Malwarebytes did a detailed analysis of all of the missed/executed samples in this test, which included some broken installers/FPs as well as some actual threats which were added to their detections, you can see their findings here: www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2024/02/malwarebytes-crushes-malware-all-the-time
Personally I'd rather have a few false positives with better protection. False positives are annoying, but actual malware slipping through can be catastrophic.
I remember a Malwarebytes test someone did a bit more than a year ago that got less than a 70% detection ratio. I thought that Malwarebytes was gone, but the 98% detection ratio is great to see after that time.
Using premium vs non premium malwarebytes makes a big difference. The free version does not have active protection and is basically a tool to find and remove existing malware on the system via doing a manual scan. The premium version focuses on active protection and scheduled scans while still having the option to do manual scans. The free version, while not having real active protection, does do some very basic protection in real time which is how it gets abysmal detection scores. You're supposed to run free malwarebytes alongside windows defender and do manual scans to pick up the slack from windows defender whereas with premium you can turn defender off
I think iv seen it. Its more than a year old if im not mustaken. Dont remember if free or premium version but tbh iv sworn by MB for a long time now. But tbf i also have a life time key so could be 99% of the reason since i dont wana buy anything new 😂 But id say mb definitly is great and has even saved a pc in the past that was over run by viruses. 😂 i think it was around 2015
Personally I think that a few false positives are fine if the detection rate is this high, but I admit it can get annoying and Malwarebytes did get annoying for me since it kept flagging most Visual Novels I installed
It's nice to see Malwarebytes perform so well. I bought a copy of the program way back when the company offered a lifetime license for about 20 bucks. I'm glad I did because I've noticed the annual license fee steadily go up in the past few years.
Same bought it in 2014 for $27.40 CAD (still got the email with id #). Have never had a problem since i started using it works great. I hope they keep to their word and keep us grandfathered in because it's like 100 bucks a year now...
As another one with a life time copy. Its ben great to me tbh. Never had problems with MWB. Tbh its solved more problems than what it has left me with.
Alright damnit, where is the next greatest online anti-virus software or free launching game program with Excalibur Prime like Warframe I can get my money into!??! I guess I am 8 months or 11 years too late.
I use Malwarebytes for family members. I'd much prefer false positives and heuristic flagging and having them call me to remote into their computer to check on it for them, rather than spending hours fixing their computer when they get some sort of infection.
Oh boy… I was the person doing that in the past. Not fun… I also did the remote with the 80 yo grandpa and OUCH. I was able to keep my sanity but it was this close.
@@RafiGish As a Linux user myself, no that is not the case. Linux while more secure than Windows is not completely protected against malware. There is always CVE's and Zero days with every system. Furthermore not everyone is capable of using Linux due to compatibility issues in a world that was built primarily for Windows because of its 1.9 Billion users.
@@RafiGishLinux is not a solution for everyone and a user not used to linux might even break more while trying to install software meant for windows onto it... Also like CedroCron mentioned: Linux has viruses too. 👍
I'm guessing the heuristics actually detect that the game .exes are isolated and not part of a proper game install, so it flags them as likely malicious. Rather have false positives than anything slip by really. Easy enough to add exceptions.
Either that, or I'm guessing it's something to do with what Rockstar did with some of its games. They sold pirated copies of their games on Steam release, as the pirated releases had the CD DRM removed, instead of paying to legitimately remove DRM. Perhaps some of those game executables had a similar process applied to them, and since pirated games often include malware, MalwareBytes associates the DRM removal with piracy, and by extension, malware. (?)
@@PlagueDoctor-87 Even if that were true, a DRM-Crack/NOCD/DVD should not be a valid reason for flagging it. When piracy is becoming more and more the only way to truly own a product, it is an invalid excuse for „MalwareBytes“.
It might be worth mentioning that the false positive and false negative rate is a tradeoff -- it is not possible to have both at 0. I strongly prefer false positives to false negatives, especially for malware. I've been using MWB for years and I'm glad to see that it continues to perform well under testing.
Finally, these antivirus tests come back! Would really love to see more of these~ These tests were fun to watch for some unknown reasons., and they were the reasons I subscribed to this channel long ago.
I would rather have the inconvenience of false positive rather then have more relaxed protection and potentially have a higher chance of letting malware through. Can’t wait to see more of your videos in 2024, Happy New Year!
Malwarebytes is rubbish. My PC takes 10 seconds longer to start up. It slows my PC down. I don't care I deactivated it. 16 bg, ram, 10 Gen. I7. Now my Acer Nitro AN515-55 runs much faster without it. I was a long-term user for 10 years.
@@Satoabi Not a good advice. Imagine you watching a film and you clearly see that it's shit. But when you voice your opinion, someone just says "well, make your own film then!". You don't have to make something better to determine if some product good or not ;-)
@@Nick41622 Been using malware bytes for 10+ yrs and it never slowed down my pc... 32gb ram, Ryzen 5... My Acer Nitro 5 2022 spec(with upgraded ram) is running great!
As a thought, rather than running a "second opinion" scan, what about cataloging the files with a hash and comparing before and after? Right now, you're having to trust that the second opinion will catch everything the test scan missed.
I think it would make more sence for comparison to do the test for all AVs with the exact same Malware samples. Ofcause all the tests have do be done on the same day to prevent cloud detection. Also what happened to the promise of testing all main AVs and making a new AV tier list by the end of the year? Has this been delayed or canceled?
For a second I thought the title meant "2000's era" malware, but this is also good. I wonder if there is any modern antivirus program that cannot detect old/deprecated viruses and their variants? I'm sure there's at least a few, but it would be interesting to see what would happen.
Think I've had Malwarebytes longer than any other app that I own. I ran into it right after it was released years ago and ran a free copy for a month or so, liked the performance and bought a license when they decided to start selling it. $15 bucks if I remember right. I'm overly impressed that the developer has always honored the license and not made any attempt at disqualifying the lifetime purchase. The vast majority don't in my experience. It's always been rock solid and I've never suffered any kind of damage with it running on my machines. Great investment for anyone looking for some peace of mind for their PC's.
Mwb lifetime license has ben a amazing. I wonder if it could be Because they didnt sell off too many lifetime licenses. But who knows. Either way i do appreciate that they still honor it.
I know huh. Thought the same thing, probably not many of us left. Can't even remember when that was but it's been a very long time ago. I have happily sent them many referrals over the years and will every chance I get. Happy to return the loyalty!
my go to antimalware/ virus software. in the past, my friends pc is infected by malware or virus, no other antivirus can help, EXCEPT Malwarebytes, especially those virus that prevent antivirus from being installed. Malwarebytes can be installed even if the pc is infected
Also great content/Community and your discord server has helped me multiple times to remove viruses and stuff, And fixing problems edit: Thanks Leo for liking my comment
I bought 2 lifetime MBAM-licenses back in the days after it completely restored a Windows98-PC to working order. I haven't had any infections since. And indeed, have some false positives is a better trade-off than being infected. You can throw the suspicious file into an online multi-virus-scanner to check it and then have it unquarantined. A fantastic product.
Great video! Thanks for posting! I've recommended several friends run the premium version of Malwarebytes, so this test is of great significance to me. :) I DO have a question about the false positive test. The real-time protection test was done with Malwarebytes Premium 4.6.7, the latest version. The false positive test was done with Malwarebytes Premium 4.6.6, NOT 4.6.7. Then, during the summary at the end, version 4.6.7 was shown again. What happened with the change in Malwarebytes version between the real-time protection test and the false positive test? Thanks again for conducting this test! Happy New Year!!!!
Malwarebytes is rubbish. My PC takes 10 seconds longer to start up. It slows my PC down. I don't care I deactivated it. 16 bg, ram, 10 Gen. I7. Now my Acer Nitro AN515-55 runs much faster without it. I was a long-term user for 10 years.
@@Nick41622 Thousands of IT reasons why that could be the case for you. I suggest you investigate route cause with sysinternals rather than dish the product at whim.
@@Nick41622 LoooL bro this is a Laptop, dont take that as an indicator... i have a PC with amd ryzen 7, 32gb ram and a rtx 3090ti and mine (with MB installed) dont even take 10 secs to start :D
Great video. This and the previous ones. However , it seems the fast execution of the malware script might be impacting anti-virus performance. Maybe if there was a 30 second pause between malware execution it'd be more fair game for anti-virus to respond. After all it's not natural for any user to experience this much malware during regular use
i wonder if for the false positives, like for the MoH:AA, malwarebytes is trying to find the target the exe is looking for, and it not coming back with anything triggers the false positive.
The free version has been my only windows AV forever. I'm smart enough to avoid most problems and scan anything I don't feel good about. No problems yet
I initially thought Malwarebytes seemed gimmicky aimed at consumers and pricey at first, billed at $8.99 monthly (paid annually $99.99) in comparison to say SpyBot S&D with AV at a tenth of the price per year, however saying that, Malwarebytes does have the additional benefit of installing on five devices per 'PLUS' license. They also offer a sixty (60) day money back guarantee. No AV scanner is perfect, but Malwarebytes does seem to be a good overall contender for eliminating most common threats and keeping vulnerable consumer equipment adequately protected. 👍 This is my opinion, I could be wrong. 😉
I am so happy you are testing Antiviruses again. Nice test!!! I use Malwarebytes and have tested it many times and it has never failed. Regarding your question about false positives, I would rather have more false positives than higher protection. Also, Malwarebytes seems to be better than Kaspersky based on your tests. Malwarebytes seems to really have updated their detection engines. Also, have a Happy New Year!!!
It should be good as it’s been around about that long. I remember being given malwarebytes by a friends brother who was a techy back in 2002. And he was calling it good back when Mcaffee and norton were included with every pc.
i feel like false positives are something that should be easy to fix especially with AI-based protection, add an extra option when something is picked up to tell the program it is a false positive, this could then add it to a library of whitelisted files/programs that is sent home whenever malwarebytes checks for updates and is reviewed for use in improving the accuracy of the next update train the detection based on a comparison between a blacklist of known malicious programs/files and a whitelist of known false positives
i never had problem with false detection, is it possible that in the case of MOHAA and the others know like 3Dmark if it was properly installed in program files like other programs this detection would not happen ? its in a folder on the desktop and its not a shortcut isn't that suspicious enough for the detection to trigger
Few false positives is A-Ok in my book. False negatives would suck more. I’ve been using Malwarebytes for the past few years & windows defender set to periodic scans. While learning C# a lot of the executables I made got flagged as malicious.
The premium version already replaced defender before none premium does not and yes a little better after the update true but in my opinion there are still better and easier options not scanning network directories even with a home network is strange
I used to create scripts via AutoIT and Malwarebytes always flagged those scripts as trojans even though I was the one who created those scripts for automation purposes lol
MB is the shit. Used for years as primary AV on all my clients (I am MSP) Nothing has ever gotten by it (that I know) it constantly finds / fixess problems on new client PCs that ESET did not. A+. The free version does 90% of the premium too.
My take is that false positives are more than just annoying, because I dont know how to tell if something is falsely flagged as malicious, or actually is malicious
Im certain some false positves he got is from not having the game directory for the game launchers there. Iv had that happen before. But was all happy and well with it there. In general most false positives also comes from programs that can read and/or change the memory of other programs. Or has the capability of injecting stuff that either changes memory or adds more stuff to add a new overlay or such. So id say 99.9% of the time i wouldnt worry that it is a false positive unless you use thos kind of softwares. And if you do one usualy knows where you find the officialy released program. (Not always) And sadly false positives is something one always have to live with being a possibility but id say with a 1.x% false positives on what mostly seemed to be games without the game directory (of the detections) id honestly say you should be good. False positives are not that common unless you download "shady" stuff or go to "shady" websites.
I think a some false positives are fine. It would be annoying, but that alternative is more damage to your computer or network. As long as I can "clear" or grant "permission" or an "exception" and Malwarebytes remembers it. Also, like that you tested false positives in your evaluation of MB. I hope you do that for all your AV tests in 2024. It would be interesting to see how all the big boys stack up to that. For note, I have not had any problems with Sophos. Been running it for about 2 years now. Thanks.
Malwarebyte's pretty good and I used it on some computers ive built for friends. Personally i wouldn't use it thou as I still think that antivirus software is more something for less tech savvy people. Good video showing its strength thou👍
I mean tbf. Id say im pretty tech savy but still use MB. But i also do download some shady shit from time to time. So its also on me 😅 but i run some cracked softwares so if i ever go hunting for a new one i like having MB there.
I ALWAYS prefer False Positives. I used to do 0-day and they were notorious for malware droppers. These days I don't do the illicit software route for anything, so if something were to pop up blocked, I'd just add it to exceptions with confidence. Meanwhile, I know I'm mostly safe.
I remember when I tried this… It wasn’t on purpose. The sad part was that malwarebytes was out of the fight before it started because one of the viruses I had wasn’t letting me install it.
Nice job! From my experience working inside Windows, Malwarebytes premium and Windows defender is all you need in addition to common sense. Everything else will just slow down Windows.
I think the worst part Is If you just install Malwarebytes free its about as bad as having nothing at all, because defender is neutered. Malwsrebytes should not touch your defender of its not doing anything to your default unless you pay for a liscense.
I think false positives are a big problem and encourage blind clicking through, whitelisting, or disabling AV systems. While I don't personally have a problem with false positives being blocked (as long as they aren't quarantined or deleted), there are a lot of users who wouldn't be able to navigate this well and lowering the heuristics would be better.
The day when Malwarebytes will finally give some effort for the FE(ui and logic) will be the day I will buy it again. Good security is important on a home PC, but when I have to click a dumb pop-up a million times while using torrent I really come close to the question of finding a different av software
I think false positives are very annoying, but I also don't think they're a byproduct of good detection rates. That's why I use Kaspersky, best of both worlds. Basically no compromises.
After my MB original install, it blocked legit and already installed programs from updating (they access Win temp folder when updating). Finally figured out it was MB blocking programs from completing their updates. MB never notifies it's blocking. Have to be aware of that every time I upgrade/update any program. And, then white-list program, in real time, and update completes. I don't think average end-user would figure this out and just assume it was their programs bugging out. Not good, MB!
Must say this sounds wierd. When you say original install. Do you mean back when the aw was new or more recent days. As iv personaly never had that problem in 10+ years on different computers. Could be a problem with your system itself at that point. Ofc not saying its 100% that is the problem but its a wierd problem never the less.
Do you do security checks on links for Android? How can I send you a link that's suspicious for me ? Because I don't understand how the appk it's installed by Chrome with the "installation from unknown sources" turned off
If I have a free version of Bit Defender already installed in my system do I need Malwarebytes or any other similar software in addition to Bitdefender?
False positives aren't annoying but what is are anti-virus pop-ups like McCafee's endless subscription notices. It's one reason why I uninstalled Malwarebytes, having some perception and being vigilant while surfing the web and using Winders Defender is all I've needed, although it's not entirely foolproof given the amount of malware and viruses but it hasn't led me astray yet.
In my opinion a few False-Positives are acceptable bc the user has the ability to create exceptions to tune the AV. False-Negatives are far more worring because the user can't usually do anything about it.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Malwarebytes did a detailed analysis of all of the missed/executed samples in this test, which included some broken installers/FPs as well as some actual threats which were added to their detections, you can see their findings here: www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2024/02/malwarebytes-crushes-malware-all-the-time
I love this company. great they added them to their list. this is why theyre the best. always following everything related
They didn't let that slide 💯
new ones beter with vpn identy finger print and the browser gard
Personally I'd rather have a few false positives with better protection. False positives are annoying, but actual malware slipping through can be catastrophic.
@@user-ym8dr6dq6xAnd you must be brain impaired.
Agreed, a few false positives is infinitely better, but emphasis on not too many.
Or just have backups? I wouldn’t use malwerebyte or any antivirus. VirusTotal for opinions is great though.
@@user-ym8dr6dq6x " Joined Dec 17, 2023" , you slipped trough tho.
@@user-ym8dr6dq6x furries >>>>>>
No, false positive can lead to very poor experience.
Finally, these seem to be back... hope more will next year
I remember a Malwarebytes test someone did a bit more than a year ago that got less than a 70% detection ratio. I thought that Malwarebytes was gone, but the 98% detection ratio is great to see after that time.
Using premium vs non premium malwarebytes makes a big difference. The free version does not have active protection and is basically a tool to find and remove existing malware on the system via doing a manual scan. The premium version focuses on active protection and scheduled scans while still having the option to do manual scans.
The free version, while not having real active protection, does do some very basic protection in real time which is how it gets abysmal detection scores. You're supposed to run free malwarebytes alongside windows defender and do manual scans to pick up the slack from windows defender whereas with premium you can turn defender off
It's been my go to since its inception.
idk where you saw that or wether or not it was using real time detection. malwarebytes has always been very solid
I think iv seen it. Its more than a year old if im not mustaken. Dont remember if free or premium version but tbh iv sworn by MB for a long time now. But tbf i also have a life time key so could be 99% of the reason since i dont wana buy anything new 😂
But id say mb definitly is great and has even saved a pc in the past that was over run by viruses. 😂 i think it was around 2015
@@GamesenseNoName save my PC over a decade ago. Got one of the early ransomware MB got rid of it for me in safe mode
Personally I think that a few false positives are fine if the detection rate is this high, but I admit it can get annoying and Malwarebytes did get annoying for me since it kept flagging most Visual Novels I installed
Most visual novels are actual cancer, so MB was just trying to look out for you
@@HCG so Malwarebytes not only takes care of your PC but also of your personal health? What a powerful tool
i think malwarebites saved not just your computer but yourself from those pesky novels lmao
Maybe because some are illegal?
@@ajxx9987I didn't know Malwarebytes had a law degree
It's nice to see Malwarebytes perform so well. I bought a copy of the program way back when the company offered a lifetime license for about 20 bucks. I'm glad I did because I've noticed the annual license fee steadily go up in the past few years.
Same bought it in 2014 for $27.40 CAD (still got the email with id #). Have never had a problem since i started using it works great. I hope they keep to their word and keep us grandfathered in because it's like 100 bucks a year now...
As another one with a life time copy. Its ben great to me tbh. Never had problems with MWB. Tbh its solved more problems than what it has left me with.
Alright damnit, where is the next greatest online anti-virus software or free launching game program with Excalibur Prime like Warframe I can get my money into!??! I guess I am 8 months or 11 years too late.
I use Malwarebytes for family members. I'd much prefer false positives and heuristic flagging and having them call me to remote into their computer to check on it for them, rather than spending hours fixing their computer when they get some sort of infection.
Oh boy… I was the person doing that in the past. Not fun… I also did the remote with the 80 yo grandpa and OUCH. I was able to keep my sanity but it was this close.
Put them on Linux and you'd be done.
@@RafiGish As a Linux user myself, no that is not the case. Linux while more secure than Windows is not completely protected against malware. There is always CVE's and Zero days with every system. Furthermore not everyone is capable of using Linux due to compatibility issues in a world that was built primarily for Windows because of its 1.9 Billion users.
@@RafiGishLinux is not a solution for everyone and a user not used to linux might even break more while trying to install software meant for windows onto it...
Also like CedroCron mentioned: Linux has viruses too. 👍
I'm guessing the heuristics actually detect that the game .exes are isolated and not part of a proper game install, so it flags them as likely malicious.
Rather have false positives than anything slip by really. Easy enough to add exceptions.
Either that, or I'm guessing it's something to do with what Rockstar did with some of its games.
They sold pirated copies of their games on Steam release, as the pirated releases had the CD DRM removed, instead of paying to legitimately remove DRM.
Perhaps some of those game executables had a similar process applied to them, and since pirated games often include malware, MalwareBytes associates the DRM removal with piracy, and by extension, malware. (?)
@@PlagueDoctor-87
Even if that were true, a DRM-Crack/NOCD/DVD should not be a valid reason for flagging it.
When piracy is becoming more and more the only way to truly own a product, it is an invalid excuse for „MalwareBytes“.
Yep!
It might be worth mentioning that the false positive and false negative rate is a tradeoff -- it is not possible to have both at 0. I strongly prefer false positives to false negatives, especially for malware. I've been using MWB for years and I'm glad to see that it continues to perform well under testing.
Thanks for this. False positives are the cost of good protection. I prefer that than lower detection.
They really aren't
Kaspersky has better protection than malwarebytes and waaaay less false positives
@@sylussquared9724 Not true. Kaspersky got 96% on it's latest test by TPSC and Malwarebytes got 98%.
Finally, these antivirus tests come back!
Would really love to see more of these~
These tests were fun to watch for some unknown reasons., and they were the reasons I subscribed to this channel long ago.
Back when I did computer clean up full time, I loved Malwarebytes, had a reseller account even. Good to know it's still doing the good fight.
I would rather have the inconvenience of false positive rather then have more relaxed protection and potentially have a higher chance of letting malware through. Can’t wait to see more of your videos in 2024, Happy New Year!
I would prefer having a few false positives with a better detection since it isn't hard to exclude safe files
Malwarebytes is rubbish. My PC takes 10 seconds longer to start up. It slows my PC down. I don't care I deactivated it. 16 bg, ram, 10 Gen. I7. Now my Acer Nitro AN515-55 runs much faster without it. I was a long-term user for 10 years.
Write ur own software then
@@Satoabi Now where would be the fun in that.
@@Satoabi Not a good advice.
Imagine you watching a film and you clearly see that it's shit. But when you voice your opinion, someone just says "well, make your own film then!".
You don't have to make something better to determine if some product good or not ;-)
@@Nick41622 Been using malware bytes for 10+ yrs and it never slowed down my pc... 32gb ram, Ryzen 5... My Acer Nitro 5 2022 spec(with upgraded ram) is running great!
Please continue to do all the AVs with this test. Awesome vids
Awesome to see Malwarebytes ! I wonder how Sophos Home Premium will do on this test. Happy New Year!
As a thought, rather than running a "second opinion" scan, what about cataloging the files with a hash and comparing before and after? Right now, you're having to trust that the second opinion will catch everything the test scan missed.
Thats why you run more than one second opinion scanner
@@sylussquared9724 He meant at which point is 'n' amount of scans sufficient?
There can be things running in the background that haven't been detected by all of the apps you used. 👍🏻
I think it would make more sence for comparison to do the test for all AVs with the exact same Malware samples. Ofcause all the tests have do be done on the same day to prevent cloud detection.
Also what happened to the promise of testing all main AVs and making a new AV tier list by the end of the year? Has this been delayed or canceled?
This is good to know because malware bytes has always been my go too for second opinions and now I can use it for everything.
Thank you for the video. This may have made me make a decision on what to use. I was thinking Malwarebytes or E-set.
For a second I thought the title meant "2000's era" malware, but this is also good. I wonder if there is any modern antivirus program that cannot detect old/deprecated viruses and their variants? I'm sure there's at least a few, but it would be interesting to see what would happen.
Nostalgia nerd actually made a video on exactly that topic, it's called "Do old viruses work on modern PCs?". The results are quite surprising.
@@-eMpTy-i need to watch it again! Probably watched it 3 years ago when it came out.
@@-eMpTy- Ohhh yeah I forgot about that video
Think I've had Malwarebytes longer than any other app that I own. I ran into it right after it was released years ago and ran a free copy for a month or so, liked the performance and bought a license when they decided to start selling it. $15 bucks if I remember right. I'm overly impressed that the developer has always honored the license and not made any attempt at disqualifying the lifetime purchase. The vast majority don't in my experience. It's always been rock solid and I've never suffered any kind of damage with it running on my machines.
Great investment for anyone looking for some peace of mind for their PC's.
Mwb lifetime license has ben a amazing. I wonder if it could be Because they didnt sell off too many lifetime licenses. But who knows. Either way i do appreciate that they still honor it.
I know huh. Thought the same thing, probably not many of us left. Can't even remember when that was but it's been a very long time ago. I have happily sent them many referrals over the years and will every chance I get. Happy to return the loyalty!
my go to antimalware/ virus software. in the past, my friends pc is infected by malware or virus, no other antivirus can help, EXCEPT Malwarebytes, especially those virus that prevent antivirus from being installed. Malwarebytes can be installed even if the pc is infected
MWB has been the only anti-malware I've needed.
Also great content/Community and your discord server has helped me multiple times to remove viruses and stuff, And fixing problems
edit: Thanks Leo for liking my comment
Stop downloading game cheats bro 😉
heh? @@KyuDoesCode
just because i got malware dont mean im downloading game cheats @@KyuDoesCode 💀
Bro How do you get 2000 viruses??
MalwareBazzar
A lot of porn sites 😂
Malware Repositories. If you know where to look at, you'll find almost all malware.
LimeWire
@@ItsNotBushWeek lmaoooo I remember that app
I clicked on this video because I actually have a Malwarebytes subscription
I bought 2 lifetime MBAM-licenses back in the days after it completely restored a Windows98-PC to working order. I haven't had any infections since.
And indeed, have some false positives is a better trade-off than being infected. You can throw the suspicious file into an online multi-virus-scanner to check it and then have it unquarantined.
A fantastic product.
Thank you for these videos. Very helpful information! Can you do Sophos next please
Great video! Thanks for posting! I've recommended several friends run the premium version of Malwarebytes, so this test is of great significance to me. :) I DO have a question about the false positive test. The real-time protection test was done with Malwarebytes Premium 4.6.7, the latest version. The false positive test was done with Malwarebytes Premium 4.6.6, NOT 4.6.7. Then, during the summary at the end, version 4.6.7 was shown again. What happened with the change in Malwarebytes version between the real-time protection test and the false positive test? Thanks again for conducting this test! Happy New Year!!!!
Used Malwarebytes for years and it’s always provided a trusted defence with easy user controls. The staff at Malwarebytes do a fantastic job !
Malwarebytes is rubbish. My PC takes 10 seconds longer to start up. It slows my PC down. I don't care I deactivated it. 16 bg, ram, 10 Gen. I7. Now my Acer Nitro AN515-55 runs much faster without it. I was a long-term user for 10 years.
@@Nick41622 Thousands of IT reasons why that could be the case for you. I suggest you investigate route cause with sysinternals rather than dish the product at whim.
@@Nick41622 All that and you don't even know how to customize start up programs.
User error.
@@Nick41622kaspersky on top
@@Nick41622 LoooL bro this is a Laptop, dont take that as an indicator... i have a PC with amd ryzen 7, 32gb ram and a rtx 3090ti and mine (with MB installed) dont even take 10 secs to start :D
Great video. This and the previous ones. However , it seems the fast execution of the malware script might be impacting anti-virus performance.
Maybe if there was a 30 second pause between malware execution it'd be more fair game for anti-virus to respond.
After all it's not natural for any user to experience this much malware during regular use
Wow! Malwarebytes has come a long way.
Malwarebytes is a beast. Happy customer since 201x
i wonder if for the false positives, like for the MoH:AA, malwarebytes is trying to find the target the exe is looking for, and it not coming back with anything triggers the false positive.
You should try out the brute force protection I’ve never got to see it in action.
Yes and the ransomware protection please!
The free version has been my only windows AV forever. I'm smart enough to avoid most problems and scan anything I don't feel good about. No problems yet
Malwarebytes has been the only anti-malware I've ever needed.
same here
Love this app. 3 licenses for the basic subscription. It works very well and doesn’t use much resources.
Fantastic video and test. Thanks for sharing this with us.
Medal of Honor, Allied Assault. Played it a lot in PvP "back in the day".
"never gonna give you up never gonna let you down" could be Malwarebytes slogan
Have been running this for over a year and its been as good as anything else and appears to be light on resources too....
I've been using this for almost 10 years and didn't have any problem with it.
I'd love to see malwarebytes include firewall or packet monitoring.
I initially thought Malwarebytes seemed gimmicky aimed at consumers and pricey at first, billed at $8.99 monthly (paid annually $99.99) in comparison to say SpyBot S&D with AV at a tenth of the price per year, however saying that, Malwarebytes does have the additional benefit of installing on five devices per 'PLUS' license. They also offer a sixty (60) day money back guarantee. No AV scanner is perfect, but Malwarebytes does seem to be a good overall contender for eliminating most common threats and keeping vulnerable consumer equipment adequately protected. 👍
This is my opinion, I could be wrong. 😉
I am so happy you are testing Antiviruses again. Nice test!!! I use Malwarebytes and have tested it many times and it has never failed. Regarding your question about false positives, I would rather have more false positives than higher protection. Also, Malwarebytes seems to be better than Kaspersky based on your tests. Malwarebytes seems to really have updated their detection engines. Also, have a Happy New Year!!!
Great test 👍. Thank you for the test
Malwarebytes has an option to scan for rootkits, but you have to enable it in settings. It's a great product and worth the price.
malwarebytes is my favorite. I have been using it for years now
Thank you for your software evaluations.
They are a great help in the world of PC security.
Interesting stuff. Wonder how ESET would stack up in such a test.
Can you test the free version vs the premium?
It should be good as it’s been around about that long. I remember being given malwarebytes by a friends brother who was a techy back in 2002. And he was calling it good back when Mcaffee and norton were included with every pc.
i feel like false positives are something that should be easy to fix especially with AI-based protection, add an extra option when something is picked up to tell the program it is a false positive, this could then add it to a library of whitelisted files/programs that is sent home whenever malwarebytes checks for updates and is reviewed for use in improving the accuracy of the next update
train the detection based on a comparison between a blacklist of known malicious programs/files and a whitelist of known false positives
Thank you very much for this information. Happy New Year to you and your family.
i never had problem with false detection, is it possible that in the case of MOHAA and the others know like 3Dmark if it was properly installed in program files like other programs this detection would not happen ? its in a folder on the desktop and its not a shortcut isn't that suspicious enough for the detection to trigger
Few false positives is A-Ok in my book. False negatives would suck more.
I’ve been using Malwarebytes for the past few years & windows defender set to periodic scans. While learning C# a lot of the executables I made got flagged as malicious.
For me it would absolutely be worth having more false positives to reduce the risk of anything bad slipping buy.
Malwarebytes has always been my go-to antivirus software. Ease of use and great UI over a few false positives anyday.
The premium version already replaced defender before none premium does not and yes a little better after the update true but in my opinion there are still better and easier options not scanning network directories even with a home network is strange
I love these type of videos. I'm looking forward for more testing!
Happy new year! Test avast plz it's my favorite av
Exciting to see you test the new COMODO Internet Security 2024
nice video, you mind doing one with bitdefender?
I used to create scripts via AutoIT and Malwarebytes always flagged those scripts as trojans even though I was the one who created those scripts for automation purposes lol
I am impressed it did as well as it did. The false positives is a bit disappointing but at 1% or so, can't complaint too much.
MB is the shit. Used for years as primary AV on all my clients (I am MSP) Nothing has ever gotten by it (that I know) it constantly finds / fixess problems on new client PCs that ESET did not. A+. The free version does 90% of the premium too.
My take is that false positives are more than just annoying, because I dont know how to tell if something is falsely flagged as malicious, or actually is malicious
Im certain some false positves he got is from not having the game directory for the game launchers there. Iv had that happen before. But was all happy and well with it there.
In general most false positives also comes from programs that can read and/or change the memory of other programs. Or has the capability of injecting stuff that either changes memory or adds more stuff to add a new overlay or such. So id say 99.9% of the time i wouldnt worry that it is a false positive unless you use thos kind of softwares. And if you do one usualy knows where you find the officialy released program. (Not always)
And sadly false positives is something one always have to live with being a possibility but id say with a 1.x% false positives on what mostly seemed to be games without the game directory (of the detections) id honestly say you should be good. False positives are not that common unless you download "shady" stuff or go to "shady" websites.
Good to see these again :)
I think a some false positives are fine. It would be annoying, but that alternative is more damage to your computer or network. As long as I can "clear" or grant "permission" or an "exception" and Malwarebytes remembers it. Also, like that you tested false positives in your evaluation of MB. I hope you do that for all your AV tests in 2024. It would be interesting to see how all the big boys stack up to that. For note, I have not had any problems with Sophos. Been running it for about 2 years now. Thanks.
What if malwarebytes thinks medal of honor is a virus, because it did not find the game itself on PC?
Malwarebyte's pretty good and I used it on some computers ive built for friends. Personally i wouldn't use it thou as I still think that antivirus software is more something for less tech savvy people. Good video showing its strength thou👍
I mean tbf. Id say im pretty tech savy but still use MB. But i also do download some shady shit from time to time. So its also on me 😅 but i run some cracked softwares so if i ever go hunting for a new one i like having MB there.
good ol malwarebytes nerver disapoints in detecting anything it thinks as malware
it also detects PUPs btw
Bitdefender next! (I use it I need to know)
My computer is setup to deny first ask questions later. And generally run at risk programs such as browsers and email in secure sandbox.
I ALWAYS prefer False Positives. I used to do 0-day and they were notorious for malware droppers. These days I don't do the illicit software route for anything, so if something were to pop up blocked, I'd just add it to exceptions with confidence. Meanwhile, I know I'm mostly safe.
I remember when I tried this… It wasn’t on purpose. The sad part was that malwarebytes was out of the fight before it started because one of the viruses I had wasn’t letting me install it.
Good video. I would rather have false positives but have better protection
Nice job!
From my experience working inside Windows, Malwarebytes premium and Windows defender is all you need in addition to common sense. Everything else will just slow down Windows.
I've not used anything other than Windows Defender for years now. No issues at all.
I think the worst part Is If you just install Malwarebytes free its about as bad as having nothing at all, because defender is neutered. Malwsrebytes should not touch your defender of its not doing anything to your default unless you pay for a liscense.
I think false positives are a big problem and encourage blind clicking through, whitelisting, or disabling AV systems. While I don't personally have a problem with false positives being blocked (as long as they aren't quarantined or deleted), there are a lot of users who wouldn't be able to navigate this well and lowering the heuristics would be better.
The day when Malwarebytes will finally give some effort for the FE(ui and logic) will be the day I will buy it again. Good security is important on a home PC, but when I have to click a dumb pop-up a million times while using torrent I really come close to the question of finding a different av software
Would like to see a new Norton one just to see how they're doing
I'm totally fine spending a minute setting an exception for a file
Excellent video 👍 Thank you 💜
I love the good local Protection 98 % thanks for the good devlopers at malwarebytes
I think false positives are very annoying, but I also don't think they're a byproduct of good detection rates. That's why I use Kaspersky, best of both worlds. Basically no compromises.
I clicked on this because I have a lifetime membership with Malwarebytes.
Can you also please do a test on the free variant of malware bytes. How would it fair without an internet connection?
After my MB original install, it blocked legit and already installed programs from updating (they access Win temp folder when updating). Finally figured out it was MB blocking programs from completing their updates. MB never notifies it's blocking. Have to be aware of that every time I upgrade/update any program. And, then white-list program, in real time, and update completes. I don't think average end-user would figure this out and just assume it was their programs bugging out. Not good, MB!
Must say this sounds wierd. When you say original install. Do you mean back when the aw was new or more recent days. As iv personaly never had that problem in 10+ years on different computers. Could be a problem with your system itself at that point. Ofc not saying its 100% that is the problem but its a wierd problem never the less.
avast premium security next?
A real-time detection rate of 98.3% is exceptional
Going to use Malwarebytes this year.
I don't mind many false positives as long as it is easy to exclude them and get them running
Do you do security checks on links for Android? How can I send you a link that's suspicious for me ? Because I don't understand how the appk it's installed by Chrome with the "installation from unknown sources" turned off
If I have a free version of Bit Defender already installed in my system do I need Malwarebytes or any other similar software in addition to Bitdefender?
False positives aren't annoying but what is are anti-virus pop-ups like McCafee's endless subscription notices. It's one reason why I uninstalled Malwarebytes, having some perception and being vigilant while surfing the web and using Winders Defender is all I've needed, although it's not entirely foolproof given the amount of malware and viruses but it hasn't led me astray yet.
In my opinion a few False-Positives are acceptable bc the user has the ability to create exceptions to tune the AV. False-Negatives are far more worring because the user can't usually do anything about it.
Hey man, can you make a tier list for this year for best security software?