If you really want to test it yourself you can use a system that you don't mind having infected if you have one and load Malwarebytes alone onto it and start doing the things that tend to get systems infected, including not installing patches and disabling Web Protection and then visiting the kinds of sites where threats tend to live and you can then see if the system becomes infected or not and if Malwarebytes blocks any threats/attacks or not.īut either way, I think you've put way too much stock into these comparative tests which are very limited in what and how they test just because they pretty much have to be, because they must replicate the same exact infections and attack vectors repeatedly for each product being tested, and modern threats tend to be polymorphic and short-lived, which is why I don't believe that such tests represent real-world situations very well.īut like you, I do still believe that Malwarebytes should participate in these tests either way because many users do look at these kinds of tests to make their decisions about what to use. But to claim that Malwarebytes isn't doing its job or isn't good at its job just because you haven't gotten infected or haven't encountered anything that wasn't blocked by MSE is kind of odd, don't you think?
#Kaspersky firefox extension for mac software#
Most of the time infections come from unsafe surfing habits, not patching your system and not having good protection software (like Malwarebytes). The thing is, you act as though you expect to get infected, but the truth is that when you practice safe surfing habits and have your system up-to-date with patches and use an antivirus (MSE) and Malwarebytes, then the chances of actually becoming infected are extremely slim, which is the entire point of why we claim that it's possible to stay safe out there. So you didn't encounter anything other than websites that were blocked by Malwarebytes (which aren't included in the heat map as no real-time detections/blocks are). Kaspersky is a very good antivirus, but I still believe there are plenty of threats that Malwarebytes is capable of stopping that Kaspersky isn't. This is a technique Malwarebytes has been using since their beginning and just one of the areas where the AVs have had to play catch-up. Time proved them wrong and now finally Kaspersky (along with many other AVs) scans the registry and removes loading points related to infections. But they didn't listen and were convinced that as long as we kept sending them copies of the files that they could create signatures that would effectively remove the entire infection. Back during the days of rogue/fake AVs the likes of Vundo/Virtumonde (what Kaspersky then referred to as "Trojan.Monder") and I explained to them that the reason they were failing to keep it from coming back after removing it was because they were relying strictly on detecting the primary executable Trojan component and ignoring the registry completely, which contained a loading point connected to the file they were detecting which also indicated the name and location of the file they weren't detecting which was a randomly named DLL that would create a new copy of the primary Trojan binary under a new name every time they tried to remove it and that unless they started scanning the registry and targeting these additional items they would continue to fail and why I kept recommending that others who encountered the infection needed to run Malwarebytes which clearly had a handle on the infection since they would reliably detect not only the primary Trojan component, but also link to the related registry loading point and use that to locate the watchdog DLL that kept resurrecting the infection and knock it all out in one shot, thus eliminating the threat for good and giving it no chance to bring itself back. I've been dealing with that attitude since long before I was ever employed by Malwarebytes. I'm very sorry for the fact that, again, only the Malwarebytes team will have to face the issue, while the Kaspersky Lab staff washes his hands of it The problem is that it's not true, otherwise, we would not use Kaspersky and Malwarebytes together ?
Uninstall it, since Kaspersky is the best and will work better alone." "We are stronger than Malwarebytes, so you don't need it.
An user asked on Kaspersky forum to solve the new Kaspersky Protection extension problem but, as usual, like it has happened in the previous episodes of conflict between Kaspersky and Malwarebytes softwares, this is what they've said (it's not the real answer, of course, but the hidden meaning of it):
0 kommentar(er)
