![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I don't see how the current version of the article could be considered an advert in any way, so that tag is removed. I also eliminate the information about them signing a contract with someone to help distribute their software, since I fail to see how that has anything to do with the software itself. Wonderful program by the way, I using it to eliminate the DNS changer trojan, when nod32 failed. Dream Focus 03:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The official website links to the CNET download site to give out the free version, and mentions the Editor's Choice award. So that information is quite relevant, and should be in the article. I also mentioned how many millions of people have downloaded it so far, that demonstrating just how successful and well received the product is. Dream Focus 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Reception" section doesn't seem balanced and only focuses on positive reviews. Laurent ( talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This reads like an AD posted by either the author of MalwareBytes or someone they paid. On the contrary, MalwareBytes has lots of bad reviews (A simple Google for MalwareBytes Sucks draws out a few), thus is not received well by everyone as this post suggests. It also does not work as well as this page suggests (Just test it). The entire page is one big advertisement. I vote for permanent removal as this topic is not suiting for a wiki of this caliber and the author is in denial of blatant NPOV. D2SP ( talk) 10:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason that's there? I don't understand how that is relevant. I've never seen any other articles mention something like that. When it comes up for renew in 2010, he'd surely renew it then. Dream Focus 13:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The current version [1] is ridiculous. You don't need a citation that there is a freeware and a paid version of it. You look at their website to confirm that information. And a lot of valid information was removed along with the rest. Why is it put in the category Malware, which is for viruses, while the categories for Antivirus software and spyware removal were removed? If those categories exist, and something fits them, they should be put in them. Why eliminate mentions of the Washington Post, and the link to that article? Its like someone working for their competition came through and tried to destroy them. There is not a single legitimate news source out there which said anything negative about it that I am aware of. If you find any, then post it. But don't go erasing all the good reviews from major sources like the Washington Post. Dream Focus 10:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Found lots of sources using google news. See here. TechOutsider ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If there are two versions of the software the article is about, then you need to list the differences. That isn't an AD. Stop removing that. Look at other software articles. Dream Focus 10:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The quote from the article is:
And then the article reads:
Mark Gibbs from Network World gave MalwareBytes 4 out of 5, saying that the software does its job well, but that it does not provide good explanations of its results. He also reported that the program took more than four hours to scan his computer.
I had replaced the citation needed with a link to their website, confirming they had a free and paid version, but this was replaced with the citation needed tag again. Do you doubt the primary source for this information? Is it not obvious that there is a paid and a free version? Why do you have a citation needed tag next to that one sentence? Dream Focus 04:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It did say the others didn't manage to wipe out the rootkits either, but Malwarebytes did manage to get everything else, picking up somethings that others did not. They praised it for running much faster, using far less RAM than any others. It was suggested that it be used with other things. The mention of the review should include everything, not just the negative part, and certainly not fail to mention that none of the other things tested were able to get all the root kits either. You can't criticize them for not doing something, which no one else could do either. Good find though. I suggest using cquote when quoting something though. Dream Focus 23:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts? C2SP ( talk) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This page shows no chance for improvement. == Speedy deletion nomination of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware==
A tag has been placed on Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of
Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from independent
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
C2SP (
talk)
02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
As a user I found this article mildly helpful so I oppose deletion. Burressd ( talk) 01:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I see someone else has reverted it while I was reading through the new sources added. [3] After reading the review linked to at SoftPedia, and reading what was quoted from it, the selected quote did rather bias. The other freeware bits couldn't detect those rootkits either, which should've been mentioned. It did fine against other forms of viruses though, and received praise for being able to pick up things that other software could not, running fast, and using fewer resources. By only stating it failed to detect any root kits, it makes the software seem rather horrid. Unless you find a free malware scanning program that gets all or even most of the rootkits, you can't go criticizing any of them for something that none of them are able to do. Dream Focus 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know where the list of reliable sources is at? I can't find it. I was wondering if Bright Hub would count as a reliable source. Dream Focus 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who reads this "entry" can see it is an AD. Plain and simple. You take out the negative remarks and post only the positive remarks and for what reason? Why is it so important that all references are positive? This is not a fair and balanced "entry" and it should not be allowed to stay the way it is now; it must be changed and dramatically. Or else, I think this thing should be nominated for the THIRD time to be deleted. C2SP ( talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the [6] it took four hours to scan bit again. CNet describes the software is "relatively speedy malware remover". Everywhere I see reviews, talks about its speed compared to others. You can't mislead people by quoting the guy out of context, saying it took him 4 hours to do the scan. Unless you show a comparison of how long it took the same people to run other scans, then that information shouldn't be in there. Everyone please post Agree or Disagree, and state why if you feel like it. Dream Focus 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
[7] I believe mentioning how many millions of people have downloaded the software, to be a relevant fact, and it clearly referenced. One editor keeps trying to remove that information though. Articles for television shows list how many people watched it. Same thing here. It belongs in the article. Please state if you Agree or Disagree, so we can form consensus and not end up with another edit war like last time. Dream Focus 01:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (free demo, $25 to unlock all features) is a worthwhile addition to anyone's anti-spyware arsenal, because unlike some overly complex programs, it's easy to configure and use.
Using Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is simplicity itself. |
” |
I'd like other people's opinions please. Is this not a valid review? Dream Focus 09:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, here is another reason to kill the washington post link, It is an exact copy of the PC World review. C2SP ( talk) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The latest allegation is that MBAM cannot remove viruses. One problem is that the term virus means different things to different people. Many people use the term to refer to all malware, so in this sense MBAM removes viruses. Perhaps MBAM does not remove a single true virus, meaning programs that replicate themselves from computer to computer. If someone wants to say that MBAM does not remove true viruses, it should be made clear that MBAM does not remove true viruses but removes other malware, and a reliable source should be cited. -- Schapel ( talk) 23:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)I looked through the references and could not find one that makes this statement.
"IOBIT initially denied the claim, but Malwarebytes presented the public with a whole bunch of proofs. IOBIT eventually removed the definitions without making any comment.[citation needed]" Why can't this be removed? It isn't cited and not even written properly yet I can't seem to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeonlyjbk ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Odd. It seems to have changed now. Theeonlyjbk 04:25, 2 February 2010
I'm going to remove the partisan tag from Reception, as it doesn't seem to make any sense. How are PC World and CNET not neutral sources? I'd like some clarification before it gets readded. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I've semi-undone this edit, in that it doesn't accurately represent the source. If the product gets a 3.5 out of 5 and they say both good and bad things about the product, then we need to reflect that. To put an entirely negative spin on the review is inaccurate. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This section is just promotional Gat101 ( talk) 12:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Try addressing the issue and gaining consensus, instead of making ad hominem attacks against people just because they disagree with you and want to see the article be more neutral instead of one-sided. The section I marked as unbalanced serves no purpose other than to promote this product - you might want to read up on WP:PROMOTE. Alternate viewpoints should be added to balance it out, instead of just including a collection of "isn't this software wonderful!" links Gat101 ( talk) 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The new version 1.75 adds archive scanning [2]. Also I cannot understand the logic that it can remove malware without recognising it. Seems illogical, and needs checking. Widefox; talk 21:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
"enterprise"
[Also, Wikipedia at some places refers the user to a talk "page" when the user should be referred to a talk tab (that will open a talk page). Otherwise a novice user may be left searching for a large page when only a small icon is available.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.75.144 ( talk) 15:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone like to change the title to Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (without an apostrophe)? The software doesn't have it, look link.-- Adûnâi ( talk) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I installed this thing several weeks ago, forgot about it and just now wondered what it does, so I came here to find there's not much information. Clicked the [3] /info/en/?search=Malwarebytes#cite_note-zdnet.com-10
FYI "Anti-Exploit" is something new and distinct from their standard "anti-malware" scanning software. I'm trying to find out (and then make available to wikipedia readers) what they both are and what the differences are between the two. The source given is inadequate and virtually meaningless.
reference link (10) to a zdnet article and this is the only text that applies:
Zero-day attacks are a nightmare for businesses that use Windows because, by definition, there is no patch to prevent them, and traditional anti-virus programs may not have signatures to identify them. Some anti-virus companies have used approaches based on heuristics — identifying virus-like behaviour — to block them, but Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit takes a different approach: it shields selected applications from attack.
"We're not looking at how but at what," said Pedro Bustamante, Malwarebytes' director of special projects, in a telephone interview. "We're looking at the attack behaviour rather than the malware behaviour."
Exploit attack behaviour includes things like redirects and attempts to corrupt memory and download executable code. All this happens before the virus is even downloaded. It precedes any analysis of malware behaviour, which is the basis of heuristic defences.
The result is very light weight (3MB) background protection program that runs alongside traditional anti-virus software. It's very low-maintenance because it doesn't use or need any virus signature updates. You just install it then forget about it.
Which, IMO isn't very much. Very general, very market-y and very buzzword-y. Without getting too advanced, there should be some way to describe what it does in layman's terms. Jonny Quick ( talk) 06:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
zdnet.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I don't see how the current version of the article could be considered an advert in any way, so that tag is removed. I also eliminate the information about them signing a contract with someone to help distribute their software, since I fail to see how that has anything to do with the software itself. Wonderful program by the way, I using it to eliminate the DNS changer trojan, when nod32 failed. Dream Focus 03:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The official website links to the CNET download site to give out the free version, and mentions the Editor's Choice award. So that information is quite relevant, and should be in the article. I also mentioned how many millions of people have downloaded it so far, that demonstrating just how successful and well received the product is. Dream Focus 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Reception" section doesn't seem balanced and only focuses on positive reviews. Laurent ( talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This reads like an AD posted by either the author of MalwareBytes or someone they paid. On the contrary, MalwareBytes has lots of bad reviews (A simple Google for MalwareBytes Sucks draws out a few), thus is not received well by everyone as this post suggests. It also does not work as well as this page suggests (Just test it). The entire page is one big advertisement. I vote for permanent removal as this topic is not suiting for a wiki of this caliber and the author is in denial of blatant NPOV. D2SP ( talk) 10:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason that's there? I don't understand how that is relevant. I've never seen any other articles mention something like that. When it comes up for renew in 2010, he'd surely renew it then. Dream Focus 13:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The current version [1] is ridiculous. You don't need a citation that there is a freeware and a paid version of it. You look at their website to confirm that information. And a lot of valid information was removed along with the rest. Why is it put in the category Malware, which is for viruses, while the categories for Antivirus software and spyware removal were removed? If those categories exist, and something fits them, they should be put in them. Why eliminate mentions of the Washington Post, and the link to that article? Its like someone working for their competition came through and tried to destroy them. There is not a single legitimate news source out there which said anything negative about it that I am aware of. If you find any, then post it. But don't go erasing all the good reviews from major sources like the Washington Post. Dream Focus 10:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Found lots of sources using google news. See here. TechOutsider ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If there are two versions of the software the article is about, then you need to list the differences. That isn't an AD. Stop removing that. Look at other software articles. Dream Focus 10:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The quote from the article is:
And then the article reads:
Mark Gibbs from Network World gave MalwareBytes 4 out of 5, saying that the software does its job well, but that it does not provide good explanations of its results. He also reported that the program took more than four hours to scan his computer.
I had replaced the citation needed with a link to their website, confirming they had a free and paid version, but this was replaced with the citation needed tag again. Do you doubt the primary source for this information? Is it not obvious that there is a paid and a free version? Why do you have a citation needed tag next to that one sentence? Dream Focus 04:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It did say the others didn't manage to wipe out the rootkits either, but Malwarebytes did manage to get everything else, picking up somethings that others did not. They praised it for running much faster, using far less RAM than any others. It was suggested that it be used with other things. The mention of the review should include everything, not just the negative part, and certainly not fail to mention that none of the other things tested were able to get all the root kits either. You can't criticize them for not doing something, which no one else could do either. Good find though. I suggest using cquote when quoting something though. Dream Focus 23:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts? C2SP ( talk) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This page shows no chance for improvement. == Speedy deletion nomination of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware==
A tag has been placed on Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of
Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from independent
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
C2SP (
talk)
02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
As a user I found this article mildly helpful so I oppose deletion. Burressd ( talk) 01:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I see someone else has reverted it while I was reading through the new sources added. [3] After reading the review linked to at SoftPedia, and reading what was quoted from it, the selected quote did rather bias. The other freeware bits couldn't detect those rootkits either, which should've been mentioned. It did fine against other forms of viruses though, and received praise for being able to pick up things that other software could not, running fast, and using fewer resources. By only stating it failed to detect any root kits, it makes the software seem rather horrid. Unless you find a free malware scanning program that gets all or even most of the rootkits, you can't go criticizing any of them for something that none of them are able to do. Dream Focus 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know where the list of reliable sources is at? I can't find it. I was wondering if Bright Hub would count as a reliable source. Dream Focus 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who reads this "entry" can see it is an AD. Plain and simple. You take out the negative remarks and post only the positive remarks and for what reason? Why is it so important that all references are positive? This is not a fair and balanced "entry" and it should not be allowed to stay the way it is now; it must be changed and dramatically. Or else, I think this thing should be nominated for the THIRD time to be deleted. C2SP ( talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the [6] it took four hours to scan bit again. CNet describes the software is "relatively speedy malware remover". Everywhere I see reviews, talks about its speed compared to others. You can't mislead people by quoting the guy out of context, saying it took him 4 hours to do the scan. Unless you show a comparison of how long it took the same people to run other scans, then that information shouldn't be in there. Everyone please post Agree or Disagree, and state why if you feel like it. Dream Focus 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
[7] I believe mentioning how many millions of people have downloaded the software, to be a relevant fact, and it clearly referenced. One editor keeps trying to remove that information though. Articles for television shows list how many people watched it. Same thing here. It belongs in the article. Please state if you Agree or Disagree, so we can form consensus and not end up with another edit war like last time. Dream Focus 01:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (free demo, $25 to unlock all features) is a worthwhile addition to anyone's anti-spyware arsenal, because unlike some overly complex programs, it's easy to configure and use.
Using Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is simplicity itself. |
” |
I'd like other people's opinions please. Is this not a valid review? Dream Focus 09:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, here is another reason to kill the washington post link, It is an exact copy of the PC World review. C2SP ( talk) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The latest allegation is that MBAM cannot remove viruses. One problem is that the term virus means different things to different people. Many people use the term to refer to all malware, so in this sense MBAM removes viruses. Perhaps MBAM does not remove a single true virus, meaning programs that replicate themselves from computer to computer. If someone wants to say that MBAM does not remove true viruses, it should be made clear that MBAM does not remove true viruses but removes other malware, and a reliable source should be cited. -- Schapel ( talk) 23:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)I looked through the references and could not find one that makes this statement.
"IOBIT initially denied the claim, but Malwarebytes presented the public with a whole bunch of proofs. IOBIT eventually removed the definitions without making any comment.[citation needed]" Why can't this be removed? It isn't cited and not even written properly yet I can't seem to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeonlyjbk ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Odd. It seems to have changed now. Theeonlyjbk 04:25, 2 February 2010
I'm going to remove the partisan tag from Reception, as it doesn't seem to make any sense. How are PC World and CNET not neutral sources? I'd like some clarification before it gets readded. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I've semi-undone this edit, in that it doesn't accurately represent the source. If the product gets a 3.5 out of 5 and they say both good and bad things about the product, then we need to reflect that. To put an entirely negative spin on the review is inaccurate. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This section is just promotional Gat101 ( talk) 12:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Try addressing the issue and gaining consensus, instead of making ad hominem attacks against people just because they disagree with you and want to see the article be more neutral instead of one-sided. The section I marked as unbalanced serves no purpose other than to promote this product - you might want to read up on WP:PROMOTE. Alternate viewpoints should be added to balance it out, instead of just including a collection of "isn't this software wonderful!" links Gat101 ( talk) 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The new version 1.75 adds archive scanning [2]. Also I cannot understand the logic that it can remove malware without recognising it. Seems illogical, and needs checking. Widefox; talk 21:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
"enterprise"
[Also, Wikipedia at some places refers the user to a talk "page" when the user should be referred to a talk tab (that will open a talk page). Otherwise a novice user may be left searching for a large page when only a small icon is available.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.75.144 ( talk) 15:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone like to change the title to Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (without an apostrophe)? The software doesn't have it, look link.-- Adûnâi ( talk) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I installed this thing several weeks ago, forgot about it and just now wondered what it does, so I came here to find there's not much information. Clicked the [3] /info/en/?search=Malwarebytes#cite_note-zdnet.com-10
FYI "Anti-Exploit" is something new and distinct from their standard "anti-malware" scanning software. I'm trying to find out (and then make available to wikipedia readers) what they both are and what the differences are between the two. The source given is inadequate and virtually meaningless.
reference link (10) to a zdnet article and this is the only text that applies:
Zero-day attacks are a nightmare for businesses that use Windows because, by definition, there is no patch to prevent them, and traditional anti-virus programs may not have signatures to identify them. Some anti-virus companies have used approaches based on heuristics — identifying virus-like behaviour — to block them, but Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit takes a different approach: it shields selected applications from attack.
"We're not looking at how but at what," said Pedro Bustamante, Malwarebytes' director of special projects, in a telephone interview. "We're looking at the attack behaviour rather than the malware behaviour."
Exploit attack behaviour includes things like redirects and attempts to corrupt memory and download executable code. All this happens before the virus is even downloaded. It precedes any analysis of malware behaviour, which is the basis of heuristic defences.
The result is very light weight (3MB) background protection program that runs alongside traditional anti-virus software. It's very low-maintenance because it doesn't use or need any virus signature updates. You just install it then forget about it.
Which, IMO isn't very much. Very general, very market-y and very buzzword-y. Without getting too advanced, there should be some way to describe what it does in layman's terms. Jonny Quick ( talk) 06:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
zdnet.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).