Malwarebytes 3.2 promises better memory usage and stability - gHacks Tech News

Malwarebytes 3.2 promises better memory usage and stability

Malwarebytes, maker of the security product of the same name, have released Malwarebytes 3.2 Beta which promises better memory usage and other improvements.

The company has been fighting will all sorts of issues after the release of Malwarebytes 3.0 and the merging of all company products into a single application.

Core issues that users of the new application version experienced were high memory usage, stability issues, and issues with functionality. The latter especially with components that would turn themselves off automatically, or would not turn on at all in first place.

Updates to the program have improved the situation, but it is still far from ideal. The issue with components seems to have been fixed for instance, judging from my own experience with the software and user comments on recent updates to the program. Memory usage is still pretty high however, especially when compared to the latest 2.x versions of the security software.

Malwarebytes 3.2

malwarebytes 3.2

Memory usage has been improved further in Malwarebytes 3.2. The main process, MBAMSrvice.exe drops below the 200,000 K mark on 64-bit versions of Windows. While that is good, I still consider Malwarebytes to be a fairly heavy program especially since it runs three processes on Windows machines.

The developers of the software have fixed several stability related issues in the new version as well. This includes crashes and hangs related to the service and tray application, but also the user interface.

Malwarebytes added an option to the application to download and install beta versions of the application automatically. Users interested in those had to download the updates manually up until now to install them on devices running the software.

malwarebytes 3.2 beta

It is usually not a good idea to install beta software on production systems, but if you want cutting edge and don't mind running into bugs every now and then, this may be an option. Also, useful to test new versions of the security software early before deploying them on production systems or on a wider scale.

You find the new option under Settings > Application > Beta Application Updates.

The "install application updates" button in the program interface will download and install new components now regardless of limits that may be in place in regards to automatic updates.

You find additional information on the changes and the download link for the new Malwarebytes 3.2 Beta update on the official company forum.

Now You: Which security software do you run primarily?

Summary
Malwarebytes 3.2 promises better memory usage and stability
Article Name
Malwarebytes 3.2 promises better memory usage and stability
Description
Malwarebytes, maker of the security product of the same name, have released Malwarebytes 3.2 Beta which promises better memory usage and other improvements.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo

We need your help

Advertising revenue is falling fast across the Internet, and independently-run sites like Ghacks are hit hardest by it. The advertising model in its current form is coming to an end, and we have to find other ways to continue operating this site.

We are committed to keeping our content free and independent, which means no paywalls, no sponsored posts, no annoying ad formats or subscription fees.

If you like our content, and would like to help, please consider making a contribution:

Comments

  1. X said on July 31, 2017 at 12:03 pm
    Reply

    Malwarebytes became scumm. Do not install.

    1. T J said on July 31, 2017 at 4:04 pm
      Reply

      @ X

      “Malwarebytes became scumm. Do not install.”

      Granted the current version is top heavy but have you looked at Win 10, Chrome, FFox ?
      With 25 tabs open, Chrome and FFox use over 800 MBytes of memory EACH. Malwarebytes uses about 400 MBytes. Use Windows Task Manager to check this.

      Why is Malwarebytes “scum(m). An explanation of such an obtuse comment would be appreciated.

  2. Andy said on July 31, 2017 at 12:06 pm
    Reply

    I had to give up on this application. Went back to just the built in Defender in Windows 10.
    I have a pro lifetime license that I was grandfathered in with but just con’t care. It has been a buggy mess for a year now.

    1. Straspey said on July 31, 2017 at 2:58 pm
      Reply

      @Andy –

      I also have the lifetime subscription and experienced the same problems with the upgrade to MBAM 3

      Fortunately, I was able to completely uninstall the new version, along with all its registry traces – and I had to locate the place where the already-downloaded upgrade was waiting to be installed and delete that manually.

      Then I re-installed the last version of MBAM 2 (2.2.1.1043) – and then I immediately configured the program to not check for newer versions when it checks for definition updates – which is easily accomplished by simply un-checking an option in the update config area.

      As a result, I continue to happily run the pro version of MBAM 2.2.1.1043 – with real-time protection and malicious website protection – and automatic definition updates.

      If you have a lifetime subscription and still have your username ID and serial number handy, you might want to give that a try, because MBAM 2 is still a very effective and useful program – without all the problems which comes with version 3.

      I’m looking forward to the day when they finally work out all the issues and I can upgrade, but for now this solution works very well. IMHO.

    2. intelligencia said on July 31, 2017 at 6:16 pm
      Reply

      @Andy

      You share my sentiments exactly!
      I have been a Die-Hard Stan of Malwarebytes for years and have always had the Pro Lifetime version.
      However, at this time (and at other times) I had to completely Uninstall it as it continued to cause Instability issues with my laptop.
      I still believe (and this is only conjecture on my part) that outside entities continue to mess with the Malwarebytes.com website and as a result, the behavior of these external miscreants adversely affects the end users’ computer experience!

      i

  3. seeprime said on July 31, 2017 at 12:31 pm
    Reply

    I installed 3.2 over 3.12. It required two installation runs and two reboots, I presume the first install and reboot only uninstalled version 3.12. The second install was automatic, but it again asked for a reboot to finish the installation. A scan took under 5 minutes on my SSD. It seems to be faster than v.3.12 at this time. I’ll keep it. I use the free version. It gives the option of an automatic scan, but the only choice is daily. Even with automatic scans turned off, MB still leaves the tray application running, which has to be closed manually to free up RAM. I’d really like to see that rectified. I’ve installed MB on hundreds of customer computers, some of which pay for it. It still needs some polish.

  4. Lugo said on July 31, 2017 at 1:48 pm
    Reply

    I am using Prevention King Comodo Internet Security. No infection on my computer after installing it.

  5. Nik said on July 31, 2017 at 1:56 pm
    Reply

    version 3 series is just terrible and confusing

  6. JSB said on July 31, 2017 at 1:57 pm
    Reply

    Unfortunately, Malwarebytes seems to be going down the same horrible road that Norton, McAfee, and all the rest do. They stray from their lean, mean, focused roots and try to do everything. With every update they load more bloat. I swear…somewhere they all have a section dedicated to making your toast in the morning.

    I’m convinced that their strategy for keeping machines malware free is to make them so sluggish that owners rip out all the cables and throw them in a closet. No way it can get malware if you can’t use it, right?

    Personally, I still install and use version 2 on most client machines (with the check for program updates feature off). And I’ll continue doing so until they get their act together.

  7. Mike J. said on July 31, 2017 at 2:22 pm
    Reply

    I couldn’t get the new version (3.0, I guess) to install at all. I went back to 2.2. Works fine.

  8. chesscanoe said on July 31, 2017 at 2:24 pm
    Reply

    I paid for Malwarebytes several years ago but have not used it for over two years. I may try it again in the future, but the application reputation has been tarnished for too long to trust it now. On Windows 10 x64 CU Home I run Defender concurrently with AVG Internet Security, and this seems to work well – no conflicts and together they seem to cover the functions I require.

  9. Dhananjay said on July 31, 2017 at 2:26 pm
    Reply

    Windows Defender, ADW cleaner (because windows defender is not good against PUP) and basic knowledge gained through tech website like yours.

  10. Mike said on July 31, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Reply

    Have it installed on both my desktop and laptop, both lifetime versions.
    Sold it to multiple clients, all (myself included) are happy campers…

  11. kalmly said on July 31, 2017 at 3:18 pm
    Reply

    I’m just sticking with my old version of Malwarebytes and updating the database. I like one-trick ponies. Simple, slim, and quick. It never seems to improve anything when a company starts bulking out their programs with additional functions. I suppose that Malwarebytes will cut off the ability to update one of these days. Then I will uninstall it and either find something else or do without.

    Maybe by then I will be using Linux because of what MS has done to Windows. :(

    1. Ron said on July 31, 2017 at 9:02 pm
      Reply

      I’ve been sticking with my old version also (1.75 I think). I’m surprised it still allows me to update the database. As long as that works, I’ll stick with the old version. Once it stops, I’ll have to switch to something else. BTW, this is on my wife’s computer; I’ve already switched to Linux (Mint) on my own computer because of MS’s shenanigans.

  12. Andreas said on July 31, 2017 at 3:20 pm
    Reply

    I dropped Malwarebytes not long after upgrading to 3.x. They delivered patch after patch to improve general stability but… they didn’t help really. They have lost their touch.

  13. Tom said on July 31, 2017 at 4:18 pm
    Reply

    Daily at work I came across nasty emails that while not delivering a virus they are well crafted presenting links to download fake docs etc. Using Virus Total to scan normally only Bitdefender and Malawarebytes signal the treath on the link but only Bitdefender blocks the downloaded gift…

  14. Steve W said on July 31, 2017 at 7:05 pm
    Reply

    Yes, earlier versions of Malwarebytes 3 had serious problems. But now it is really much better. I’ve had no problems with it recently. You can criticize them for releasing it too early – but give them credit for their constant work to improve it as well.

  15. Sputnik said on July 31, 2017 at 8:46 pm
    Reply

    I have a lifetime license since 2008 and I am still confident in this software.

    Yes, there has been some issues when the v3 was launched, but now I may say that Malwarebytes runs OK with just a refuse to launch the Malware Protection from time to time, but it is not frequent.

    Yes, there is a relatively big amount of memory needed (300,000 K in my case) but I have enough memory (8GB) to handle it considering what I do with my computer.

    I am asking myself the question if the people who complain about the memory consumption do it because they really doesn’t have enough memory and that their memory runs most of the time near 100% or if they just don’t want to see their memory running currently at 65, 70 or 75% when they do ordinary jobs or multitasking.

    When I do multitasking I may run at about 70% of the memory but there is no problem at all, my computer is as fast as usual when I’m just surfing and downloading with a memory at about 40%.

    Recently I have solved 2 issues I had with my computer and Malwarebytes was not faultive.

    I have used CleanMem for a couple of years but finally decided to inactivate it recently : no more problems when I do multitasking (because I had such problems at this moment), everything goes faster. Those who use this software should try to inactivate it just for a test.

    I have also inactivated another software, Samsung Magician, with the only reason to gain a little boot time, but this software wasn’t showing any sign that it was creating any problem of any sort.

    After I have inactivated it, I saw that in fact it was creating some problems because, for one reason or another, it provoked the “WmiPrvSE.exe”, a standard Windows exe, to run at about 25 % for a minute or two when I was booting. Since I have inactivated it this exe dosn’t cause anymore problem.

    I know that these issues doesn’t have any relation with Malwarebytes but I tought it was important to warn the people about these two peculiar softwares.

    1. Sputnik said on July 31, 2017 at 10:47 pm
      Reply

      And now I would like to answer the question “Now You: Which security software do you run primarily?”.

      COMODO Firewall (free)
      SpyShelter Premium (lifetime license)
      Malwarebytes Premium (lifetime license)
      360 Total Security (free)
      SUPERAntispyware Pro (lifetime license)
      SpywareBlaster (free)
      TOR Browser
      Opera Browser (with VPN)

      All of these security softwares run perfectly well each one with each other, no security issue since a couple of years.

      COMODO Firewall is certainly one of the strongest parts of this group, I use it since many years and I am very satisfied with it. Even if it is reputed to be effective against keyloggers, I use it in conjunction with SpyShelter, just to be sure and anyway they work fine one with each other…

      I put a great trust in Malwarebytes which I find very effective and as I said in my previous comment, the initial problems with v3 are behind for most part of them.

      I run 360 Total Security since a year in replacement of Avira AntiVir, but it’s 3 exe use a total of 535,000K of memory, with Avira and Bitdefender scan engines on. But it runs well and has more security layers than Avira. It is the most well rated antivirus on Gizmo’s :

      http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-anti-virus-software.htm

      SpywareBlaster has a totally transparent action because it just adds some domain’s name to the hosts file.

      SUPERAntispyware is the weaker software of this group, usually it just pick up spyware cookies with the scan or some supposedly infected setup files of usually long time ago downloaded softwares.

      I am inclined to think that with all these good security softwares I am maybe as well protected as the protection supplied by the best full Internet Security Suites that sells on the market.

  16. Anonymous said on July 31, 2017 at 8:55 pm
    Reply

    Another great program ruined with bloat. I was a fan of MBAM for on-demand scans until version 3…

    I’m using the MBAM 2.2.1.1043 like others mentioned here, along with Windows Defender (without real-time protection). Both are only for on-demand scans.

    It’s a risk to use Windows without any real-time protection, but Windows Defender is weak anyway and my MBAM copy is free. Besides, when it comes to this, I like the approach of “better safe than sorry”, i.e hardening the browser against malwares itself and checking every file I download.

  17. CHEF-KOCH said on July 31, 2017 at 9:31 pm
    Reply

    I’ve never understood the hype about this on-demand solution.

  18. Curtis K said on August 1, 2017 at 2:56 am
    Reply

    I will wait until stable.

  19. Lindsay said on August 1, 2017 at 4:50 am
    Reply

    I have used MBAM for several years and also have a lifetime subscription. I uninstalled MBAM when version 3 came on the scene as it was a nightmare. However, I gave it a try again recently and the program works well with only one bug for me. Instead of simply updating the definitions (which is set to automatic) when I haven’t used the computer for a couple of days a pop-up appears reminding me to update the definitions, and clicking the X doesn’t get rid of it. Apart from that minor issue I am happy with the new version.

  20. sauceforthegoose said on August 1, 2017 at 9:55 am
    Reply

    black boxes scanning black boxes.

    i’d love to see the code.

    @ CHEF-KOCH:

    “I’ve never understood the hype about this on-demand solution.”

    Windows still isn’t ready for the desktop. Do you know how to do the SAMBA dance?

  21. Cassette said on August 1, 2017 at 1:44 pm
    Reply

    MB used to be one of my essential Windows staples before the ugly merge wrecked it.

    Martin, could you review Sandboxie, I’ve been playing with this a bit, seems a really good idea.

  22. Wayne Ruppersburg said on August 1, 2017 at 10:38 pm
    Reply

    I tried 3.2 and found it slows down my OS. I tried every revision before 3.2 all of them with problems.

    I’m using MBAM 2.2.1.1043 again. Scan times don’t matter to me…but slowing down my OS does matter!

    Too many functions are bundled together in 3.2! This affects performance of the OS. I wish they could get this right.

    Much better to have stand alone versions of Anti-Exploit, Anti-Ransomware, and Anti-Malware.

    I will continue to use 2.2.1.1043 as long as I possibly can.

  23. Pete said on August 4, 2017 at 12:56 pm
    Reply

    Very frustrating, they still have no option for clearing the protection-history !!
    Besides its still bloated big ( about 250MB )……….
    Just uninstalled this buggy, bloated crap and went back to good old (?) 2.2.1-version again !

  24. TelV said on August 15, 2017 at 4:46 pm
    Reply

    Slightly off topic, but Malwarebytes for Android Premium version just forced itself on my smartphone. I say ‘forced’ because there’s no way of skipping the free 30 day trial in order to get to the menus.

    Also, the app tries to persuade users to encrypt their devices immediately by displaying the security audit menu with the encryption option in a red font. While encrypting a phone adds to its security features it can also slow performance and I’ve avoided it in the past for that reason.

    The Premium version also wants Administrator priviliges which I don’t like either so I’ve left that unchecked. I hope that serves to disable all the extras such as anti-ransomware and exploit protection. I don’t need those because I only use the phone to make calls and to chat.

  25. TelV said on September 19, 2017 at 9:00 pm
    Reply

    The latest full version namely 3.2.2.2029 was released on August 22 apparently, but because I didn’t turn on the option to receive Beta versions I only discovered the update this evening after doing a search on the Web. That’s a bit of a disappointment considering the fact that I do have a full license in addition to configuring Mbam to notify me when full versions become available.

    On this particular occasion I decided to take a look at Mbam’s Privacy Policy a link to which can be seen in Martin’s screenshot. That was updated on August 1 and it would appear that they collect quite a bit of data now and there are no less than 16 trackers on the home page. Since the application creates a unique ID during the installation process that number of trackers seems a little excessive. Consequently, I decided to opt out from providing usage data.

    Other than that, the update installed without a hitch I’m glad to say.

  26. FreeBurn said on September 23, 2017 at 7:18 am
    Reply

    Martin,
    thanks for your blog post. However, I’m not so sure MBAM are quite successful yet on the memory footprint side. Perhaps my MBAM 3.x experience will be of interest to the readers here.

    Apparently like many MBAM users I was upgraded to v3 series early this year, after which my machine became a hot mess. Lots of BSOD crashes, browsers wouldn’t connect to the Internet (“Server not available” message and the like), some apps would get automatically shut down within seconds of being started (particularly the IE browser), and most irritating of all everything took 10x-20x longer. I once timed a “switch user” action and it took 20 minutes (!!!) during which the machine was clearly not dead but totally unavailable for anything. After a long e-mail interaction with MBAM customer service folks, who were not able to solve any of my problems although I captured and reported all kinds of machine statistics for them, I was told to go back and install v2.2.1.1043. I did so, and then all those problems magically disappeared.

    Now a couple of days ago, somehow, I got told that the v3.2.2.2029 was ready for install. I thought about it for a while and said to myself “Self, it’s been 6 months since my last bad experience. Perhaps they have been working to improve it”. So I decided to try installing it. Several things are better (e.g. no more BSOD or app crashes), but overall things are still pretty bad: Some apps *still* get killed as soon as I launch them. Some apps take forever to launch. But most annoying of all is the memory usage.

    As I write this, MBAMService.exe has grown to 4.6GB (yes “G”, *not* “M” !!!) in an 8GB physical memory machine. And the process is sitting there *still* slowly growing its memory footprint and using a very steady 13% of CPU on a 4-core, 64-bit, Win 7 machine. When the machine first restarts MBAMService.exe goes into high gear using a steady ~25% of CPU with memory footprint growing by leaps and bounds, and user response time is shot to hell — apps take minutes to start, keyboard and mouse freeze for several seconds at a time, etc. It is only after the MBAMService.exe memory footprint has grown to around 800MB does user response time recover and I can start to get things done. But memory footprint keeps growing and several hours later, as I said, I’m looking at 4.6GB crowding out other processes, affecting response time because swap traffic to disk has increased drastically.

    Last year I had paid for an MBAM subscription in the thought that they were one of, if not the only, really good AV vendors, so much on the ball that their product is recommended by all the gurus as the first thing to try when attempting to diagnose and clean a suspected malware-infected machine. After all this I’m not so sure….

    Like the others on this thread, I’m going to roll back to 2.2.1.1043. I don’t know if it is obsolete and has weaknesses relative to the current crop of malware on the Internet, but at least it is usable.

    Has anybody else had any similar experiences? Is 2.2.1.1043 still an effective AV package?

    1. JSB said on September 23, 2017 at 4:25 pm
      Reply

      Has anyone else had similar experiences? Yes, absolutely. I’ve tried it on multiple systems, with differing operating systems/configurations, and have noticed EXACTLY the same symptoms you described.

      As I mentioned in my comment here back on July 31st, I will only install version 2.2.1.1043 on client machines now with the check for program updates feature turned off. And I’ll continue doing so until they get their act together.

      It’s been my experience that version 2.2.1.1043 is still an effective anti-MALWARE package. It is not a complete anti-VIRUS package, nor was it meant to be. It was meant to be used in conjunction with an antivirus product, after all.

      As I mentioned in my July 31st comment, Malwarebytes seems to be going down the same horrible road that Norton, McAfee, and all the rest travel. They stray from their lean, mean, focused roots and try to do everything. Version 2.2.1.1043 works so well because it focuses on specific things and leaves the rest to another product that, presumably, was designed to handle just those.

  27. AJ North said on November 3, 2017 at 6:30 am
    Reply

    Malwarebytes 3.3.1.2183 has been released. The full changelog may be found at https://www.malwarebytes.com/support/releasehistory/ .

    I’ve installed it over version 3.2.2.2029 and there have been no discernible issues (Win 7 Pro x64).

    1. TelV said on November 3, 2017 at 5:38 pm
      Reply

      Thanks for the tip AJ.

      1. AJ North said on November 3, 2017 at 5:54 pm
        Reply

        You are most welcome, TelV.

        Two minor differences that I have noticed since upgrading yesterday is that I have had to exclude a few sites that Outlook.com now scrambles with their recently adopted (and very annoying) “SafeLinks” system, and boot time seems to have increased very slightly (i7-3820QM & 512 GB Samsung 850 Pro SSD); other than that, so far, so good. :-)

        I hope that version 3.3.1 is also successful for you (and everyone else).

        Regards,

        AJ

  28. huggy said on January 27, 2018 at 7:37 pm
    Reply

    3.3.1 here and today (1/27/18) MBAMService.exe started eating RAM. I have 16G on this Win7 x64 SP1 machine which nominally uses about 6GB and it ran out of RAM – the MBAMService.exe was using almost 12GB! Tried restarting Malwarebytes, rebooting, reset swap file and cache – nothing – the MBAMService.exe just grows and grows. Uninstalling… Back to a stable system. Terrible how bad 3.x is.

    1. AJ North said on January 27, 2018 at 9:08 pm
      Reply

      Yes, I had a similar experience earlier today after MWB Premium had automatically updated itself.

      Cutting to the chase, what ultimately worked for me was completely uninstalling MWB by running their Malwarebytes Cleanup Utility, instructions for which and download link for current version can be found at https://support.malwarebytes.com/docs/DOC-1112 . (Following the system restart, I chose the option to download and reinstall MWB.)

      — PLEASE NOTE: for those running the Premium (paid) version, this procedure will DELETE licensing information (as well as customized application settings), so be certain that this information is safely recorded beforehand.

      Hopefully, this will work for you (and others) as well. Good luck!

      1. AJ North said on January 27, 2018 at 11:04 pm
        Reply

        Now more than five hours after the reinstallation, so far, so good: MWB Service is utilizing 287 KB of RAM in the Working Set; before the reinstall, RAM was nearly maxed-out (Win 7 Pro x64; i7-3820 QM, 16 GB DDR3, 512 GB Samsung 850 Pro SSD).

      2. TelV said on January 28, 2018 at 2:01 pm
        Reply

        Disable Beta application updates in the Settings menu. That way, you won’t get full releases installed automatically, but neither will you get Beta versions the latter of which can be buggy.

        It’s what I do anyway.

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.