On 05/01/16 02:55, 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.
>
>
Well, that's a shame. I loathe the 2.x interface.

(I also loathe the NOD32 v.9 interface. At least v.9 ought to work a 
while yet).
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2