I did a quick search around the forums and haven't seen this mentioned, but whenever I try and update the malwarebytes definitions from my user account (limited account in Vista), it connects to the server, the update progress bar goes across, indicating it has updated (if using securitywonks, the new malwarebytes server is just so damn fast ). It then says somthing along the lines of 'database updated from XXXX to XXXX (with both numbers being the same). However, I tried updating on an admin account, and it updated just fine, to the newest database which was several versions ahead of the old one. This is easily fixed by changing its shortcut to 'run as admin' but it seems a bit strange that it gives all indications of updating, without actually doing so. When I try updating now, while it is set to run as administrator, it says 'you already have the latest database version', as it should. Also, on both our Vista pc and our older XP one, if you click 'test protection' (I'm using the free version), it says the test failed when running on a limited user account. (Once again, telling it to run as administrator fixes this)

It would be good to have the next version of MBAM either function correctly on limited accounts, or add some sort of message saying why it didn't update properly/the protection test failed and to try running it as administrator. As it is it is a bit misleading as to weather it has updated or not, which could cause people to have very out of date definitions and yet not realise it.

MBAM shouldn't be run on a limited user account. It should be run on an Administrator account, in normal mode. Not limited user account, and not in safe mode.

MBAM can't over ride Vista. The limited account in Vista is just that, limited. You won't find any program able to update using the limited account. That was the sole purpose of that account setting, to keep the user from installing or changing software.

Well, I'm pretty sure AVG antivirus updates fine from my user, steam can update and install games on my user, and even if anti-malware will never be able to be updated on a limited account, I think it should still be able to tell you that it didn't update, and suggest running as admin. I understand that some programs will simply not function properly as a limited user, but the thing is, it seems to update fine, until your realise that if you try again as admin, it is several versions behind.

I have access to our admin account (just to keep things simple (its the family pc), we have all our users as limited, and keep the admin one as clean and uncluttered as possible, and only use it for installing programs etc), so this is a really minor issue for me, I've just set it to 'run as administrator, so now when clicked it prompts me for a password, and after doing that I can run it normally.

Just a thought. Those apps you mentioned no doubt use a SYSTEM service that runs all the time in background and that actually does the works, with elevated SYSTEM privileges.

At least the free version of MBAM does not have any resident SYSTEM service.

That's exactly what you were told to begin with. MBAM must be run under an admin account. Limited accounts will not work in Vista for any program installs or changes to the program.

@ LordPake you are correct.

Ah, that makes sense. Still, I think it would be good to add a little bit of text next to the 'update' and 'test protection' buttons warning that they will not work properly on limited users.

A lot of these issues will be fixed in the next version of the product due in a few days.

Awesome, I'll be sure to download it. Will mbam 1.28 need to be uninstalled first, or can the new version simply be installed over the old version?

Usually it's fine to just install over. If not it will be noted in the release notes, in this forum.

This one is going to be a bit 'iffy' meaning I will recommend strongly an uninstall and reinstall.