Nathan

Will MBAM ever have a self-protection capability. It would be nice to have MBAM abe to protect itsel from process termination.

No problems upgrading to the newest version for me.

Their website lists Vista as supported, but I cannot confirm as I don't use it. This thread at Wilders suggests that indded it does support 64-bit.

Actually, the way LnS works, applications and the ruleset function independently. So, the rule you described needs to be enabled. It will have no effect on whether or not a user is prompted to allow applications to access the internet. The only way the user will noit be prompted is if LnS is locked via password protection, but even then applications that have an m5d checksum that has changed are prompted again.

Really? It is a fantastic rule-based firewall. It doesn't do anything but be a barrier between me and the net; no popup blocking, no ad or cookie blocking, etc. As is the case withh all rule-based firewalls, LnS is no better than the ruleset that is used with it. PM me is you want to know more. Check it out here.

Thank you all very much for your candor. I would like to apologize to anyone I may have offended in any way, and I know there were a few out they. I am sorry. I do get like that sometimes when I find a product I like. Anyone who frequents Wilders can atest to that.... I did not mean to ruffle as many feathers as I did. Again, I am sorry. Nathan

Please check your PM

That is what I mean....all of it, not just some of it. Thank you for proving my point. I really don't understand why everyone is getting so upset. I wonder why all forums act the same; a user says one negative things about a product and they get nailed for it relentlessly. And, certainly, there is no need for personal attacks. Clearly, everyone here has a different definition of the term malware than I do. While it is unfortunate that I now might have to think of adding an AV to my setup, I still like MBAM. However, perhaps I should leave (and request a refund) is for nothing more than to make a statement about the behaviour of some of the people here. Detection capabilities aside, there is no need for any of this. The bottom line should be protection of the user. Some of the comments presented here suggest that is not the case. If you are intent on being malicious that is your perogative. However, negtative forum posts, and especially the extremely negative PMs, directed towards me have been over the line.

This is by no means trivial.

You right. I'm upset about this, about the definition of the term 'malware'. There are users out there that say nothing and just accept things the way they are, as you are asking me to do now, but I'm not that type of person. If I see something wrong, I will bring attention to it. Of course, this is just my opinion, and as such cannot be debated. It is relevant to me because I feel like I bought MBAM, and suggested it to others, based on the idea that it truly was, as its name states, an 'anti-malware' solution, which it is not because not everything is categorized as such. I wish I could undo my purchase and leave here because it seems anyone that points out that the king indeed has no clothes on it a 'troll' even if they have no intention of being one. There are no products I can thing of that call themselves 'anti-malware', that do not at least attemp to cover all the bases. A-squared AM catches a lot of virii, but it is expensive. Thus, I thought this would be a good option.

A layered defense shouldn't be needed if it lived up to its name. Tell me his, why do you not consider virii as malware? I find it very convenient that MB chooses what it wants to define as malware and what it does not.

Except, you are missing one very important aspect of the term, and that is virii. That is a category which MBAM doesn't cover and it just happens to be the most important. Again, it's the fact that MBAM doesn't even attempt to live up to its name by even trying to cover all the bases. If it did then there would be no need for an AV.

There isn't one. Also, though, notice that the detection of 'virii' is not listed for MBAM. So, it is a moot point.

I'm simply saying that the general perception on many forums, because of the name, is that MBAM covers all types of malware, and that is not true.

Well now you're just stuttering. What are you asking me?

True. No product can cover everything. But not all products call themselves 'antimalware'. I guess I think it's just extreme false advertising, because MBAM doesn't even try.

I guess I'm a little concerned then. The term 'malware' is an all-encompassing term. Malware is any code that is intent on harming the system, in any way, shape, or form. So, what your basically saying is that MBAM cannot defend against all these threats and htat it was never intended to. That is a shame. I know many people at Wilders believe this product to protect them from all types of malware given the name of MBAM. I just which I had remembered this thread before I made my purchase, given that I now need an AV.

I believe I listed a firewall. I use LnS, LooknStop, with Phantom's ruleset.

Given my setup of on-access protection, including LnS, MVPS Hosts, Sandboxie (with Opera and Miranda given sole access), Router, Server-side email mlaware scanning, and WinPatrol Pro, would this AM be suitable as a replacement for a resident AV? Thanks.

I thought this would be a good place to put all the feature requests for future versions of MBAM. This is something that ESET's EAV did and I thought it might be a good idea. What about cascading context menus within the AM entrry that would allow the user to quarantine certain files or submit certain files. Part of the quarantine option should incorporate fileassassin, for those of us that do not have Unlocker installed, that way they can be sure that the file has been dealt with. This is useful with malware that has not yet been detected by MBAM and is known to be a threat, which VirusTotal can show.

I did as you suggested, but that did not solve the issue. I did however solve it, I thik. I exited out of AM completely, then restarted it, and enabled the entry via options. All seems to be fine now.

Now, for some reason, AMs context menu entruy isn't staying registered. It's there right after I close AM and then it just disappears.

That is a great list! I wish the "report bug" and "report false positive" buttons worked; I get an error message every time, which I suspect is because those forms are submitted via email. It would also be nice to be able to contact suport via online chat ( a la AdMuncher) from within AM.

Agreed. Although, we both know that perfect detection is not possible, unless you are NOD32, KAV, Dr Web, Ewido, and SAS all rolled into one. But still, there are other ways to improve AM without neglecting other areas.

No, not quite. I guess I'm looking for something that might not exist. AVs have the eicar test file, in many form too so that the user can see that not only was the .com file detected but so was the .zip file and the .zip2 file. Someething like that would be nice, if indeed it exists, to where AM could showoff.