55 replies to this topic

[exile360]

Greetings all

We have changed our database numbering scheme so that it is compatible with new features in our upcoming 1.60 version of Malwarebytes Anti-Malware. This change also enhances our users' ability to be able to decipher when a database was created and released. The number '9' at the beginning of the database version is there for compatibility (since our previous naming scheme reached over 8000, thus the '9' at the beginning tells the product that any database that starts with this new naming scheme is newer than the one that is installed).

Below is an example:

911122006

Here's how these numbers break down:

• As stated above, the number 9 tells older versions of Malwarebytes Anti-Maware that used the old database naming scheme that this database is newer than any of the previous 8xxx database versions
  
• The 11 that follows the 9 represents the year
  
• The 12 that follows the 11 represents the month
  
• The 20 that follows the 12 represents the day
  
• The 06 that follows the 20 represents the number of the database released on that particular day, so in this case, the database 911122006 is the 6th database released on December 20th, 2011

For our upcoming release, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 1.60, the database version will appear as below:

v2011.12.20.06

Here's how this database format breaks down:

• v represents version
  
• 2011 represents the year
  
• 12 represents the month
  
• 20 represents the day
  
• 06 represents the number of the database released on that particular day, so as above, v2011.12.20.06 would be the 6th database released on December 20th, 2011

Using this new naming scheme, a user or support helper can easily determine if the database used is fairly current or badly outdated.

[mountaintree16]

Neato, thanks for the information

[yethz]

Sweet nice update. trying out now the 1.60 beta on Windows 7 PRO SP1 x64...

[master131]

Was wondering why the database naming changed. I thought the database file was hijacked or something.

[hayc59]

outstanding!! thanks

[guygo]

excellent! I look forward to the new release.

[Triple Helix]

Always looking good!

TH

[Tarun]

I think it should be yyyy instead of yy for clarity sake.

[Swarnava]

Thanks for update,

[Larusso]

Nice work guys

[trudyjh]

master131, on 20 December 2011 - 09:43 PM, said:

Was wondering why the database naming changed. I thought the database file was hijacked or something.

Me too. Too early in the morning for this stuff :-(

[tedivm]

Tarun, on 20 December 2011 - 11:09 PM, said:

I think it should be yyyy instead of yy for clarity sake.

We couldn't for backwards compatibility reasons.

[Tarun]

tedivm, on 21 December 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

We couldn't for backwards compatibility reasons.

Perhaps for v2.0 then?

[Strangedays]

What is the correct database version I cant seem to get mine to update?

[Firefox]

Strangedays, on 21 December 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:

What is the correct database version I cant seem to get mine to update?

Date: 20/12/2011 21:52:33
Database version: v2011.12.20.06
Fingerprints loaded: 350980

[Strangedays]

mine shows 350698 but says i have the latest definitions

[Strangedays]

ok I uninstalled and reinstalled after using mbam-clean seems up to date now.

[kzinti1]

"Using this new naming scheme, a user or support helper can easily determine if the database used is fairly current or badly outdated."
Why not just use the date, directly above the update version? Or is that also going away?
I've no problem with the new version designation at all. When it changed I imagined a new MBAM was on the way.
Will MBAM now automatically work with our Anti-Virus programs, or do we integrate them in the same old way, so that they ignore one another?

[siljaline]

Thanks and looking forward beyond the new Beta release.

Some in this thread are hotlinking to announcement posts elsewhere

This does not allow the reader the benefit of the full thread.

Those at MBAM that have my Twitter have been notified.

Regards,

[exile360]

Tarun, on 21 December 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

Perhaps for v2.0 then?

YYYY is the format for 1.60 already (in beta now)