE I'll accept the
job. If they want to keep Malwarebytes, it's with the understanding
that when/if it does something that causes harm, I'm (a) not
responsible and (b) will bill for the time spent fixing the mess they
caused. if those two conditions are acceptable, I'll take the job and
allow the software to remain. As long as they completely understand,
I won't do free repair work when it trashes something the system
needs. And, it will. It's just a matter of time these days.
Post by FredW
Post by Diesel
Of course I use it as complimentary to my regular anti-virus
program and not as a single anti-whatever program.
Why not? According to Malwarebytes, you don't need your antivirus
anymore; their product alone can take care of your needs.
I hoped for a serious answer, but I understand you are not willing
and / or able to do so.
You didn't ask any question. My question was a serious one.
Malwarebytes (in the event you've been living under a rock) does
claim their software is good enough now that you no longer need your
antivirus program, they have your back, without it.
What question do you think you asked of me that I won't or otherwise
can't answer, Fred?
Post by FredW
Post by Diesel
In my opinion, you'd be a fool if you believed that, but, I
digress, that IS what they are claiming these days.
Oh dear, there we go again.
Mocking Malwarebytes in a condescending way.
Oh? Since when is it mocking when you rightfully call someone a fool
if they believe absurd marketing claims? Is that not one of the
definitions of a fool?
Malwarebytes is marketing itself as a total and complete REPLACEMENT
for your current antivirus. When it has nothing evidence wise,
independent test results, etc, nothing basically, to support the
claims.
They are touting the west coast labs AV certification.. But, that's
been called into question too, primarily because Malwarebytes engine
knows NOTHING about viruses. Several of us aren't quite sure how they
got that certification without having to scan for a single actual
virus. Perhaps a large amount of $$$ changed hands? Or, west coast
certification requirements were laxed so Malwarebytes could get
certified? Hard to say for sure. Only that somethings off with the
certification because the certified software doesn't deal with actual
viruses, at all.
Post by FredW
No use talking to you anymore.
Fred,
I'm sorry if you take facts as a personal attack on you or your
opinion of the software. Facts don't judge. they are what they are.
Post by FredW
Have a nice day.
You too.
I just tried a simple test: I created a test virus (EICAR) in notepad
and tried to save it. My AV solution, ESET, jumped in and got rid of it.
Next, I disabled ESET for a few minutes: 1) I was now able to save the
file despite realtime MB-AM enabled, 2) MB-AM did not notice any
problems when I ask it to scan that file from the right click menu, and
3) when I re-enabled ESET and did a directed scan from the right click
menu, the file was crushed. So your claim that MB-AM is not an AV
program is certainly correct. It failed the first test step in
establishing an AV claim.

I've had other problems with their software: 1) there is no way to
suppress some of their irritating notifications, i.e., they have removed
a severity control on display, 2) I believe that MB-AM sometimes
(almost) deadly embraces with ESET on system wake up, 3) they refuse to
use the Windows scheduler so it's a royal pain in the ass to schedule
scans when the machines are not in use, and 4) many other annoyances.

I am looking for suggestions of alternatives that will gracefully
coexist with ESET. I don't mind paying for software as I am now paying
for MB-AM. I'm not really enamored with ESET either and would consider
swapping the pair out. (I'm running Win 7 Pro SP1 64-bits.) Thanks for
any suggestions.
--
Jeff Barnett
FredW
2018-05-17 18:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff Barnett
I've had other problems with their software: 1) there is no way to
suppress some of their irritating notifications, i.e., they have removed
a severity control on display, 2) I believe that MB-AM sometimes
(almost) deadly embraces with ESET on system wake up, 3) they refuse to
use the Windows scheduler so it's a royal pain in the ass to schedule
scans when the machines are not in use, and 4) many other annoyances.
I am looking for suggestions of alternatives that will gracefully
coexist with ESET. I don't mind paying for software as I am now paying
for MB-AM. I'm not really enamored with ESET either and would consider
swapping the pair out. (I'm running Win 7 Pro SP1 64-bits.) Thanks for
any suggestions.
To avoid security programs biting each other, I always put them in the
exclusions, as is often suggested.

So Eset excludes Malwarebytes and vice versa, not only the Program Files
but also the Program Data.

The alternative for Malwarebytes is SuperAntiSpyware.
https://www.superantispyware.com/

I use the freeware version to do some scans per week in addition to
scheduled Malwarebytes scans.


I have used Eset for many years, but I decided I also wanted a free
anti-virus program.
Therefore I am now using Avast Free (just updated to the next version).

But Avast has sometimes annoying messages, like telling me I have four
(4) security problems.
I have no idea what these problems might be, but of course Avast is only
trying to scare me into buying the paid version.

And as an addition to all that I run Kaspersky System Checker and
Kaspersky Virus Removal now and then.
They are free programs and updated frequently.

Maybe this gives you some ideas.
--
Fred W. (nld)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-17 19:15:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@7ax.com>, FredW
<***@ninmule.invalid> writes:
[]
Post by FredW
But Avast has sometimes annoying messages, like telling me I have four
(4) security problems.
I have no idea what these problems might be, but of course Avast is only
trying to scare me into buying the paid version.
[]
AVG almost identical [four (4) problems].
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Actors are fairly modest...A lot of us have quite a lot to be modest about. -
Simon Greenall (voice of Aleksandr the "Simples!" Meerkat), RT 11-17 Dec 2010
Mayayana
2018-05-17 19:17:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"FredW" <***@ninmule.invalid> wrote

| And as an addition to all that I run Kaspersky System Checker and
| Kaspersky Virus Removal now and then.
| They are free programs and updated frequently.
|

So 3 AV programs and 2 "super duper malware
hunters". Personally I don't like to go online with
less than 7 AV programs, a bottle of alcohol, and
some extra-thick condoms.

I'm guessing you're the kind of guy who will have
sex even if his lover refuses to first rinse herself in
triclosan. What a cowboy. :)
Diesel
2018-05-17 23:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FredW
Post by Jeff Barnett
I've had other problems with their software: 1) there is no way to
suppress some of their irritating notifications, i.e., they have
removed a severity control on display, 2) I believe that MB-AM
sometimes (almost) deadly embraces with ESET on system wake up, 3)
they refuse to use the Windows scheduler so it's a royal pain in
the ass to schedule scans when the machines are not in use, and 4)
many other annoyances.
I am looking for suggestions of alternatives that will gracefully
coexist with ESET. I don't mind paying for software as I am now
paying for MB-AM. I'm not really enamored with ESET either and
would consider swapping the pair out. (I'm running Win 7 Pro SP1
64-bits.) Thanks for any suggestions.
To avoid security programs biting each other, I always put them in
the exclusions, as is often suggested.
There have been ongoing issues with Malwarebytes exclusion
capability...It generally works, most of the time, but, as the other
poster has likely observed (I've seen it too), sometimes, it doesn't
do as expected.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
SPECIMEN: An Italian astronaut.
Diesel
2018-05-17 23:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff Barnett
I just tried a simple test: I created a test virus (EICAR) in
notepad and tried to save it. My AV solution, ESET, jumped in and
got rid of it. Next, I disabled ESET for a few minutes: 1) I was
now able to save the file despite realtime MB-AM enabled, 2) MB-AM
did not notice any problems when I ask it to scan that file from
the right click menu, and 3) when I re-enabled ESET and did a
directed scan from the right click menu, the file was crushed. So
your claim that MB-AM is not an AV program is certainly correct.
It failed the first test step in establishing an AV claim.
Although EICAR is harmless, MBAM should go ahead and offer detection
for it. They have a variety of single line commands they could issue
to detect it. I don't recall the exact reason they declined to do so
last time the suggestion was made, but, no harm in suggesting they do
so again. That being said, MBAM really doesn't do a single thing with
an actual virus. Yet, they continue with the claim they can replace
your current antivirus package, outright. They can't even blame it on
the advertising dept alone now. Marcin himself has been quoted as
delivering the same lines. :(
Post by Jeff Barnett
I've had other problems with their software: 1) there is no way to
suppress some of their irritating notifications, i.e., they have
removed a severity control on display, 2) I believe that MB-AM
sometimes (almost) deadly embraces with ESET on system wake up, 3)
they refuse to use the Windows scheduler so it's a royal pain in
the ass to schedule scans when the machines are not in use, and 4)
many other annoyances.
MBAM intentionally refuses to use task scheduler. It's one of the
paid for features, scheduled scans. To ensure you couldn't create
your own task for a scheduled scan using the free version, various
command line options were removed from it. You can run the program
via task scheduler, but, you'll have to click to start the scan.

It's also intentionally setup to be difficult to make into a portable
application, as, well, they have (or used to) a technician version
that's significantly more $$$ that can.
Post by Jeff Barnett
I am looking for suggestions of alternatives that will gracefully
coexist with ESET. I don't mind paying for software as I am now
paying for MB-AM. I'm not really enamored with ESET either and
would consider swapping the pair out. (I'm running Win 7 Pro SP1
64-bits.) Thanks for any suggestions.
I'd keep a copy of Superantispyware. It's a reliable program with a
proven track record. And, I've yet to see that company intentionally
mislead anybody! I cannot say the same for Malwarebytes.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
It is not down on any map; true places never are.
Diesel
2018-05-15 20:43:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mayayana
| According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive
| but at the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes
| that they made a false positive and why they made a false
| positive. That does not make much sense to me, do you really
| expect Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you do not
| want to tell anything?
|
The whole job of MB is to distinguish malware
and warn about it. Since MB is prone to melodrama
and false positives it's not a safe product to use for
most people. Why MB attracts such a zealous fan
base is a mystery to me. Just because you love MB
that doesn't grant them some kind of authority.
Nor does it grant him permission to make up stories about my trying
to keep what needs to be done to fix it a secret. I *never* tried any
such thing, and, infact, wrote on more than one occasion in this very
thread what needs to be done to have this issue properly corrected.
Post by Mayayana
False positives are becoming a widespread problem.
Partly because the methods to identify malware are
faulty and partly because security software companies
risk their reputation less from false positives than
from not catching real malware. So they increasingly
err on the side of caution.
There identification and research methods are unlike anything I've
experienced or known beforehand. And, the result, sadly, is a slew of
false positives. Malwarebytes is the ONLY company I know of,
seriously, that has people with no programming background or
knowledge play the role of malware researcher.
Post by Mayayana
I would never recommend MB to anyone because
most of the people I know don't know enough to
assess MB's cries of wolf to decide whether one of
them is valid. Very few people do. My own experience
with MB showed it to be a dangerous program that
could easily do damage if allowed to make its own
decisions.
I stopped recommending MBAM several years ago when I had to clean up
a huge mess they made for me on a clients machine due to another
false positive. It took me hours to fix it. And when I was finished,
MB was removed from ALL of those machines. It'll never be reinstalled
on them so long as they're my clients.
Post by Mayayana
I've run into similar false positives with my own
software from Avira. Someone wrote to tell me about
it. Otherwise I would have had no idea. My attempt to
contact Avira resulted only in robo-responses. No one
was minding the store. But even if they were responsive,
why is it my job to make sure all security software
recognizes my software? Should I buy and/or install
all AV products on a test machine and run every
compile past them? That would be absurd.
I had the same problem with BugHunter when I initially released it.
Although I did identify the false hit they were getting, I opted to
have them remove it properly vs me moving things around in my source
code to evade it. It took about a month or so before it showed as
clean.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Plasma is another matter.
Diesel
2018-05-15 20:43:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FredW <***@ninmule.invalid> news:***@7ax.com Mon, 14 May 2018
12:52:01 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:

[snip]
Post by FredW
Thank you for encouraging the troll to blame everybody for his
self-created problems, but himself.
I didn't encourage any such thing, I simply pointed out the fact that
yourself and two others, gave malwarebytes a free pass for a false
positive that is an issue with the malwarebytes definitions, not his
program.
Post by FredW
He did not know (and did not want to know) how to specify his
programs as exclusions so he would not have the problems he is
complaining about. And when I gave the solution he switched to
other fake problems.
False hits are not fake problems. It's unlikely his programs are the
only ones hit by those definitions, either. Using the exclusion list
is a bandaid approach which doesn't solve the underlying issue. That
being, malwarebytes has bad definitions which should be corrected.
Post by FredW
According to you Malwarebytes is to blame for a false positive but
at the same time you want to keep it a secret to Malwarebytes that
they made a false positive and why they made a false positive.
Partially correct. Malwarebytes IS to blame for the false positives;
they're the only ones who create the definitions malwarebytes uses.
What's not correct in your comment is your accusation that I wanted
Post by FredW
What to do ?
Contact them, send samples of your programs when requested to do so
(yes, you'll need to do that in order for them to track down the
definition(s) responsible) so that it can be corrected in a later
definitions update.

I've consistently suggested Malwarebytes be contacted and samples
submitted so they can track down the bad definitions and correct or
remove them from the database. I've made NO effort whatsoever to make
things difficult for Malwarebytes to do this. And certainly no effort
to keep what needs to be done a secret.
Post by FredW
That does not make much sense to me, do you really expect
Malwarebytes to correct false positives when you do not want to
tell anything?
It would make more sense to you if you actually read what I wrote,
instead of making wild assumptions as you've done here. I didn't try
to keep anything a 'secret'. I told the OP from the first reply what
they should do, I've also said the same thing in other replies on
this very thread. Contact malwarebytes and submit samples when
requested to do so. I don't know how I could possibly be any more
clear than that.

And, you might also want to read this article:
http://software-reviews.com/review?id=3

Effectiveness

The program has its own criteria for detecting software as
potentially unwanted, and unfortunately those criteria appear to be
too broad now, as the program produced over a dozen false positives
in our tests. Getting the incorrect PUA detects added to exclusions
proved to be a challenge and did not work for a couple of programs at
all. Another thing we noticed was the fact that MBAM did not detect
quite a few older malware samples in our tests, which amounted to
about 40% of the malware the test system was infected with.
Regardless, it remains a very useful tool for malware removal.

** end paste. Those are not very good statistics. Especially for a
program that's advertised as an outright replacement for your current
antivirus product. There's a reason Malwarbytes has not submitted the
program for independent review and testing like the major antivirus
companies do. They *know* they'd fail those tests miserably.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Cats must crawl into the dishwasher when it is full of clean dishes.
Buffalo
2018-05-19 01:51:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by FredW
Post by aiole
You TWIT.
I came here to get help figuring out how to do just that.
And I gave you a clue to your main problem.
Post by aiole
(Oh yes, what the heck do all those knobs do ??? They have no
understandable icons or writing even)
On the main screen (called Dashboard) I can see some "knobs" with text
on the left side.
And if you select a "knob" (after you have read what its purpose is),
you get a screen with tabs, again all tabs with text.
Why do you not see the text/writing?
What is your problem?
(I am not taking you serious anymore, goodbye)
his programs that he wrote (wonder what programming or scripting
language that would be) were getting flagged as suspect. This looks
like a troll trying to flame a program that he hasn't a clue how to use
and too lazy to go look at its settings. His parents did a poor job
raising this kid as he thinks he's entitled: everything should cater to
his wants and the universe revolves around him. Looks like he mispelled
his "aiole" nym. He was off by one character: "i" instead of "h".
"a-hole" seems more fitting.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/support/guides/mbam-legacy/MalwareExclusions.html
https://support.malwarebytes.com/docs/DOC-1130
(those cover both versions 2 and 3 of MBAM to add excludes)
Wonder what a-hole's excuse will be now. Oh yes, such a complicated
GUI. Well, maybe that's true for toddlers since this software has more
"knobs" than an Etch-A-Sketch.
A(i|h)hole's self protrait: https://preview.tinyurl.com/y8l4el2t
Wow VanguardLH, you have my respect, whether you want it or not!!
--
Buffalo
Good Guy
2018-05-08 20:35:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aiole
(Oh yes, what the heck do all those knobs do ??? They have no
understandable icons or writing even)
Is that you SteveGG? Your writing style is giving away your ID.

Those knobs are for people like you with small brains to keep pressing
them. You might have seen little toddlers like to press round coloured
knobs and that is what software makers do these days. There seems to be
many people like you using something that they don't have a clue about.
Post by aiole
/--- This email has been checked for viruses by
Windows Defender software.
//https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/comprehensive-security/
--
With over 600 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.
Nil
2018-05-08 19:15:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 May 2018 09:58:14 -0700, aiole
Post by aiole
What to do ?
Other than kill malwarebytes !
Learn how to use MBAM ?
No chance of that, based on this clown's history here.
KenW
2018-05-08 19:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 May 2018 15:15:23 -0400, Nil
Post by Nil
On Tue, 8 May 2018 09:58:14 -0700, aiole
Post by aiole
What to do ?
Other than kill malwarebytes !
Learn how to use MBAM ?
No chance of that, based on this clown's history here.
Probably wrote programs that don't have a certificate


KenW
Paul
2018-05-08 20:48:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by KenW
On Tue, 08 May 2018 15:15:23 -0400, Nil
Post by Nil
On Tue, 8 May 2018 09:58:14 -0700, aiole
Post by aiole
What to do ?
Other than kill malwarebytes !
Learn how to use MBAM ?
No chance of that, based on this clown's history here.
Probably wrote programs that don't have a certificate
KenW
Signed executables earn a tiny bit more respect.

The Speedfan guy had to do that, so his stuff could
be installed on modern OSes. That's a driver issue though.

Nothing prevents an intrepid program developer, from
doing development inside a VM... where the AV scanner can't
see what you're doing. I have at least one C compiler
inside a Win7 Virtual Machine, as an example. When I
compile my "Hello World" program, nobody deletes it on me :-)
I am the worlds foremost authority on three-line programs :-)

Begin
Hello World
End

Paul
Shadow
2018-05-09 00:40:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by KenW
On Tue, 08 May 2018 15:15:23 -0400, Nil
Post by Nil
On Tue, 8 May 2018 09:58:14 -0700, aiole
Post by aiole
What to do ?
Other than kill malwarebytes !
Learn how to use MBAM ?
No chance of that, based on this clown's history here.
Probably wrote programs that don't have a certificater
Why on earth would someone write a program with a certificate,
if it's for their own use ?
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Diesel
2018-05-13 06:11:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 May 2018 09:58:14 -0700, aiole
Post by aiole
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.
Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !
No, it is not, you should learn how to use MBAM.
While the OP is wrong in the declaration of Malware, learning to use
MBAM isn't a difficult process. The newer GUIs are designed to hold
your hand...
Post by aiole
It keeps killing apps that I wrote.
They are NOT any kind of threat !
How should MBAM know you wrote something and that you are not a threat?
MBAM shouldn't care who wrote what. Fact is, it has one or more bad
definitions which are hitting his files when they shouldn't be. In
order to correct that issue, he'll have to submit his files to them
so they can determine which definitions are hitting and remove them.

Or, wait it out, they may get reports from others concerning this and
it'll clear up on it's own with a later definitions update.
Learn how to use MBAM ?
See above.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
'I dunno, I might let him live. We'll see.' - Slappy Squirrel
Mayayana
2018-05-08 22:27:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"aiole" <***@aioleaioleaiole.com> wrote

| Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.
|
| Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !
|
| It keeps killing apps that I wrote.
| They are NOT any kind of threat !
|

MB is great stuff. It tells you all sorts of bad
stuff is on your computer. But to use it properly
you need to ignore its reports. :)

I tried it once. It told me I had 10 grave
dangers. Several were Registry settings I wanted.
Several were harmless Registry settings. One
was my BootIt imaging software, which MB
wanted to eliminate as malware. MB didn't screw
up my system only because I understood the
items it was listing. Most people won't. And
there's no explanation. Just melodrama.

But why are you using it and why are you
allowing it to take unilateral action in the first
place? No matter how much you trust security
software, you should never allow it to make
decisions about things it claims are malware.
Diesel
2018-05-13 06:11:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aiole
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.
Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !
Erm.. No.
Post by aiole
It keeps killing apps that I wrote.
They are NOT any kind of threat !
It's a false positive. Likely a bad definition is hitting on your
runtime. I'm assuming you're using an HLL based language?
Post by aiole
There is only the Restore option.
There is no IGNORE ALWAYS option !
There used to be. Are you sure it's been removed?
Post by aiole
What to do ?
Contact them, send samples of your programs when requested to do so
(yes, you'll need to do that in order for them to track down the
definition(s) responsible) so that it can be corrected in a later
definitions update.
Post by aiole
Other than kill malwarebytes !
That's upto you.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Everybody lies; but it doesn't matter, since nobody listens.
Diesel
2018-05-13 17:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Diesel <***@privacy.net> news:XnsA8E11795F8E6BHT1
@PAw3Rr6iVs1LZ0.7fRHk0V0 Sun, 13 May 2018 06:11:47 GMT in
Post by Diesel
Post by aiole
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.
Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !
Erm.. No.
Post by aiole
It keeps killing apps that I wrote.
They are NOT any kind of threat !
It's a false positive. Likely a bad definition is hitting on your
runtime. I'm assuming you're using an HLL based language?
Post by aiole
There is only the Restore option.
There is no IGNORE ALWAYS option !
There used to be. Are you sure it's been removed?
Post by aiole
What to do ?
Contact them, send samples of your programs when requested to do so
(yes, you'll need to do that in order for them to track down the
definition(s) responsible) so that it can be corrected in a later
definitions update.
Post by aiole
Other than kill malwarebytes !
That's upto you.
Addendum:

From:

MID: <ECTJC.213534$***@fx16.fr7>

http://software-reviews.com/review?id=3
Post by Diesel
Overview
Malwarebytes Antimalware (MBAM) is a world-renowned antimalware
brand, and rightfully so. The software is stable and protects from
most types of malware circulating in the wild today. Scans are
quite fast and the interface is user-friendly. However, there are
a couple of issues that have prevented us from placing this
software at the top of our rating. Unfortunately, with the latest
MBAM version released, the number of user complaints grew
dramatically.
I added two additional newsgroups to my reply as I feel due to the
nature of the software being discussed, it's appropriate. It *does*
have a freeware version, so it's on topic for alt.comp.freeware as
well. And, why hide these wonderful detection stats from potential
and current users? [g]

Effectiveness

The program has its own criteria for detecting software as
potentially unwanted, and unfortunately those criteria appear to be
too broad now, as the program produced over a dozen false positives
in our tests. Getting the incorrect PUA detects added to exclusions
proved to be a challenge and did not work for a couple of programs at
all. Another thing we noticed was the fact that MBAM did not detect
quite a few older malware samples in our tests, which amounted to
about 40% of the malware the test system was infected with.
Regardless, it remains a very useful tool for malware removal.

A 60% detection rating isn't good. Especially for something that
boldly claims it can replace your Antivirus program, outright. I
suspect they'd fair even worse if tested using the same sample sets
various antivirus products are ran against. Those antivirus programs
manage to score themselves a consistent 100% rating, too.

It remains a semi useful tool for non resident scanning and removal
of potential malware. But, you'll have to babysit it in the sense
you'll have to double check it's reports before you let it take
action. Due to it's growing list of false positives. Evidently, one
or more researchers needs a crash course in how not to create
definitions...Alas, this is one of the things which happens when you
have non programmers playing the role of malware researcher.

Features

Malwarebytes offers the standard on-demand scanning functionality in
the free version, with advanced features, such as automatic scans and
real-time protection offered in the paid version. The software's
officially admitted feature is the fact that it does not scan for
malware that MBAM users haven't met in a while. So, for instance, if
a malicious program hasn't been detected via Malwarebytes scans in an
extended period of time, it will be removed from the databases and
the program will not scan for it anymore. It may help the scans go
faster, but makes some users, including us, a bit concerned.

An engine database end redesign would make that culling much much
less frequent, if necessary at all. You'd think when it was ported
from visual basic to C++, that would have been addressed. Someone
evidently mistakenly thought that porting it alone would address the
speed issue they were experiencing. Er, nope. Bad engine design in so
far as the database goes is the culprit. The longer it takes them to
reach that conclusion on their own, the more difficult it'll be to
take corrective action. Unless you think culling is a smart thing to
be doing.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence
FredW
2018-05-14 12:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diesel
@PAw3Rr6iVs1LZ0.7fRHk0V0 Sun, 13 May 2018 06:11:47 GMT in
Post by Diesel
Post by aiole
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.
Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !
Erm.. No.
Sigh.

Yes, I am aware that you have a deep grudge against Malwarebytes and
that you do not get tired in showing so again and again and again.
(and now in more and more newsgroups)

Please do yourself a favor and let go and turn to better causes.
--
Fred W. (nld)
Diesel
2018-05-15 20:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FredW
Post by Diesel
@PAw3Rr6iVs1LZ0.7fRHk0V0 Sun, 13 May 2018 06:11:47 GMT in
Post by Diesel
Post by aiole
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.
Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !
Erm.. No.
Sigh.
Yes, I am aware that you have a deep grudge against Malwarebytes
and that you do not get tired in showing so again and again and
again. (and now in more and more newsgroups)
ROFL. Yes, my pointing out your inability to notice a false positive
and blaming the OP for it is evidence of a deep grudge against them.
Post by FredW
Please do yourself a favor and let go and turn to better causes.
Please, do yourself a favor, learn how MBAM works. That way, when it
does something it shouldn't be doing, you know what steps to take to
correct it.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
I wrestled with reality for 35 years and I finally won - Elwood P
Dowd
tesla sTinker
2018-05-13 19:38:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
ditch it,,, Clam win picks up on that type of problem, but it gives
you an option to include it or not.
We never delete what is used and what we want in our machine.
Try the no virus thanks malware remover. It does not do that
what you have said. And leaves your machine pretty clean from malware.
Post by aiole
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.
Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !
It keeps killing apps that I wrote.
They are NOT any kind of threat !
There is only the Restore option.
There is no IGNORE ALWAYS option !
What to do ?
Other than kill malwarebytes !
Mr. Man-wai Chang
2018-05-16 15:03:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aiole
Just updated Malwarebytes to latest.
Malwarebytes is NOW MALWARE !
It keeps killing apps that I wrote.
They are NOT any kind of threat !
Never used it. Heard of bad things about it.
--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Loading...