Malwarebytes 4

[Pondus]

Malwarebytes 4 is in beta testing

Those who have access can find info here
https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/249586-malwarebytes-4-beta/

What’s New in this Malwarebytes 4 Beta:

New detection engine that
Improves Zero-hour detection
Dynamically extends detection to mutating malware
Improved performance and faster scans
Complete redesign of the User Interface
Simplification of the Windows Security Center integration setting
Improved Web Protection component

[schmidthouse]

Yup, been testing for a couple of weeks.

[digmorcrusher]

Windows Defender and MB4 is all you need, no bloat, no nag screens, no data collection, no trying to up sell you products. But to each their own.

[Asyn]

@schmidthouse post:2

Yup, been testing for a couple of weeks.

Hi, out of interest, is it lighter on resources than V3…?

[schmidthouse]

@Asyn post:4

@schmidthouse post:2

Yup, been testing for a couple of weeks.

Hi, out of interest, is it lighter on resources than V3…?

Hi Asyn,
Well not totally sure, maybe a bit. Mbam has traditionally been a IMO ‘a bit’ higher on resources than some products, however with today’s machines and ample RAM I’ve never considered that to be an issue for the protection given.
The Threat Scan seems a little longer however from my understanding is more thorough than version V3.
I’ve read where some users or should I say past users have commented on resource use but I have not seen that to be the case in any real negative way. At least not on my systems.
Having said that, with weaker CPU and low RAM I could see that observation as valid.
Certainly wouldn’t run smoothly on my XP

[Asyn]

Thanks pal. might give it a try.

[schmidthouse]

@Asyn post:6

Thanks pal. might give it a try.

You’re welcome pal

Let me know what you think if you give it a try.

[Asyn]

@schmidthouse post:7

Let me know what you think if you give it a try.

Sure.

[Asyn]

OK, tbh, I’m not overly impressed. Slow scanning and still quite heavy on resources - I like the UI, though.
Personally, I’ll stick with EEK as second opinion scanner - it doesn’t need/use any resources at all (until run).

PS: Just to be fair, as this is an early beta, I’ll probably give the final version another try (once released).

[Pondus]

@Asyn post:9

OK, tbh, I’m not overly impressed. Slow scanning and still quite heavy on resources - I like the UI, though.
Personally, I’ll stick with EEK as second opinion scanner - it doesn’t need/use any resources at all (until run).

PS: Just to be fair, as this is an early beta, I’ll probably give the final version another try (once released).

Malwarebytes FREE should be similar …

[Asyn]

@Pondus post:10

@Asyn post:9

OK, tbh, I’m not overly impressed. Slow scanning and still quite heavy on resources - I like the UI, though.
Personally, I’ll stick with EEK as second opinion scanner - it doesn’t need/use any resources at all (until run).

PS: Just to be fair, as this is an early beta, I’ll probably give the final version another try (once released).

Malwarebytes FREE should be similar …

Well, not really, as MBAM needs an install and therefore always loads/runs some of its stuff at system boot.

[bob3160]

So What’s EEK ? (I hate abbreviation.)

[Asyn]

@bob3160 post:12

So What’s EEK ? (I hate abbreviation.)

→ https://www.emsisoft.com/en/home/emergencykit/

[DavidR]

@Asyn post:13

@bob3160 post:12

So What’s EEK ? (I hate abbreviation.)

→ https://www.emsisoft.com/en/home/emergencykit/

I’m glad Bob asked, as I would have otherwise.

A general rule for abbreviations would be not to abbreviate the first use and follow it with the abbreviation (EEE), etc. If you are only using it once no need to abbreviate it.

[bob3160]

@Asyn post:13

@bob3160 post:12

So What’s EEK ? (I hate abbreviation.)

→ https://www.emsisoft.com/en/home/emergencykit/

Thanks. Just as with Malwarebytes, it found nothing.

[Asyn]

@bob3160 post:15

@Asyn post:13

@bob3160 post:12

So What’s EEK ? (I hate abbreviation.)

→ https://www.emsisoft.com/en/home/emergencykit/

Thanks. Just as with Malwarebytes, it found nothing.

NP Bob, same here. That confirms that Avast is doing a great job (out of the box). 8)

[bob3160]

@Asyn post:16

@bob3160 post:15

@Asyn post:13

@bob3160 post:12

So What’s EEK ? (I hate abbreviation.)

→ https://www.emsisoft.com/en/home/emergencykit/

Thanks. Just as with Malwarebytes, it found nothing.

NP Bob, same here. That confirms that Avast is doing a great job (out of the box). 8)

My reason for not depending on that second opinion and only running it very infrequently.
The good thing about EEK is that it’s a portable program and uses no resources unless you actually run it.

[Asyn]

@bob3160 post:17

The good thing about EEK is that it’s a portable program and uses no resources unless you actually run it.

Yes, and that’s exactly why I use/recommend it, but we’re getting OT here…
I started a thread for EEK: https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=229051.0

[schmidthouse]

@Asyn post:9

OK, tbh, I’m not overly impressed. Slow scanning and still quite heavy on resources - I like the UI, though.
Personally, I’ll stick with EEK as second opinion scanner - it doesn’t need/use any resources at all (until run).

PS: Just to be fair, as this is an early beta, I’ll probably give the final version another try (once released).

Thanks Asyn
Well all things being equal I guess you are right.
For me, I have plenty of resource with Ram and CPU that I don’t notice any lag or delay or heaviness on the Machine running Mbam