Malwarebyte Anti-Malware finds many trojans, while others ..

ulixi DeleteThis @emmail.it wrote:

> Hello, I usually scan my HD with SUPERAntiSpyware Professional, Spybot
> - Search & Destroy and Spyware Doctor. I have perfecty updated them.
> Today I have used they and they have found any infected file, then I
> have used Malwarebyte Anti-Malware and it has found 38 trojans. Why
> any other software I use don't find anything while Malwarebyte
> Anti-Malware find so many trojans?
> thanksssss

Cookies are not malware.
Counting polymorphic variations of a single trojan is lying or, at
least, inaccurate.
False positives can lead to bloated pest counts.

Hard to say how effective the product was because you gave no details,
like filenames and what pest was reported for each.

On a pristine install of Windows XP Pro SP-3 plus all current updates to
Windows only (no apps installed) in a virtual machine, and after several
attempts to get an update from their extremely slow server until
succesful, this product found 1 pest. When I attempt to get info on
what it reported, I'm taken to their web site that says when it was
first reported, when it was last seen (well, duh, you just saw it), and
their detection statistics. No info was provided on the pest itself
that they claim is in my host. In this case, the "pest" was a registry
entry (and no file to match up with it). I couldn't see properties of
the pest to find out what they claim it is other than having to stretch
the columns in their "report" to see the path, manually copy the
registry path, and go look in the registry entry to see what it was.
And what was the "pest"? A registry entry that enables seeing the
Logoff entry in the Start menu. Oh yeah, now there's a pest, uh huh.

So, without a list of what were those 38 pests that Malwarebytes
Anti-Malware claimed to have discovered, the count is meaningless.

VanguardLH wrote:
> ulixi RemoveThis @emmail.it wrote:
>
>> Hello, I usually scan my HD with SUPERAntiSpyware Professional,
>> Spybot - Search & Destroy and Spyware Doctor. I have perfecty
>> updated them. Today I have used they and they have found any
>> infected file, then I have used Malwarebyte Anti-Malware and it has
>> found 38 trojans. Why any other software I use don't find anything
>> while Malwarebyte Anti-Malware find so many trojans?
>> thanksssss
>
> Cookies are not malware.

I dont believe malwarebytes looks or reports cookies.


> Counting polymorphic variations of a single trojan is lying or, at
> least, inaccurate.
> False positives can lead to bloated pest counts.

It seems to have a heuristic mechanism for identifying trojans right at the
end of the ac. I have not had a single bad experieince allowing the
programme to clean up these results.

Gaz

VanguardLH <V.TakeThisOut@nguard.LH> wrote in news:gbj8v9$aed$1
@registered.motzarella.org:

> ulixi.TakeThisOut@emmail.it wrote:
>
>> Hello, I usually scan my HD with SUPERAntiSpyware Professional, Spybot
>> - Search & Destroy and Spyware Doctor. I have perfecty updated them.
>> Today I have used they and they have found any infected file, then I
>> have used Malwarebyte Anti-Malware and it has found 38 trojans. Why
>> any other software I use don't find anything while Malwarebyte
>> Anti-Malware find so many trojans?
>> thanksssss
>
> Cookies are not malware.
> Counting polymorphic variations of a single trojan is lying or, at
> least, inaccurate.
> False positives can lead to bloated pest counts.
>
> Hard to say how effective the product was because you gave no details,
> like filenames and what pest was reported for each.
>
> On a pristine install of Windows XP Pro SP-3 plus all current updates
to
> Windows only (no apps installed) in a virtual machine, and after
several
> attempts to get an update from their extremely slow server until
> succesful, this product found 1 pest. When I attempt to get info on
> what it reported, I'm taken to their web site that says when it was
> first reported, when it was last seen (well, duh, you just saw it), and
> their detection statistics. No info was provided on the pest itself
> that they claim is in my host. In this case, the "pest" was a registry
> entry (and no file to match up with it). I couldn't see properties of
> the pest to find out what they claim it is other than having to stretch
> the columns in their "report" to see the path, manually copy the
> registry path, and go look in the registry entry to see what it was.
> And what was the "pest"? A registry entry that enables seeing the
> Logoff entry in the Start menu. Oh yeah, now there's a pest, uh huh.

It didn't tell you it found a pest. What it found was a policy setting,
and you can select to ignore it in the future.

Obviously it's not a pristine installation if you already have modified
policy keys in place, Sir.

As for the server being very slow, yes it is. Download.com did a review
recently; our server is a bit overloaded.

> So, without a list of what were those 38 pests that Malwarebytes
> Anti-Malware claimed to have discovered, the count is meaningless.

The count isn't worth much no, but don't assume they aren't valid.




--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org

Dustin Cook wrote:

> VanguardLH <V RemoveThis @nguard.LH> wrote in news:gbj8v9$aed$1
> @registered.motzarella.org:
>
>> ulixi RemoveThis @emmail.it wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, I usually scan my HD with SUPERAntiSpyware Professional, Spybot
>>> - Search & Destroy and Spyware Doctor. I have perfecty updated them.
>>> Today I have used they and they have found any infected file, then I
>>> have used Malwarebyte Anti-Malware and it has found 38 trojans. Why
>>> any other software I use don't find anything while Malwarebyte
>>> Anti-Malware find so many trojans?
>>> thanksssss
>>
>> Cookies are not malware.
>> Counting polymorphic variations of a single trojan is lying or, at
>> least, inaccurate.
>> False positives can lead to bloated pest counts.
>>
>> Hard to say how effective the product was because you gave no details,
>> like filenames and what pest was reported for each.
>>
>> On a pristine install of Windows XP Pro SP-3 plus all current updates
> to
>> Windows only (no apps installed) in a virtual machine, and after
> several
>> attempts to get an update from their extremely slow server until
>> succesful, this product found 1 pest. When I attempt to get info on
>> what it reported, I'm taken to their web site that says when it was
>> first reported, when it was last seen (well, duh, you just saw it), and
>> their detection statistics. No info was provided on the pest itself
>> that they claim is in my host. In this case, the "pest" was a registry
>> entry (and no file to match up with it). I couldn't see properties of
>> the pest to find out what they claim it is other than having to stretch
>> the columns in their "report" to see the path, manually copy the
>> registry path, and go look in the registry entry to see what it was.
>> And what was the "pest"? A registry entry that enables seeing the
>> Logoff entry in the Start menu. Oh yeah, now there's a pest, uh huh.
>
> It didn't tell you it found a pest. What it found was a policy setting,
> and you can select to ignore it in the future.

As I can do for any false positive. What it found was a policy setting.
What it offered was to change it. It was not a pest. It wasn't
malware. It wasn't even anything the product should've complained
about.

> Obviously it's not a pristine installation if you already have modified
> policy keys in place, Sir.

Oh, so if the user ever actually USES their OS then they are susceptible
to false positives? Kind of self-defeats the product.

As it went, it wasn't bad at what it found but I know many users that
would've simply gone along with the proposed suggestion to change the
registry key. Most users don't know what those registry keys are for.
They assume the product vendor is building in the expertise to know what
they shouldn't touch.

My point was that I found something the product reported that should NOT
get altered as proposed. The OP mention 38 items were found but never
mentioned WHAT they were. The hoopla claiming those 38 items made the
product so much superior to others wasn't proved.

The product may be good at what it does. Can't tell from the OP's
claim.

Dustin Cook wrote:
> VanguardLH <V RemoveThis @nguard.LH> wrote in news:gbj8v9$aed$1
> @registered.motzarella.org:
>
>> ulixi RemoveThis @emmail.it wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, I usually scan my HD with SUPERAntiSpyware Professional, Spybot
>>> - Search & Destroy and Spyware Doctor. I have perfecty updated them.
>>> Today I have used they and they have found any infected file, then I
>>> have used Malwarebyte Anti-Malware and it has found 38 trojans. Why
>>> any other software I use don't find anything while Malwarebyte
>>> Anti-Malware find so many trojans?
>>> thanksssss
>> Cookies are not malware.
>> Counting polymorphic variations of a single trojan is lying or, at
>> least, inaccurate.
>> False positives can lead to bloated pest counts.
>>
>> Hard to say how effective the product was because you gave no details,
>> like filenames and what pest was reported for each.
>>
>> On a pristine install of Windows XP Pro SP-3 plus all current updates
> to
>> Windows only (no apps installed) in a virtual machine, and after
> several
>> attempts to get an update from their extremely slow server until
>> succesful, this product found 1 pest. When I attempt to get info on
>> what it reported, I'm taken to their web site that says when it was
>> first reported, when it was last seen (well, duh, you just saw it), and
>> their detection statistics. No info was provided on the pest itself
>> that they claim is in my host. In this case, the "pest" was a registry
>> entry (and no file to match up with it). I couldn't see properties of
>> the pest to find out what they claim it is other than having to stretch
>> the columns in their "report" to see the path, manually copy the
>> registry path, and go look in the registry entry to see what it was.
>> And what was the "pest"? A registry entry that enables seeing the
>> Logoff entry in the Start menu. Oh yeah, now there's a pest, uh huh.
>
> It didn't tell you it found a pest. What it found was a policy setting,
> and you can select to ignore it in the future.
>
> Obviously it's not a pristine installation if you already have modified
> policy keys in place, Sir.
>
> As for the server being very slow, yes it is. Download.com did a review
> recently; our server is a bit overloaded.
>
>> So, without a list of what were those 38 pests that Malwarebytes
>> Anti-Malware claimed to have discovered, the count is meaningless.
>
> The count isn't worth much no, but don't assume they aren't valid.
>
>
>
>
Better documentation would help, this way folks can make a better
educated decision about what the product is doing and what it has found.

Good product by the way and I would recommend it's use

John

VanguardLH <V.DeleteThis@nguard.LH> wrote in
news:gbkvv3$taq$1@registered.motzarella.org:

> As I can do for any false positive. What it found was a policy
> setting. What it offered was to change it. It was not a pest. It
> wasn't malware. It wasn't even anything the product should've
> complained about.

Yes, and it will continue to do so anytime it finds a policy key that
malware is known to alter. As we have no way of knowing whether you did
this on purpose, or something did it against your wishes, we offer to
correct it. If you did it on purpose, simply select ignore. It however,
isn't a false positive.

>> Obviously it's not a pristine installation if you already have
>> modified policy keys in place, Sir.
>
> Oh, so if the user ever actually USES their OS then they are
> susceptible to false positives? Kind of self-defeats the product.

See above.

> As it went, it wasn't bad at what it found but I know many users that
> would've simply gone along with the proposed suggestion to change the
> registry key. Most users don't know what those registry keys are for.

And that would re-enable the users disabled menu item. Most users,
wouldn't have those policies keys set in the first place.



--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org