• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About galileo

  • Rank
    New Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Charlotte, NC USA
  1. MBAE (Free Version - all settings default) is blocking the "Manage Passwords" feature of Internet Explorer: Internet Options > Content > Autocomplete (Settings) > Manage Passwords.....BLOCKEDAm I missing something, or is this a bug...?
  2. same problem here...out of nowhere MBAM pops up the notice that Malicious Website Protection is disabled. Clicking "Fix" results in the tray icon context menu showing that it is then enabled, but opening the MBAM interface shows that it is not enabled...tried joy.. running W8.1 w/Update and all updates through 10.13.2014...upgraded over 2.02.1012 when offered as an automatic problems whatsoever running 2.02.1012...will roll back tomorrow if no fix is posted...bummer
  3. And, without a doubt, your response has been quite rapid... ...Thank you! galileo
  4. Intial scan today found 18 infected objects - rescanning with update shows NO infected objects. Now..."If" files and registry entries had been quarantined what should the average have done? galileo
  5. After the update if one rescans their machine will these FPs no longer be flagged as such? If so, then what should users who quarantined those registry entries and files do? Should they manually restore the quarantined entries? Should they then rescan their machine? galileo
  6. I am sure that the issue is more complex than I am privy always is... It seems that we are speaking about this from two only slightly different viewpoints. I understand that the FP reference would be removed in a "updated" database - in fact that is the whole point of how to attack this issue. If the FPs were removed, then wouldn't a re-scan of quarantined files no longer flag them as malware (i.e. they were FPs)? One checks the quarantined files/folder from a "negative" perspective....i.e. files should never exist in the quarantine folder unless they are either malware or FPs - thus, checking that folder with a newer database should either confirm that its files should be there or should confirm that the FPs are no longer being flagged as malware....and could be restored... I appreciate your interest in following up on this. And, I can understand that the issue may well be more complex than I am grasping at the moment. I am viewing this from the perspective of what would I do if I had what I believed to be FP files that had been quarantined. I would most likely restore the files and then re-scan using an updated database to see if they were still flagged as malware - if not, then they are clean and were in fact FPs. Hence the question, can the security tool be made to do that same thing....? Thanks! (and I'll sit back down in my chair after this.... ) galileo
  7. @Malwarebytes Devs: Not to be pushy....but, I do hope you reconsider as to how an auto-restore of quarantined FPs can be achieved. The approach outlined above appears to accommodate both existing database structures and a relatively simple coding addition. galileo
  8. Can this not be accomplished by simply running an MBAM scan of the files in the quarantine folder whenever the MBAM database is updated or whenever a scan is conducted? If any of the files in the quarantine folder are found to be clean as a result of a newer MBAM database....then, obviously the files "were" most likely FPs and can then either be offered for restoration or can be auto-restored..... This should not require any modification to the MBAM database nor any new file nor FP tracking. It is a simple back check against previously scanned files that were flagged and moved to the quarantine folder. A scheduled "FP Check" could be added to MBAM explicitly for the purpose of checking files in the quarantine folder against updated databases and then auto-restoring the files found to be "clean". Think of this not as a new tracking or new database flag issue but, rather as a "re-check" against files that "were" previously flagged as malware and can now be re-scanned and potentially verified as clean. This is in fact what is effectively happening right now with MBAM when User "A" conducts a scan and has files that are flagged as malware and are then quarantined whereas when User "B" using a slightly newer database conducts a scan and has the same files declared as clean by MBAM due soley to having a newer database in which those particular FPs have been removed. Essentially, User "A"'s quarantined files could have been re-scanned using the newer database and he would then have the same results as User "B". Thus, why not auto-restore the quarantined FP files...?...since that is what User "A" would be doing manually now on his own. This appears really quite simple on the surface, unless I am missing something....therefore I must be missing something... Please don't mistake my commentary for criticism, rather I thank you and Malwarebytes for producing and maintaining a wonderful tool. The comments herein are intended to address FP issues that are real world frustrations for the average user. galileo
  9. @Malwarebytes Devs: I too have encountered frustration with FPs - not only from MBAM (I am a paid user) but, from other security software as well. The users that I support are indeed confused and really have no way of dealing with what may or may not be FPs. Their focus is on their daily activities and not on IT issues nor security analysis. I have what would seem to have been an obvious approach to help address this issue for the average users. Add the capability within MBAM to "auto-restore" quarantined files that your database later identifies as "safe" files due to being FPs. Upon subsquent manual or scheduled scans or updates, MBAM would auto-check its quarantined files folder against its updated database and optionally either notify the user and offer to restore such files or auto-restore such files and notify the user that such action has taken place. This approach would address a large part of the FP issue for the average user and give users - and IT support staff - a high comfort level that Malwarebytes had evaluated the issue itself rather than an average user essentially "taking a chance". Just some thoughts. galileo
  10. I have been asked by several users as to whether or not there is any value in running Windows Defender "if" one is running MBAM real-time (paid)...? Is there any added benefit to running both - or - does MBAM real-time do everything and more than Defender? If there is no "meaningful" added benefit, I would prefer to have my users remove any/all extraneous applications in favor of maximizing performance and minimizing potential interaction issues. I am sure everybody has some thoughts on this but, I am particularly interested in definitive comments on the security scope of each and less interested in personal preferences....thanks. galileo
  11. I should have mentioned earlier, I am running XP Pro. To delete the reg entry you may need to grant may be a protected reg entry under Vista.... galileo
  12. To solve the Limited User issue, use the "runas" command from either a command prompt or from a command script file (batch file). Here is an example: runas /noprofile /env /user:machinename\administrator "net start mbamservice.exe" You must substitute your computer's name for the "machinename" indicated above. For example if your machinename (i.e. computer name) is "Bob123" then the command would be: runas /noprofile /env /user:bob123\administrator "net start mbamservice.exe" The parameters above are explained from "runas /?" from a command prompt. Note that you will be requested to supply the administrator's password when you run this. Note also, that you can just make a simple script file by placing the entire command string above in a simple text file and use a "cmd" extension in place of the "txt" extension for the file. Then, you can just double click the file or file link to execute will still need to supply the admin pword.... galileo
  13. "Services" on my system shows "MBAMService" with the startup type as "Automatic" - this is from the default install of MBAM. There are no "Dependencies" indicated under the "Properties" for this service. You may want to follow some earlier comments regarding a complete uninstall and cleanup and then reinstall MBAM. Your "Services" does not appear to match those of any of the installations that I have....FWIW. galileo
  14. There is a solution to avoiding a reboot...simply restart the MBAMService... 1. Logon as usual 2. Go to "Start" > "Run" 3. Type: %SystemRoot%\system32\services.msc 4. Scroll down to "MBAMService" - select this and click "Start" in the left hand pane The MBAM icon will reappear in the tray and MBAM protection will remain enabled.... This issue appears to occur because the MBAMService typically is "not" running unless there are MBAM tasks to perform. Apparently, the service may (?) start when the machine is initially booted and thus, makes it possible for MBAM protection to enter/start its running/enabled mode - and then the MBAMService goes into a "dormant" mode. The service is apparently not being started when there is only a "logon" and thus, MBAM protection cannot restart itself.....???? If this is the case, the coding fix should be simple... galileo