Plays Well With Others
For years, press materials from Malwarebytes Premium 22.214.171.124 Crack have emphasized that even the premium-level program is compatible with other antivirus solutions. There’s no problem using it as a companion to, say, Kaspersky or Bitdefender. However, the audience of consumers who want to pay for two security products isn’t huge. Malwarebytes used to perform some clever tricks with Windows’ Security Center to let it work alongside Microsoft Windows Defender Security Center, and included configuration options to let it work along with other third-party solutions.
That changes somewhat in version 4. The product, now a full-scale antivirus utility, defaults to registering with Security Center, which means that when it comes on the scene, Windows Defender goes to sleep. If you really want to use Malwarebytes in conjunction with another solution, you can change a setting so it doesn’t register itself as the antivirus in charge.
Layers of Protection
Malwarebytes Premium 126.96.36.199 Crack includes limited signature-based detection as one of its many layers, but relies heavily on more modern forms of detection. Web protection blocks traffic to known dangerous addresses, whether by the browser or by a malicious application. Ransomware protection watches for the behaviors that occur when an unknown program is getting ready to encrypt your files. It should catch even a zero-day ransomware attack, with no need to recognize anything but behaviors that suggest ransomware.
Exploit attacks take advantage of security holes in popular applications, using the security vulnerability to take control. Even if you keep your operating system and programs patched, there’s always a window when the vulnerability is known, but not yet patched. Malwarebytes shields several dozen popular applications against attack. This is a generalized protection against exploit behaviors, not protection against specific exploits.
For a view of what exploit protection means, click the Security tab in the Settings window and click the Advanced Settings button at the bottom. This opens the Anti-Exploit settings window, which warns that you should not change anything here except when instructed by a tech support expert. Look, but don’t touch. You’ll learn that Malwarebytes does things like enforce DEP (Data Execution Prevention) and ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization). It blocks attacks that use ROP (Return-Oriented Programming) and prevents attacks on system memory. The array of features here is dizzying.
Malwarebytes Premium 188.8.131.52 Crack offers the free Browser Guard security plug-in for Chrome, Edge, and Firefox when you install the free or Premium product. When I tested it with Malwarebytes Free, it proved very effective at steering the browser away from fraudulent (phishing) URLs and pages that host malware. If you use Chrome, Edge, or Firefox, be sure to install this useful extension.
Mixed Lab Results
There’s one small problem with these powerful, focused protection layers; they’re tough to test. Exploit attacks only work on a specific program version that contains the matching vulnerability. Malwarebytes kicks in only when such a matchup occurs, because, without a match, no actual damage is possible. High-end features like enforcement of DEP and ASLR are only relevant if a malware sample got past other protection layers. And so on.
Many of the independent antivirus testing labs strive to create tests that emulate real-world situations, but this emulation isn’t perfect. Many of them still include simple file-recognition as part of their testing. In the past, Malwarebytes hasn’t focused on passing tests, but that’s changing. The company now participates in testing and receives poor to excellent scores.
I follow the regular test reports from four labs: AV-Test, AV-Comparatives, SE Labs, and MRG-Effitas. For a long time, Malwarebytes didn’t participate with any of them. More recently, it has begun showing up in reports from AV-Test Institute and SE Labs. Its appearance in the latest report from AV-Comparatives means that three of the four labs are now including it in their tests.
AV-Test reports on each product’s capabilities in three areas: good protection against malware, small performance impact, and minimal effect on usability. That last item means the antivirus doesn’t freak out users by flagging valid websites or programs as dangerous. A product can earn up to six points in each area, for a maximum of 18 points total. In the latest test, almost half the products, among them Kaspersky, McAfee, and Norton AntiVirus Plus, earned a perfect 18. Another large group, Malwarebytes among them, managed 17.5 points, sufficient to earn the title Top Product.
Researchers at SE Labs use a capture and replay technique to hit multiple antivirus protection systems with precisely the same real-world malware attacks. The top performers earn AAA certification. Those that succeed at a less stellar level can take AA, A, B, or C level certification. All the tested products in the latest report earned AAA or AA certification. All but Malwarebytes, which came in with a B.
As noted, this is the first time Malwarebytes has appeared in a test report from Austrian lab AV-Comparatives. It will take a few months for it to catch up with all three of the tests we follow from this lab. The current report deals with results from the Malware Protection Test, which is much like my own hands-on test. Researchers expose the antivirus to a large number of samples—many products slaughter a raft of samples at this phase. They then execute any samples that weren’t wiped out on sight. As with all tests from this lab, products that pass receive Standard certification. Those that do more than merely pass can receive Advanced or Advanced+ certification.
In this important test, Malwarebytes scored in the highest protection bracket, enough to earn it Advanced+ certification. However, the test also considers the false positives that occur when an antivirus mistakenly marks a valid program as dangerous. A product that exhibits many false positives loses one rank; if it reaches the realm of many false positives, it loses two. That’s what happened to Malwarebytes. False positives dragged its potential Advanced+ certification down to Standard. K7 and Panda also dropped two ranks due to false positives, while Norton went down by one rank.
Each lab has its own way of rating and ranking products. I’ve devised an algorithm that maps all results onto a 10-point scale and derives an aggregate lab score. Had Malwarebytes retained its Advanced+ rating, its aggregate score would have been a decent 8.7. But it didn’t, so it scores 7.8. I’m still pleased to see that this product is showing up in the lab test reports. My contact at the company expressed determination to get better scores.
While getting plentiful scores is a new feat for Malwarebytes, other products have routinely scored at the top for years upon years. Tested by all four labs, Kasperky always gets excellent scores. Its latest results parlayed excellent into perfect, for an aggregate score of 10 points, the maximum. Bitdefender, too, routinely receives perfect and near-perfect scores, though its 9.8 aggregate score comes from just three labs.
Effective Malware Protection
For most products, my malware protection test begins the moment I open the folder containing my current collection of malware samples. The minor file access that occurs when Windows Explorer reads a file’s name, size, and attributes is enough to trigger a real-time scan for some. For others, clicking on the file or copying it to a new location triggers a scan. To maintain compatibility and avoid stepping on the toes of such programs, Malwarebytes waits until just before the malware launches before running its on-access scan.
Cylance, Emsisoft, and McAfee AntiVirus Plus are among the other programs that wait until launch to scan for malware. Skipping mere on-access scanning saves time and resources, no doubt. However, wiping out known threats on sight means you’re protected even if the antivirus crashes or stops working.
To test this product’s malware protection, I launched each of my samples in turn. Looking at Task Manager, I could see that Malwarebytes put suspect processes in limbo until it could finish its analysis. Sometimes this took as long as 20 seconds, though it reached a verdict for most in three or four seconds. Don’t worry; I saw no such delay in the execution of innocuous programs.
As promised, it identified what it found in detail, with names like Sality.Virus.FileInfector.DDS and Adware.IStartSurf. Other reported malware types included Backdoor, PornTool, PUP, Ransom, RiskWare, Spyware, and Trojan. In every single case, it identified the sample and quarantined it before it could launch, scoring a perfect 10 points with 100% detection.
Tested with this same recently collected sample set, McAfee also managed 100% detection, but one imperfect blocking action brought its overall score to 9.9. Webroot detected 99% of these samples and scored 9.8. That still leaves Malwarebytes with the topmost scores among products tested with this sample set and with previous sets.
My malicious URL blocking test starts with a feed of real-world malware-hosting URLs supplied by London-based MRG-Effitas. When I tested Malwarebytes Free, the Browser Guard extension proved extremely effective, blocking all access to 98% of the verified malware-hosting URLs. Like the real-time antivirus, it detailed its reasons for blocking each URL. In most cases, it reported the presence of a Trojan, but for some, it reported riskware, phishing, or a suspicious download. It also blocked sites based on reputation, explaining that this refers to sites with little traffic and a known connection to malware.
Malwarebytes Premium earned precisely the same score as the free edition. The only difference was that in some cases, the main Malwarebytes app supplemented Browser Guard by displaying its own transient notification. Very few products have done better. Bitdefender, G Data, and Sophos managed 99% protection, while McAfee stands at the top with 100%. Malwarebytes beat out all other recent products.
Phishing Protection Success
A hack attack using malware must somehow get the malicious program onto your system, cause the code to execute, and evade detection by the operating system and antivirus. A phishing attack, by contrast, only needs to fool the (possibly distracted) user. Phishing sites mimic banks, etailers, and even gaming sites, often using a URL that looks almost legitimate. A victim who logs in to the fake site has given away those all-important login credentials. Goodbye, bank account! Goodbye, social media reputation! For more on phishing, you can read How to Avoid Phishing Scams.
When last tested, Malwarebytes Premium 184.108.40.206 Crack scored very poorly in my phishing protection test. While most scores are 90% or better, it barely broke 50%, relying on both the main app and Browser Guard. Fortunately, it scored much higher this time around.
To test phishing protection, I start by scraping hundreds of newly reported frauds from sites that track such things. I work to ensure a balance between those that have been analyzed and blacklisted and those that are still unknown. I launch each phishing URL in four browsers, one protected by the product being reviewed and one each using the built-in protection in Chrome, Edge, and Firefox. If any of the four can’t load the page, I skip it. I also discard any pages that don’t actively attempt to steal login credentials.
Malwarebytes Premium 220.127.116.11 Crack now functions as a full-blown antivirus, not just an assistant to your main antivirus. It earns excellent scores in our hands-on tests and its scores with independent testing labs are improving.