Hacker News Reader

Comment by eyeball | Hacker News Reader

Malwarebytes used to be well regarded anti-malware software.

Are they shady now?

If you want to run their on-demand scanner you need to install a root level program that auto runs every time you turn on the computer.

It installs a half dozen always-on background processes, even on Mac. These processes are constantly phoning home [with an obfuscated payload].

I have written to them to ask why a on demand scanner is doing this and got no response.

I suspect that they have are highly regarded mostly because of good marketing.

By the way, they call themselves "Malware Bytes". History says that when someone tells you they have nefarious intentions, you should believe them.

However, none of that is related to this article, which is just them using some open source software without bothering to keep the license requirements.

> If you want to run their on-demand scanner you need to install a root level program that auto runs every time you turn on the computer.

To be fair, that's likely going to be a requirement to detect any malware that actively hides itself.

At most let it run once on the next boot cycle. Why every time after that?

Pretty much every anti-malware company is seen as shady by me.

Not at all, Mullvad is an outstanding VPN and one of the few that supports IPv6, and it's completely normal to re-brand existing technology. Even in that particular business it's very common: Many antivirus vendors use 3rd party antivirus scanners and databases instead of their own.

My only concern is that they discontinued their Chameleon project which allowed you to potentially run Malwarebytes on an extremely compromised machine, one with malware that actively tried to block and break anti-virus scanners[0]. Now you have to use the full MB application all while it doesn't allow single-run usage.

0: https://blog.malwarebytes.com/malwarebytes-news/2012/12/cham...

I really wish I could get a clear answer on this as well (for their anti-malware service, as I'm not particularly concerned with them white-labeling the same VPN service that Firefox white-labels).

It's explained in the article.

Not really, the article just discussed that they are fingerprinting and collecting data in these instances.

I also want to know if there is more to the story.

So you don't consider falsely claiming VPN tech as your own while also including a tracking gif on every page "shadey"? Guess we have different definitions...

Seems no different than Costco's Kirkland Signature brand. Private labeling something as your own that is made by someone else (and not disclosing who) is not really a new concept.

My Kirkland Signature Brand hotdogs don't include an embedded tracking device.

It wasn't just the fingerprinting and data collection that was mentioned. There were also out-of-date dependencies with known vulnerabilities. Also, their un-audited kernel driver.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com