Re: Malwarebytes v2.0/2.0.1 issue with system restore!

[Shadow]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 06:49:34 +0000 (UTC), Dustin <abugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.filehippo.com/download_malwarebytes_anti_malware/comments/
>
>
>
>try making a restore point with v2.00 installed (if you havent tried this),
>then restoring to that point thats where my prob lies. get a message "system
>restore did not etc etc.....error is due to anti-virus,please try again with
>antivirus switched off" same happens when i disable it.
>
>my computer only restores sucessfully to a point where v.1,75 was installed.
>thought it was a prob with my windows - until i saw others with same problem.
>strange...and a shame-because aside from the new UI, i liked some of the new
>features on 2.0. will keep trying
>

Regshot captured a 27.8 Mb (uncompressed) log of system
changes when I installed Malwarebytes. It appears to create a new
user. Maybe someone could repeat the process in a virtual install ....
If I roll back my registry, I'll lose a lot of cracks, I mean,
registry enhancementes.
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[Jax]

Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote in
news:8hrvj9h6oscbnsu61...@4ax.com:

Malwarebytes creaes a new user. What's that for then? Just wondering.

--
Jax :)

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Dustin" <abugh...@gmail.com>

> http://www.filehippo.com/download_malwarebytes_anti_malware/comments/
>
> try making a restore point with v2.00 installed (if you havent tried
> this),
> then restoring to that point thats where my prob lies. get a message
> "system
> restore did not etc etc.....error is due to anti-virus,please try again
> with
> antivirus switched off" same happens when i disable it.
>
> my computer only restores sucessfully to a point where v.1,75 was
> installed.
> thought it was a prob with my windows - until i saw others with same
> problem.
> strange...and a shame-because aside from the new UI, i liked some of the
> new
> features on 2.0. will keep trying
>

> ***CONFIRMED ISSUE ON TWO SYSTEMS*** Cause presently unconfirmed, but
> suspected Malwarebytes new kernel hook driver.
>

This is uncorroborated and has not been reproducable and no reports have
been filed in the Mlwarebytes' Forum - Yet.



--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Jax]

Dustin <abugh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA306A4B58982BC9...@94.75.214.90:

> Jax <remove.bea...@gmail.com> wrote in news:XnsA306A53B38DB4JAX@
> 127.0.0.1:

>
>> Malwarebytes creaes a new user. What's that for then? Just wondering.
>

> Ask one of your techs, dumbass.

Dustin.... Shadow posted that Malwarebytes "appears to create a new user."
It should tell the user it is going to that because that's a potential
breach of system security!

--
Jax :)

[p-0''0-h the cat (ES)]

Jax, Malwarebytes gets shilled on ACF more that your Billy shilled Google.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme, the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its
murderers], lowlife troll, shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR],
cripple, sociopath, kook, smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot,
imbecile, snittish scumbag, liar, total ******* retard, and shill.

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

[Jax]

"p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super...@furryfreeware.invalid> wrote in
news:lhrm5j$i5d$1...@news.mixmin.net:

> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:20:41 +0100, Jax wrote:
>
>> Dustin <abugh...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA306A4B58982BC9...@94.75.214.90:
>>
>>> Jax <remove.bea...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA306A53B38DB4JAX@ 127.0.0.1:
>>>
>>>> Malwarebytes creaes a new user. What's that for then? Just wondering.
>>>
>>> Ask one of your techs, dumbass.
>>
>> Dustin.... Shadow posted that Malwarebytes "appears to create a new
>> user." It should tell the user it is going to that because that's a
>> potential breach of system security!
>
> Jax, Malwarebytes gets shilled on ACF more that your Billy shilled
> Google.

Pooh Cat..... when Google was the first and only search engine Billy
foretold that it was destined for greater things. As usual he was
right! :)

--
Jax

[p-0''0-h the cat (ES)]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:31:41 +0100, Jax <remove.bea...@gmail.com>
wrote:

We are indeed blessed here on ACF to have both Dusty and the Bear in our
midst.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,

liar, total ******* retard, shill, and scouringerer.

[Geoff]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:31:41 +0100, Jax
<remove.bea...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pooh Cat..... when Google was the first and only search engine Billy
>foretold that it was destined for greater things. As usual he was
>right! :)

Google was NEVER the first and only search engine. The first web
search engine was WebCrawler, followed closely by Lycos with AltaVista
not far behind in 1994. Google didn't exist until 1998 and at that
time it was known as goto.com.

[Jax]

Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:fd16k9hg7j844ok7d...@4ax.com:

Geoff.... Google was launched at the true start of the Internet.

--
Jax :)

[Shadow]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:31:41 +0100, Jax
<remove.bea...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pooh Cat..... when Google was the first and only search engine Billy
>foretold that it was destined for greater things. As usual he was
>right! :)

But as usual, he had no idea on what those "greater things"
were. He never mentioned selling data and the NSA.

I've given up on Google as a search engine. It cannot find
anything anymore, it's like Dustin's old tagline (slightly adapted).

I searched Google for "laxatives"
Hit "I'm Feeling Lucky"
Results:
"Can you drive a truck?"

I'm Binging and Yandexing now.
[]'s

Try Googling for Hexmines v 4.01 (Hex32.zip) by Antony Pranata
(who now works with Linux). Mission impssible on Google. I found it on
other search engines.

[Geoff]

:)

I see, but I think you meant to say the true Internet didn't start
until Google was launched. Just ask them.

[Clamidia Ramsbottom, Secretary, Woman's Institute, Walmington-on-Sea]

Everyone knows Bill Gates invented the Internet silly.

Cucumber sandwich?

--
Women know your place!
Ironing the bedlinen - Super fun.
Flower arranging - One must do one's bit you know!
Rimming the Vicar - He just adores me

[Dusty Bin]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:15:42 +0100, "Clamidia Ramsbottom, Secretary,
Woman's Institute, Walmington-on-Sea" <c...@bearshit.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 08:03:53 -0700, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:34:02 +0100, Jax
>><remove.bea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:fd16k9hg7j844ok7d...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:31:41 +0100, Jax
>>>> <remove.bea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Pooh Cat..... when Google was the first and only search engine Billy
>>>>>foretold that it was destined for greater things. As usual he was
>>>>>right! :)
>>>>
>>>> Google was NEVER the first and only search engine. The first web
>>>> search engine was WebCrawler, followed closely by Lycos with AltaVista
>>>> not far behind in 1994. Google didn't exist until 1998 and at that
>>>> time it was known as goto.com.
>>>
>>>Geoff.... Google was launched at the true start of the Internet.
>>
>>:)
>>
>>I see, but I think you meant to say the true Internet didn't start
>>until Google was launched. Just ask them.
>
>Everyone knows Bill Gates invented the Internet silly.
>
>Cucumber sandwich?

*** FORGERY AND LIES BY POOH! ***

I invented the Internet so I could show you all how clever I am before I
destroyed you!

[p-0''0-h the cat (ES)]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:18:53 +0100, "Dusty Bin" <du...@hax0r.invalid>

You need to relax Dusty. Go and play with your guns or something
dangerous like electricity.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,

the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infāme,

the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,

liar, total ******* retard, shill, and scouringerer.

[Geoff]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:15:42 +0100, "Clamidia Ramsbottom, Secretary,

Woman's Institute, Walmington-on-Sea" <c...@bearshit.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 08:03:53 -0700, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:34:02 +0100, Jax
>><remove.bea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:fd16k9hg7j844ok7d...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:31:41 +0100, Jax
>>>> <remove.bea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Pooh Cat..... when Google was the first and only search engine Billy
>>>>>foretold that it was destined for greater things. As usual he was
>>>>>right! :)
>>>>
>>>> Google was NEVER the first and only search engine. The first web
>>>> search engine was WebCrawler, followed closely by Lycos with AltaVista
>>>> not far behind in 1994. Google didn't exist until 1998 and at that
>>>> time it was known as goto.com.
>>>
>>>Geoff.... Google was launched at the true start of the Internet.
>>
>>:)
>>
>>I see, but I think you meant to say the true Internet didn't start
>>until Google was launched. Just ask them.
>
>Everyone knows Bill Gates invented the Internet silly.
>
>Cucumber sandwich?

Not Bill, it was Al "information superhighway" Gore. Bill Gates
invented the personal computer, but only 640k of it.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Dustin" <abugh...@gmail.com>

> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in news:
> _YedndzBHKld39zO...@giganews.com:

>
>> From: "Dustin" <abugh...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> http://www.filehippo.com/download_malwarebytes_anti_malware/comments/
>>>
>>> try making a restore point with v2.00 installed (if you havent tried
>>> this),
>>> then restoring to that point thats where my prob lies. get a message
>>> "system
>>> restore did not etc etc.....error is due to anti-virus,please try again
>>> with
>>> antivirus switched off" same happens when i disable it.
>>>
>>> my computer only restores sucessfully to a point where v.1,75 was
>>> installed.
>>> thought it was a prob with my windows - until i saw others with same
>>> problem.
>>> strange...and a shame-because aside from the new UI, i liked some of the
>>> new
>>> features on 2.0. will keep trying
>>>
>>> ***CONFIRMED ISSUE ON TWO SYSTEMS*** Cause presently unconfirmed, but
>>> suspected Malwarebytes new kernel hook driver.
>>>
>> This is uncorroborated and has not been reproducable and no reports have
>> been filed in the Mlwarebytes' Forum - Yet.
>

> You're incorrect.
>
> https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=145327
>
> First post, notice the date. It's well before I mentioned MBAM and System
> restore not playing nicely together.
>
> The ***CONFIRMED issue attached is from me. *I* have confirmed this
> problem
> on two of my own systems, thanks.
>
> I'm not in the habit of talking shit about apps failure/success. Maybe
> that
> isn't what you inferred here, but it's certainly how I took it.
>
> Have a nice day!
>

Its not reproducable. People have tested MBAM v2 with System Restore w/o
consequences. Yet we know that there are times that one may try to restore
from a System Restore break point and it fails. There has to be a
connection, and action and a reaction and it has not been established that
MBAM2 inhibits restoration from a System Restore break point.

If you have done it, post the process and lets see if it is reproducible.

[p-0''0-h the cat (ES)]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:11:14 +0000 (UTC), Dustin <abugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I see...The OP and myself are clearly imagining things if the experts at
>Malwarebytes can't preproduce this. Gotcha. I'll keep further bugs I find
>to myself, no worries.

Good. This is ACF, my playgroup, not Malwarebyes. Debug and display your
team building skills elsewhere.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,

the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Dustin" <abugh...@gmail.com>

> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in

> news:j8-dnbjDhs4icNjO...@giganews.com:

> I see...The OP and myself are clearly imagining things if the experts at
> Malwarebytes can't preproduce this. Gotcha. I'll keep further bugs I find
> to myself, no worries.
>

I'm sorry you feel that way Dustin.

In actuality it was tested outside of Malwarebytes by some "critical"
testers. I write critical because they are VERY dipleased wikth this
release and if it was confirmed it would have been a critical fault they
would have used against the Malwarebytes crew. But, it wasn't confirmed.

[p-0''0-h the cat (ES)]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:17:58 +0000 (UTC), Dustin wrote:

> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in

> news:raGdnfpPcodM3drO...@giganews.com:

> It's okay. I'll release my full bug report soon enough, with instructions
> for repeating it, how it should be fixed, why it shouldn't have ever been
> there in the first place, etc...

>
>> In actuality it was tested outside of Malwarebytes by some "critical"
>> testers. I write critical because they are VERY dipleased wikth this
>> release and if it was confirmed it would have been a critical fault they
>> would have used against the Malwarebytes crew. But, it wasn't confirmed.
>

> I'm beyond a critical tester. I don't like the company or the crew and once
> that NDA is expired...

<sigh>

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll

infāme, the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its

murderers], lowlife troll, shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR],
cripple, sociopath, kook, smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot,

imbecile, snittish scumbag, liar, total ******* retard, and shill.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Dustin" <abugh...@gmail.com>

< snip >
> It could be a coincidence that mbam is switching to a yearly subscription
> model and taking greater effort to prevent being converted to a portable
> app by people. But, alas, the ida pro window I'm looking it is telling me
> otherwise here. MBAM is *still* loading the entire database into memory
> for
> scanning/protection purposes too. The memory eating issue isn't a bug or a
> glitch, it's a design flaw.
>

That's a fact. That's one reason they cull the database of old sigs no
longer getting detections.
{ At least that's the excuse. ;-) }

I told Marcin that Malwarebytes has "lost its way" and that was prior to
v2.0 even being put to Beta. They seemed to have ignored the Beta responses
and created an artificial and fixed release date whether MBAM v2.0 was ready
for market or not.