Malwarebytes 3.0 Offers Built-In Anti-Exploit And Anti-Ransomware Features, And Faster Scanning

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Contributor

Lucian Armasu is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware US. He covers software news and the issues surrounding privacy and security.

  • problematiq
    soo... by anti-ransomeware I wonder if they mean, create a folder in the root of the disk and name it 00000000000 and create a file and monitor it for any changes?
    Reply
  • ammaross
    18978630 said:
    soo... by anti-ransomeware I wonder if they mean, create a folder in the root of the disk and name it 00000000000 and create a file and monitor it for any changes?
    That would be one option, but some strains only hit the usual docs, downloads, pictures, etc folders and sometimes mapped network drives. I'd say it more monitors the disk access and shuts it down after serially accessing files. It makes me wonder how it would handle programs that do something like batch picture resolution downsizing....
    Reply
  • chicofehr
    Its getting too bloated for me. I like 1.75 more as its less then 10MB in size.
    Reply
  • Paul NZ
    And it looks like it can crash tcpip.sys as well with an 0x3b stop error
    Reply
  • Asusprime
    I only play games and watch manga. Once I got a virus while looking for a rom file to fix a galaxy s5 (idiot cousin). The virus uninstalled Malwarebytes, disabled windows defender and didnt let me reset the OS (Windows 10 recovery). The moment i realized I had a virus (like 1 min) I uplugged the ethernet cable and tried for like 2 hours to clean my PC. Not amount of messing with the registry helped me bring back Defender and there was no anti virus I could install (malwarebytes was taken out by virus). I gave up and formatted the drive, new installation within 20 mins (SSD installing via USB). If I had been someone else, with important files in my PC, then I would had been screwed, luckily I game on my PC and have my photos in my phone. Regardless, I dont have anything worth targeting so the hacks would had gotten shit.
    Reply
  • philipemaciel
    The new version is all fine and dandy, seems to work well, but boy, is this heavy while scanning! Maxes out my 7800 cores for like two minutes. They should give it a lower priority, the machine gets almost unusable while scanning. This did not happen with 2.0.
    Reply
  • daglesj
    I've always found it the least effective. I use 3-4 different products if cleaning a bare drive in a caddy. MWB will be the one that finds nothing while the other three all find something. I've also found it it does find some stuff you then run another scan after with it and it will find more!?! Also it was always the slowest finishing at least 25 minutes later than all the other scans.
    Reply
  • red77star
    They really fucked up with version 3.0 on CPU usage. All of my cores in 10 CPU hit 98% making computer unusable, are they insane?
    Reply
  • red77star
    Version 2.x was much better, reverting back.
    Reply
  • AliusBU
    18980384 said:
    I've always found it the least effective. I use 3-4 different products if cleaning a bare drive in a caddy. MWB will be the one that finds nothing while the other three all find something. I've also found it it does find some stuff you then run another scan after with it and it will find more!?! Also it was always the slowest finishing at least 25 minutes later than all the other scans.

    I'd be curious to know which other products you use for scanning that have more effective scanning results so I can give them a try. Disappointing to hear they might have screwed up so badly with CPU usage with the new release too.
    Reply