Talk:Malwarebytes (software)/Archive 1

Speedy Deletion
Bizarrely, this article hasn't been hit with speedy deletion yet, so I'm taking a preemptive tack. Please don't delete this page, this program helped me get rid of a nasty browser hijacker that Ad-Aware, AVG, and HijackThis couldn't find, I just want people to be able to find it via wikipedia (if they're like me, this is where they look first for just about everything). That said, I know it's insufficient as such. There's another stub for the corporation, Malwarebytes, which was marked for speedy deletion, and you'll find a similar talk page with more of my meek pleading there. Both the company and the shareware are referenced by both spyware and malware.

Fredgoat (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there it is, speedy deletion. And this one for "blatant advertising" too! Also, I thought I fixed the Malwarebytes page, but apparently it was still "blatant advertising". I modeled both of these off lavasoft and ad-aware, I don't understand what I could've done differently, and the Malwarebytes article wasn't left up for even an hour before it was speedily deleted. I wonder if anyone will even read this before deleting this page, too. Why do I bother editing and contributing? I guess you guys have it all under control.

Fredgoat (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying desperately to walk the line between non-notability and blatant advertising...seriously, this is an important article, gorrammit! Thank you Ron Ritzman for taking off the SD. Maybe some other time I'll go over and try to remake a Malwarebytes page.

Fredgoat (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Stay
I also used this program to remove Antivirus Vista 2008 a while ago. I also ask that this article stay, I was having a fair amount of trouble finding something to remove it and this program did the trick. The article may not be the best in the world right now, but it will likely improve with time.--Arnos78 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Jejeje (or is Arnos a Malwarebytes agent? Oooh...) -Fredgoat (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This article still offers very little in any way that's not blatent advertising. Don't people just search google for stuff like this? Why is this article relevant to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubboy1969 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is anything relevant to Wikipedia? Why is the Ad-aware article relevant? "Relevant to Wikipedia" is a laughable concept. And speaking of "blatent", you are a "blatent" troll, and probably also a sock. If you're serious about critiquing the article in a meaningful way, try better and I'll play nice. -Fredgoat (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree -- I found someone talking about this program here, then went to WP to look it up. Then I tried it -- it was the only program out of five I tried that was able to painlessly eliminate the dreaded Vundo trojan from my system.  No I don't work for them nor have any stake in them -- check out my editing history and you'll see I've been an active WP editor for some time (but not so much recently...)  --Rehcsif (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

 * Why is the article neutrality being disputed?--EmpD++ (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure - could be related to the original speedy deletion suggestion being due to "blatant advertising" - somebody thought I must be a Malwarebytes agent when I first created the article. But I thought that was resolved. -Fredgoat (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So the one who put that useless thing may talk NOW or we shall close the case and remove it.EmpD++ (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like they took it off, but then Advertising was put back up by another user (who is NOT a vandal) for good reason, the article is a bit pro-A-M (partly because we're mostly here because we used A-M and it cleaned our computers the-way-other-brands-can't). I asked him what to do about that, we'll see what he suggests.  We should prolly take off the external link to the MWB forums (usually only have 1 link to any part of a website).  I admit I was thinking of taking off those youtube links myself... -Fredgoat (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Youtube links
These aren't appropriate for all sorts of reasons, especially when they come in groups of five. These will be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

MalwareBytes.org
I am suspicious of previously unknown "Anti-Virus" software. On the surface, this company seems honest, but I have difficulty finding independent opinions from reputable sources on it.

BTW, MalwareBytes.org does not link to this page (maybe that could redirect to this page?)

Also, this company has several other products that are not mentioned on this page such as RogueRemover, FileASSASSIN, RegASSASSIN, StartUpLite, Qoofix, E2TakeOut, and AboutBuster. It would be helpful to have more background on the company and its management as well as these other products.

I would think this page should be more focused on the pedigree of the company first, with later sections on ALL of its products. Maybe, even, this requires a page for the company and separate pages for each of its products? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.70.238 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see why you'd be concerned. Of the five citations in the article today, two are to the company's web site, one is to a blog, and one is to Youtube.  The fifth is to an unsigned but generally positive "Editor's review" at CNET's download site.  Without better sources, meaning WP:Reliable sources, the article is more likely to be put up for deletion than to be expanded.  As to providing any detail of this product's sister products, I think WP:Notability would apply also.  --CliffC (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand that this article needs some work. I'll try.  Problem is a computer techs vs. wikipedians.  We have to find a way to make this notable, well resourced, and presented in a non-POV format.  Yep .. it is what it says it is, but we have to write it right.  sigh ... damn rules ... LOL.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched Davis (talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)  oops... sig: Ched (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK .. First, the article should be Malwarebytes, or Malwarebytes.org rather than an individual product they offer. I'll work on it from that point of view at the moment, and we'll go from there.  Ched (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

reworked: Jan. 07, 2009
OK ... that's about all I can take for one sitting. Hopefully an improvement, but as mentioned above, this should be listed as the company rather than the program MBAM. Also, please allow a couple days for me to remove the redundant entries to the malwarebytes.org site, and figure which page should be listed as the goto page. I don't know if we can save this little gem or not, only TPTB will know for sure. I thought it was worth a shot, but often with the rapid change on the computer landscape, published sources can be difficult to find, and this company is relatively new by many standards. I think I can find news articles, but as I said, "published" books take time, and computer related info is often outdated before it can be published. Ched (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried, but I'm not gonna beat my head against a brick wall either. I have no desire to argue with another editor.  I'm not sure how a description of the files is "(WP:ADVERT, editorializing, WP:OR, whatever))" I've been a computer tech since the early 80's, so maybe my input doesn't belong here.  I don't understand the mindset of editors who want to delete information, nor do I have a desire to.  I think this particular article could benefit with more information, but I don't have any desire to edit war and fight for it either.  I wish the very best to any editors following me, and you're welcome to contact me if you have any questions.  Ched (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * lol yeah, I don't get it either. That's funny that you got harassed about it too, that makes you something like the 3rd or 4th editor who gets crap for writing anything at all about MB.  I'm about ready to believe in a conspiracy of Ad-Aware agents against the MB article.  It's looking great, though, superfluous thanks. Fredgoat (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Move
In line with TechOutsider's excellent reworking of this page, I've moved it to Malwarebytes. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Article improvements are duly noted and appreciated ;) Ched (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated TechOutsider (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware update
Malwarebytes released an update to MBAM that introduced a new content delivery network that distributes updates based on the location. Maybe this could be added to the article?

Securityadvisor - Talk | Contribs 21:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe. However, (say whaaat?!) removed the data, claiming it was original research. The information appears in the program UI itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 21:29, February 8, 2009


 * Wow, that's not my username... &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that I've noticed that TechOutsider's hard work, and HelloAnnyong's insistence of sticking to a strict adherence to the letter of policy and guidelines has gotten this article from a state of near deletion, to stub, to now start class. My compliments to all involved in the article. (I'm fine with this post being deleted as forumish, I just wanted to say something nice about everyone involved) Yes, I think I'll stop right here. Cheers all ;) — Ched (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I'll add a question. How would we go about citing the UI? — Ched (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is that important; it just states that there are 900 access points and thousands of servers hosting updates. I am thinking about a sshot; however I need to review policy. TechOutsider (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

<-- Actually, it might be more proper to see if malwarebytes.org has a screenshot, and what type of license they have - the way you fixed up the Norton sites. Another note, I remember seeing on a forum board somewhere that there are issues they are working on - in that 64-bit doesn't work as desired - I've been trying to find that page, but haven't yet. If you run across that thread anywhere, let me know and I'll put it into the article. Cheers ;) — Ched (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Note, program still runs on 64-bit, but real time protection is the issue. — Ched (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Forum address? 70.153.248.223 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider


 * Ahh ... I see you found it .. good work — Ched (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Update Screenshot
Not a huge issue; however could someone get a sshot of MBAM 1.33? TechOutsider (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

FileAssassian and MBAM
And I couldn't find any information aobut FA being integrated with Mbam. TechOutsider (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Boxshot
Couldn't find any information about Boxshot. What is it exactly? TechOutsider (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)techoutsider

MBAM vs. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
I've made a couple changes to the MBAM / Malwarebytes Anti-virus reverts. Hopefully this will be an acceptable compromise to all. — Ched (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Feb. 2009
I noticed this entry. I don't question the ref or even the statement; however, (and I hate this phrase) it should be noted that it is being compared to full blown anti-virus programs, where MBAM is a program designed to target specific items rather than as an anti-virus program. I'm thinking the wording should reflect this. — Ched (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Planning to revert to the previous layout
Sorry folks, but I think there are several pretty big problems with the rewrite. None of Malwarebytes' products other than MBAM appear to be particularly notable. Repurposing the article around the company when it's really only known for one product isn't a good idea. Furthermore, none of the issues givne in the previous version have actually been addressed; the article is still largely promotional, and most of the sources are either primary or unreliable (especially the forum link which states than MBAM removes "only three percent of malware", which a dreadfully misleading statistic).

As such, I think the article should be moved back to the old title and reverted to the pre-rewrite version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of the forum link - I agree. In the suggestion that it be reverted all the way back to the beginning of January, sorry, that would be a mistake for several reasons. 1.) It would remove the fair use image currently being used. 2.) it would remove a great many of the references, some of which are acceptable secondary sources. and 3.) it would be a step backward rather than forward in the improvement of the article.  Granted, given that the product is a single-use application (so to speak), getting much beyond start-class may not be possible, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater either. — Ched (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than the references given in the "Reception" section (which is admittedly a marked improvement), none of the new references are both secondary and reliable. The "Known issues" section is poorly-sourced junk and the "Other Products" section is irrelevant when only MBAM is notable. We shouldn't be trying to pad articles out with even less notable material just because they're short. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are POV issues with this article. I'll task it to WikiProject Computer Security, and see what we can do. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And I'll sandbox a section or two in an effort to bring the bulleted info into a more acceptable MOS style. Let's hold off on this revert to January thing for the time being - I'd hate to see all of TechOutsider,s hard work and research simply removed with a revert. In total, the article has already shown a great improvement since it was listed for XfD. Simply because it can benefit with more work isn't a reason to start over. — Ched (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)



"Furthermore, none of the issues givne in the previous version have actually been addressed; the article is still largely promotional, and most of the sources are either primary or unreliable (especially the forum link which states than MBAM removes "only three percent of malware", which a dreadfully misleading statistic)."

True, MBAM does detect >3% of malware according to SSUpdater.com. Anyways, I couldn't find any issues raised in the previous version of the article. I suggest keeping the info. on other products; it does pad the article a little bit :) TechOutsider (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsder

As for POV, I deleted the third-party reception section; nothing particularly notable. Also hoping to satisfy the ppl who started this. However, it was reverted as vandalism, eh? TechOutsider (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Forum statement
moved from article - please discuss: Since this item doesn't really fit WP:RS, I moving it here to discuss. also see: WP:SELFPUB. Now if consensus says it should remain, I'd request that it also state the fact that the forum that did this testing, tested MBAM against 30-day trial, and commercial grade anti-virus and anti-spyware programs. Since MBAM is a nitch item so to speak, it is not normally run in the types of testing that ssupdater did. — Ched (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * MBAM has been shown to have very poor detection capabilities and detects less than 3% of malware.ref
 * also replace this ref with 3rd party reference. — Ched (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Out for a bit - getting crosseyed with refs. — Ched (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't mention that MBAM detects less than 3% of malware; that can be removed. As for the other forum references, I was attempting to specifically ref to a MBAM developer/moderator at the forums. TechOutsider (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider


 * Naaa .. not you, some IP dropped a line in the article about the 3%. It was some forum that compared Malwarebytes to full-service packages (like NIS, Nod32, AVG, etc.). Was a real POV post, rather than saying that it was comparing MBAM to commercial software.  I just replaced the MB forum ref so no one could come back and say it was not in line with WP:RS or something.  I think SS used rollback for one of em, it disappeared from history.  No Worries - how's the article look to you by the way?  I was shooting for a better WP:MOS. — Ched (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

← I don't agree with removing the reception section - that's pretty standard stuff. Let's consider putting that back in, and maybe cleaning up the wording rather than deleting it. — Ched (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it can be found somewhere other than a forum, then I don't mind it. I've had a very difficult time finding information about the company, FYI. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So, basically, someone from an unregistered IP tried to say something about MBAM detecting >3% of malware. True, it does detect >3% of malware; however that is according to ssupdater.com, not exactly considered a reliable source because:


 * The site hosts and promotes links to keygens/cracks. Just look at the first post in their forums atthis thread. An "Administrator" level poster provided a link to a keygen for Norton AntiVirus/Internet Security. The admin, which goes by "Littlebits", even provides support to users that have not experienced success using the patch.
 * They also have "do-it-yourself" tests, where they provide you the samples. I looked through the samples; and they were unreliable. There were many instances of malware from w95...???At this page, they said they picked some older samples; however the only ones that posed a risk of widespread outbreak. I believed that those malware are basically detected by any AV and patches have been issued by Microsoft.
 * Their latest test provides very little details on the testing methodology. They have a speed and a user friendliness test as well; however no procedures were mentioned anywhere.
 * Their site was closed for a while recently for posting links to illegal stuff. They had to get a different host.

Also, read this thread. An over zealous poster ... Max Zorin ... strongly argued against MBAM, questioning the POV of many of the Wilder forums members and overall, questioning the neutrality and brushing in the possibility that many of the people at Wilders worked for MBAM or were affiliated with M BAM. He claims that MBAM cannot detect much of today's advanced threats; only one person staff and 5000 sigs (actually, there are 8 ppl and there are 5000 generic sigs). And he refs to SSUpdater's test.

Max's last post is here. He wants his membership to be deleted. The time he posted was February 7th, 2009, 07:33 PM.

Max is also a member (a VIP actually) at SSUpdater. He recently made a thread titled "wilders is dead" and basically proclaims that they are all slanted towards MBAM. Note his second post, he is rather sarcastic; "Fantastic, they have delted my membership!"

The post time was: Feb 7 2009, 08:06 PM

Sounds like he did not expect his account to be deleted. He apparently tried to make it look like Wilders deleted his account to shut him up, basically. Well, that's my story, and I believe the guy behind the IP address editing this article and saying it's non- neutral POV is Max. Not that I am a die-hard supporter of MBAM; I just happen to have used it a bit from recommendations and wanted to improve this article. If you look at the norton forums (me now banned from there), MBAM is recommended in every other post. Thanks for hearing me out. TechOutsider (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Oh, forgot to mention my Utopian vision for this article. Let's


 * restore the list; who ever wrote up the paragraph, I am very disappointed in. If the concensus is that we should not restore the paragraph, then maybe we should delete it. In WP:MOS, the lists requirements state:

"Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs."

That section is far from readable.


 * keep out the critical reception section.


 * Keep the known issues section; I wasn't citing the forum; rather a developer's statement.

Allright? Let's try to reach a consensus instead of us each making our own edits. TechOutsider (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider


 * Sounds good to me. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as the all clear ... TechOutsider (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider


 * Whatever - I wouldn't want to interfere with your "Utopian vision for this article" — Ched (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored the Other Products section; it "pads" the article, honestly. And I kept the statement about restricted user priv. and MBAM; i was referencing to a MBAM developer TechOutsider (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider


 * The article does not need to be "padded out" - it needs to be returned to its original title, which obviates the need for such. None of the other products have a single reliable secondary source; they aren't notable, and needn't be mentioned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright then, whatever. TechOutsider (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

It isn't an antivirus program
Technically, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware isn't an antivirus program. It is an anti-malware program but if you don't want that then it can fall under the antispyware category. Malwarebytes itself has stated that MBAM isn't an antivirus.
 * — Securityadvisor Talk Contribs | 22:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree - not an anti-virus program.
 * @Chris - not sure what name you want to call the article. "Malwarebytes Corporation"? While I agree, the other products are not themselves notable, (and don't deserve an article for themselves), they do describe the article topic - which is Malwarebytes.  I still think the section that lists the items should be in paragraph form, and stating that 3 of the single purpose tools are no longer listed for download on the products page (the individual pages still exist though if you happen to have them bookmarked).  But I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch one way or the other on the format.  Just not that big a deal really. — Ched ~  (yes?) 23:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And agree, articles should not be "padded" as such either. Clear, concise, relevant information - in a readable format. I can't remember what the old title was for the article though.  Don't know if going through talk history would find a consensus for name change, but I thought we had agreed on "Malwarebytes" .. either way - I'm open for suggestions. — Ched ~  (yes?) 23:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Found in history " Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware " ... Jan. 10. ... I prefer it as is myself - (consistent with other programs)

but I won't argue with a change if the group prefers something else. — Ched ~ (yes?) 23:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ad-Aware rather than Ad-Aware Anti-Spyware
 * Spybot - Search & Destroy rather than Spybot Search & Destroy Anti-Spyware

Advertorial
I removed the "third party" mentions from the "Reception" since the source is a non-credible affiliate website, which makes money from sales of Malwarebytes. I also removed the glowing recommendation of Malwarebytes from Cleverbridge, the company which runs said affiliate program. Please don't add these back. 216.223.143.38 (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)