WARNING: It is claimed Malwarebytes is appropriately named

[robert@fm]

According to a press release by PC Pitstop, and the comments on it, Malwarebytes is itself malware and will aggressively remove any (other?) malware protection you have installed.

 

[Ralph-YK]

Who is this PC Pitstop?

 

[Northerner]

I use Malwarebytes, alongside Windows Defender - I'd presume they can't remove that I've never heard of PC Pitstop either.

 

[Ljc]

I too use Malwarebytes also Norton ,so far I've had no probs.
Who on earth are PC Pitsop ?

 

[grovesy]

We use Malwarebytes have done for years with no problems,

 

[AlisonM]

Never heard of PC Pitstop, been using Malwarebytes for yonks with various other protections and had no issues of any kind. I'd be more suspicious of this PC Pitstop personally. Not been trumped up has it?

 

[Amigo]

I don't think that's what it's saying Robert. It seems to be one company PC Matic who are hacked off with Malwarebytes because Malwarebytes are reporting PC Matic as malware and removing it from people's machines.

 

[robert@fm]

I have just fed back the results of this thread to the original thread posted above. My comment is now "awaiting moderation". What's the betting that it just gets deleted?

 

[AlisonM]

I have just fed back the results of this thread to the original thread posted above. My comment is now "awaiting moderation". What's the betting that it just gets deleted?

Why would we do that? The title change has been made.

 

[Dave W]

The PC Pitstop article is a load of cobblers. Malwarebytes has contrary to the article, been reviewed and tested many times and is perfectly OK and quite highy rated. I used to use it and it was first class, though I now just rely on Windows Defender.

 

[robert@fm]

And for more perspective on this issue: 60 reviews of PC Matic.

This is looking to me more and more like the pot calling the kettle black, and attempted promotion via FUD.

I have myself occasionally been attacked by malware, but I have more often been attacked by anti-malware software not doing its job properly. Some years ago, I got BullGuard AV on a free 1-year trial, and had to disable it after a week because it kept deleting programs (important stuff which I knew wasn't malware) without a quarantine option or a "this is a false positive, just ignore it" option, so I removed it after a month because I reckoned that I could obtain its level of "protection" cheaper, and with less hassle, by simply not turning on the machine. I now call it "BullS**t AV".

Then I got a similar experience just over a year ago, with software called CCleaner (I don't know if it's supposed to be a full AV, or just a "clean up unwanted junk files" utility); the instant I ran it, it immediately deleted my entire browser history and start-menu "run" history, both to my view highly unwanted and undesirable actions. (I knew instantly because I lost all the browser tabs I had open, and had to reopen them manually; the run menu history is important to me because I have two main browsers on my machine, Firefox as my go-to browser for most actual browsing, and Chrome set as my default browser so that it acts as a magnet for all the crap, such as unwanted search engines, which bloatware sometimes tries to lumber me with, and thus keeps said crap away from Firefox, but I also need M$ Internet Execrable so I can top-up my gas card, and as I wouldn't otherwise touch it with a ten-foot pole, the run menu item is the only shortcut to it that I will allow on my machine.) So I stopped the scan and looked through the settings for the option to exclude browser and start-menu histories from the scan, only to find that there isn't any such option; that (dangerous) behaviour is hard-coded, again leaving me with no option but to uninstall the product. I prefer to rely for malware protection on my own common sense, rather than trust to "cures" which can be almost as bad as the disease.

Why would we do that? The title change has been made.

Sorry, I meant "what's the betting that PC Pitstop just delete my reply instead of moderating it?". I should hav phrased that one a bit more clearly.

 

[robert@fm]

And for more perspective on this issue: 60 reviews of PC Matic.

Reading that article, it has an interesting quote from PC Pitstop:

PC Matic is developed and supported by PC Pitstop – a reputable company that has been around for more than 12 years and been on the forefront of the fight against malware and computer safety.

So PC Pitstop are fighting, not only against malware, but also against computer safety?
And, just as I predicted, my reply to their thread has been deleted. Seems that they don't like it when a criticism of them is a consensus which they can't explain away as an isolated opinion. Looks like it's PC Pitstop who are appropriately named; they are the pits and ought to be stopped.

 

[mikeyB]

This is all complete gibberish to me. My PC is protected by Windows 10 built in security, which works just fine. I see no reason to acquire any oddly named programs that claim to be better, and neither does my computer man, who has carefully built my machine into an awesome beast. Avoiding malware is not rocket science.

 

[robert@fm]

I have allowed my WinZip Driver Updater licence to expire because that program proved to be a waste of time and effort; every single time it scanned my PC (which admittedly wasn't often, as I was told years ago that harm to the machine is minimised if you leave it powered up while not in use: so I only restart the machine if something goes wrong) it claimed that four of my drivers were years out of date (the same four every time, of course) and proceeded to download and reinstall them. I then needed to reboot the machine to "complete the reinstall" — and got the same warning again. So whether those drivers weren't actually wonky (and they seemed to have no other bad effect on the system) or WZDU couldn't in fact update them, one way or the other it was telling me porkies. Totally useless and pointless.

 

[AlisonM]

I'm glad we got that sorted then . I've greatly simplified my protection since being hijacked by Whinedoze 10 and dropped back to there in-house defender and MLB, it seems to be enough and there are far few problems, other than that scary 1 year anniversary present which I know have whipped into shape. I even gave Micros---e a bollocking over that and they arrange a 5Gb refund through my supplier.

 

[Vicsetter]

Then I got a similar experience just over a year ago, with software called CCleaner (I don't know if it's supposed to be a full AV, or just a "clean up unwanted junk files" utility); the instant I ran it, it immediately deleted my entire browser history and start-menu "run" history, both to my view highly unwanted and undesirable actions. (I knew instantly because I lost all the browser tabs I had open, and had to reopen them manually; the run menu history is important to me because I have two main browsers on my machine, Firefox as my go-to browser for most actual browsing, and Chrome set as my default browser so that it acts as a magnet for all the crap, such as unwanted search engines, which bloatware sometimes tries to lumber me with, and thus keeps said crap away from Firefox, but I also need M$ Internet Execrable so I can top-up my gas card, and as I wouldn't otherwise touch it with a ten-foot pole, the run menu item is the only shortcut to it that I will allow on my machine.) So I stopped the scan and looked through the settings for the option to exclude browser and start-menu histories from the scan, only to find that there isn't any such option; that (dangerous) behaviour is hard-coded, again leaving me with no option but to uninstall the product. I prefer to rely for malware protection on my own common sense, rather than trust to "cures" which can be almost as bad as the disease.

In defense of CCleaner, it analyses what it thinks are problems that need cleaning (and this usually includes all your cookie files) and it is then up to you whether to delete them or not, it doesn't delete anything until you click the Clean button. Full details of how to include/exclude files and folders are given on the Piriform website so if you don't want your cookies deleted then exclude the folder containing them (of course any malware might well be hiding in your cookie folder) or individual cookies.

I only use Firefox, as it does everything I need and use the Ghostery add-on so I can see what is being tracked (for instance this site has 3 add trackers in operation, one of which is blocked by Ghostery). I also set DuckDuckGo as my default search engine as this stops you being tracked by Google.

 

[mikeyB]

Sorry, lost you after the first line Vic

 

[robert@fm]

In defense of CCleaner, it analyses what it thinks are problems that need cleaning (and this usually includes all your cookie files) and it is then up to you whether to delete them or not, it doesn't delete anything until you click the Clean button. Full details of how to include/exclude files and folders are given on the Piriform website so if you don't want your cookies deleted then exclude the folder containing them (of course any malware might well be hiding in your cookie folder) or individual cookies.

That's not how the version of CCleaner I had worked; it did what I said it did in my post about it, regardless of what it is "supposed to do".

I have been reading a lot about this sort of thing over the past few days, especially an ad I saw on the Daily Mirror George Michael pages (for a supposedly "wonderful" and "free" product called ScanGuard, or ScamGuard as a lot of web sites are calling it; see https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/628976/suspect-scangaurd-security-suite/ for one example), and one thing I have learned is that to most Windows security experts, buzzwords such as "disk cleaner", "optimizer", "driver updater" etc. are indications to steer well clear of the product thus described.

 

[Vicsetter]

Sorry, lost you after the first line Vic

Sorry that was Roberts writing, I seem to have lost the Quote marks,

 

[mikeyB]

I really don't know why people buy these programs, at least those running Windows, because it has built in programs that do this sort of job, and can't really be improved upon, despite what the makers of these programs say.