On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 21:55:25 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
 wrote:

>There have been many discussions about bugs in MBAM v2.x and whether we 
>should "switch" from v1.75 to the newer v2.20 product.
>Although Malwarebytes has not yet officially retired v1.75, Malwarebytes is 
>now applying signatures for "file level scanning" that are v2.x dependent. 
>That means v1.75 will now fail to detect many files in which the new v2.x 
>signature constructs are applied to. This can create a False Negative 
>situation where v1.75 will fail detect malware on a PC not because they 
>aren't yet detected but because the that version will not detect them. At 
>this time this also is a problem with Virus Total. They are using a v1.75 
>based engine so files that are detected with v2.20 will not be shown to be 
>detected on Virus Total as well.
>
>Malwarebytes has been silent about this change and that's not good. It is my 
>opinion that applying signatures for "file level scanning" that are v2.x 
>dependent should NOT have been implemented until v 1.75 was officially 
>retired.
>
>Therefore it is my "strong" recommendation that all users, using the free or 
>paid-for version of MBAM v1.75, must now move to v2.20.
>
>MBAM v1.75 is no longer reliable, viable or "safe" to use.


Is there any [point to having Malwarebytes in addition to Kaspersky?
Do they duplicate each other, supplement each other, or serve
different functions.  Their web pages seem more designed to confuse
rather than enlighten, or maybe it's just me, I am old.
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2