MBAM


G

gene

I've been seeing recommendations for Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, so I
decided to try it the other day. The program itself ran fine, but
immediately following the install my computer would crash on start up,
sometime after the XP desktop appeared, and then restart. Each time
this cycle repeated twice, then the third time startup would complete.
Today I removed MBAM and startup has returned to normal. Does this
sound like a conflict? I didn't log the startup. I have other
choices for anti-malware programs, but am curious what might have
been going on. Other things running at startup include the following
(mostly free versions):

Comodo PF
AVG
WinPatrol
Spybot
Secunia
modem
Edison
Mailwasher
Ad Muncher
Bookmark Buddy
Comodo BOC Clean
YPops
Cobain
Realtek audio manager
MSI PC Alert

Gene
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Kayman

I've been seeing recommendations for Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, so I
decided to try it the other day. The program itself ran fine, but
immediately following the install my computer would crash on start up,
sometime after the XP desktop appeared, and then restart. Each time
this cycle repeated twice, then the third time startup would complete.
Today I removed MBAM and startup has returned to normal. Does this
sound like a conflict? I didn't log the startup. I have other
choices for anti-malware programs, but am curious what might have
been going on. Other things running at startup include the following
(mostly free versions):

Comodo PF
AVG
WinPatrol
Spybot
Secunia
modem
Edison
Mailwasher
Ad Muncher
Bookmark Buddy
Comodo BOC Clean
YPops
Cobain
Realtek audio manager
MSI PC Alert
Comodo PFW is a very badly coded application. I'd get rid of it and
re-activated the WinXP in-build application.
 
G

gene

Kayman said:
Comodo PFW is a very badly coded application. I'd get rid of it and
re-activated the WinXP in-build application.

Use MS's firewall over Comodo (or a number of others)? You've got to be
kidding.

Gene
 
S

Stu

I got involved in a discussion with the benefits or otherwise of a third
party PF versus the Win XP one several days back. I think the outcome was a
PF can confuse the `average home user` with warnings they may not always
understand. Better to let the Windows Firewall do its work without any user
input - not that I`m suggesting it is not a good firewall. I can well
understand this view if you are situated in a corporate environment with an
IT professional to take care of business. But as a `Home User` I very much
like to have some indication of what is trying to get out as well as into my
computer. My argument is WD does the same when confronted by installations
which attempt to make changes to your system and its important to understand
what it is trying to tell you. If I don`t understand you can `bet ya` I`ll
make every effort to find out. If in doubt then one can always Deny. This may
have the effect of preventing an application from doing its work but I`ve
always felt this will become apparent with time and is a better option than
posting a sad story on here. I guess it all boils down to knowing and
understanding what`s installed on your computer. As I`ve said before, for me,
education is the key. I`ve used ZA for several years now and have found it to
be a very reliable PF which has never given me any serious problems of the
type you seem to be experiencing. BTW I do not have any promotional interests
at heart.

Good luck.

Stu
 
G

gene

Stu said:
I got involved in a discussion with the benefits or otherwise of a third
party PF versus the Win XP one several days back. I think the outcome was a
PF can confuse the `average home user` with warnings they may not always
understand. Better to let the Windows Firewall do its work without any user
input - not that I`m suggesting it is not a good firewall. I can well
understand this view if you are situated in a corporate environment with an
IT professional to take care of business. But as a `Home User` I very much
like to have some indication of what is trying to get out as well as into my
computer. My argument is WD does the same when confronted by installations
which attempt to make changes to your system and its important to understand
what it is trying to tell you. If I don`t understand you can `bet ya` I`ll
make every effort to find out. If in doubt then one can always Deny. This may
have the effect of preventing an application from doing its work but I`ve
always felt this will become apparent with time and is a better option than
posting a sad story on here. I guess it all boils down to knowing and
understanding what`s installed on your computer. As I`ve said before, for me,
education is the key. I`ve used ZA for several years now and have found it to
be a very reliable PF which has never given me any serious problems of the
type you seem to be experiencing. BTW I do not have any promotional interests
at heart.

Good luck.

Fair enough. If I was rigorous about it, or I get motivated, I'd run
XP's logging startup and see what the problem is. It's pretty rare
that I come across such obvious conflicts. It was pretty common when I
had a Mac LC back in the 90s and was one of the reasons I switched over
to a Windows machine.

Gene
 
B

Bill Sanderson

Fair enough. If I was rigorous about it, or I get motivated, I'd run
XP's logging startup and see what the problem is. It's pretty rare
that I come across such obvious conflicts. It was pretty common when I
had a Mac LC back in the 90s and was one of the reasons I switched over
to a Windows machine.

Gene

I had a Mac user complaining that no mail was coming into his machine from
our Exchange server the other day. The mail app complained that it got no
answer from the server on a particular port. I couldn't spot anything wrong
with the server end, and none PC or Iphone or Blackberry or Thunderbird
users were seeing problems.

I rebooted the Mac and the issue went away. I thought that was a Windows
trademarked fix!
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Kayman

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:00:11 -0600, (e-mail address removed) wrote:

Use MS's firewall over Comodo (or a number of others)? You've got to be
kidding.

No, I am not!

Okay, let me guess, your knowledge in relation to PFW's is based on reading
pertinent articles in websites owned and created by these software
manufacturers. You may even looked at websites listing comparative "testing
results" of PFW's. And I can't blame you for believing all that hype. Heck,
you may even feel good about if a balloon pops up requesting you to follow
certain tasks (even though you probably don't know what the balloon message
was all about...).
It may be beneficial for trying to get a more balanced view about this
particular issue.
If you're really interested and concerned about Internet Security than
research this issue more diligently as advertisement driven and sponsored
publications should be taken with a ton of salt! Though I realize that
reading articles authored by renowned internet security specialists are not
very appealing to some, oh well.

Good luck :)
 
K

Kayman

I got involved in a discussion with the benefits or otherwise of a third
party PF versus the Win XP one several days back. I think the outcome was a
PF can confuse the `average home user` with warnings they may not always
understand. Better to let the Windows Firewall do its work without any user
input - not that I`m suggesting it is not a good firewall. I can well
understand this view if you are situated in a corporate environment with an
IT professional to take care of business. But as a `Home User` I very much
like to have some indication of what is trying to get out as well as into my
computer.

Sadly, you completely and utterly misunderstand the issue!
 
S

Stu

OK. So how do you see the issue? Not altogether sure where you are coming
from or are you talking on some `higher level` beyond my comprehension??
Please expand and I`ll be happy to discuss. I`m willing to learn.

Stu
 
B

Bill Sanderson

Here's one bit to read--but maybe we already had this (or was it the MSDN or
Technet article) in this thread--or was it another??

http://blogs.technet.com/jesper_johansson/archive/2006/05/01/426921.aspx

Here's a later blog from Jesper after he left Microsoft--he's now a lowly
MVP, and a couple of other MVP's or ex MVP's have comments:

http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesper/archive/2007/07/19/at-least-this-snake-oil-is-free.aspx

So--this particular industry expert has been a Microsoft employee. He's not
the only one talking about this issue, though. Most such experts really
aren't being paid to address the audience this information needs to
reach--home users. Or, they are being paid by companies whose revenues
depend on those outbound-blocking firewalls.

The truth is that the XP and Windows firewalls have had almost no security
patches--none in many years now--and are absolutely as competent as any
other firewall at their intended purpose--keeping the bad guys out. If you
want to have a tool that lets you see outbound traffic and have the time and
energy to try to understand what you'll see, that's fine--but consider it an
educational tool, rather than a signficant improvement in the security of
your system.

(and, fwiw, Stu--I agree with your mention of confusing messages--that is
certainly part of the issue with outbound firewalls--but not the whole
problem.)
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Stu

Many thanks for the reference material Bill - very interesting reading. Hmm.
Now I find myself in a dilemma. Should I bin my latest subscription to ZA and
place my faith with the Windows FW? I notice Jesper makes all references to
Vista - Oh to have a computer capable of accepting it. Hardware is my problem
but, hey! Who`s complaining? I`ve become rather attached to my old notebook.

I guess the important point to remember is that MS has learnt lessons from
the past and expanded functionality in those areas of security. I almost find
myself looking forward to the day my HD crashes beyond repair (catastrophic
motherboard or CPU failure might be more convincing?), so that I can justify
to my `missus` the expense of a new computer. I know the time will eventually
arrive when we will eventually have to part company with some regrets - the
computer that is <smile>

Stu

Stu
 
S

Stu

BTW. I have never seen MVPs as lowly people (but I know where you`re coming
from) in the industry - rather a breed of professionals to be treated with
some respect and admiration for the good advice they give. In my book you
guys have earnt your status. Just thought I`d like to add that point......

Stu
 
B

Bill Sanderson

Yeah - I should learn--many folks have rules out there looking for their
names so they can spot references in forums and groups. The MVPs are a
pretty broad bunch--we're definitely highly honored to have Jesper among
us--his level of professional expertise is so many worlds beyond mine that I
can't begin to characterize it. However, we do share the attribute that we
both spend voluntary time helping others with stuff we believe in.
 
G

gene

Kayman said:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:00:11 -0600, (e-mail address removed) wrote:



No, I am not!

Okay, let me guess, your knowledge in relation to PFW's is based on reading
pertinent articles in websites owned and created by these software
manufacturers. You may even looked at websites listing comparative "testing
results" of PFW's. And I can't blame you for believing all that hype. Heck,
you may even feel good about if a balloon pops up requesting you to follow
certain tasks (even though you probably don't know what the balloon message
was all about...).
It may be beneficial for trying to get a more balanced view about this
particular issue.
If you're really interested and concerned about Internet Security than
research this issue more diligently as advertisement driven and sponsored
publications should be taken with a ton of salt! Though I realize that
reading articles authored by renowned internet security specialists are not
very appealing to some, oh well.

It looks like the MBAM conflict was actually with Spybot free's resident
program, not Comodo PF. The very same XP crash x 2, meaning three
times boot to stability, occurred after I installed SuperAntiSpyware
Pro, with its resident program. Deleting Spybot from startup stopped
it. I'm guessing that Spybot didn't appreciate MBAM's presence either.
I hope that explanation is compatible with a "balanced view."

Gene
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

Bill Sanderson

That evidence does not surprise me. I guess I hadn't read the thread with
sufficient attention to notice that you were running the resident piece of
Spybot Search & Destroy.
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

gene

Bill Sanderson said:
That evidence does not surprise me. I guess I hadn't read the thread with
sufficient attention to notice that you were running the resident piece of
Spybot Search & Destroy.

Maybe I spoke prematurely. I discovered that the computer was now
making one crash/reboot out of Windows at start up (instead of two
before). I start testing by disengaging with Comodo BOC, and now
start up has gone through twice cleanly. However, I don't know yet if
that's luck on either score.

Gene
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top