Malwarebytes no longer supported in Vista?

[Vistaar]

...I have no problem running Malwarebytes Free v3.5.1 (the recommended Win XP and Vista compatible version downloaded from Malwarebytes 3 - Frequently Asked Questions) on my Vista SP2 machine...

That does not surprise me at all.

...Have you considered that some of the newer Win Server 2008 .sys drivers and .dll libraries you've applied to your Vista SP2 OS since April 2017 (or perhaps Windows registry changes you've made to activate TLS 1.1 and 1.2 protocols for secure https connections in your IE9 browser) are now causing problems with certain third-party software like MB v3.5.1?

Problems with that hypothesis include (1) no one else has reported an issue with MB 3.5.1 and (2) wither evidently has no issue with the older MB 2.2.1.
I would agree that possible breakage of legacy software is the strongest argument against installing those updates, but those who are determined to continue using Vista as a web-browsing platform against all advice had better install those updates anyway for added security.

 

[lmacri]

...I would agree that possible breakage of legacy software is the strongest argument against installing those updates, but those who are determined to continue using Vista as a web-browsing platform against all advice had better install those updates anyway for added security.

Hi Vistaar:

I only raised that possibility since there is another user posting in this forum who installs these Windows Server 2008 updates on their Vista SP2 machines and is currently reporting similar "The update is not applicable to your computer" errors on one laptop - see Visturalator's thread Service Pack 3 for Vista, yep, I got it! in the Windows Update board.

Their Vista SP2 desktop is fine but their Gateway laptop is experiencing several problems, and System Information shows this problem machine has Vista SP2 Service Pack 3 (not Service Pack 2) installed. I'm waiting for Visturalator to post a Speccy diagnostic but in the mean time I was wondering if a recent Windows Server 2008 update might have changed a Windows registry entry or updated some .sys or .dll file that makes it difficult for software installers to recognize the bit architecture and/or installed service pack on some Vista SP2 machines.
----------
32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * Firefox ESR v52.9.0 * Norton Security Deluxe v22.15.1.8 * Malwarebytes Free v3.5.1.2522-1.0.365

 

[Vistaar]

I only raised that possibility since there is another user posting in this forum who installs these Windows Server 2008 updates on their Vista SP2 machines and is currently reporting similar "The update is not applicable to your computer" errors on one laptop - see Visturalator's thread Service Pack 3 for Vista, yep, I got it! in the Windows Update board.

Their Vista SP2 desktop is fine but their Gateway laptop is experiencing several problems, and...I was wondering if a recent Windows Server 2008 update might have changed a Windows registry entry or updated some .sys or .dll file that makes it difficult for software installers to recognize the bit architecture and/or installed service pack on some Vista SP2 machines.

Visturalator most likely gets "the update does not apply to your system" when attempting to install Windows Server 2008 SP2 updates on the Gateway laptop because they are only compatible with Vista SP2 - not with SP1 or the mythical "SP3." I'm pleased to see that you are finally beginning to write about recovery before that thread grows to 2 pages in length. A repair install using a Vista SP1 ISO might be worth a try, but probably wouldn't work.

 

[lmacri]

Visturalator most likely gets "the update does not apply to your system" when attempting to install Windows Server 2008 SP2 updates on the Gateway laptop because they are only compatible with Vista SP2 - not with SP1 or the mythical "SP3." I'm pleased to see that you are finally beginning to write about recovery before that thread grows to 2 pages in length. A repair install using a Vista SP1 ISO might be worth a try, but probably wouldn't work.

Hi Vistaar:

Thanks, but why not just jump in to Visturalator's thread Service Pack 3 for Vista, yep, I got it! and offer your assistance there? Any input is appreciated if it helps gets the OP's system up and running again.
----------
32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * Firefox ESR v52.9.0 * Norton Security Deluxe v22.15.1.8 * Malwarebytes Free v3.5.1.2522-1.0.365

 

[wither 3]

Hi Imacri-

Lots of questions.

I did mention in another thread somewhere (I didn't look) but I was able to install Malwarebytes v2.2.1 and it worked fine. That was in the midst of trying to figure out what was slowing down my primary drive. That is the drive where I received the MB v3.5.1 wasn't applicable.

That was after I had install all those 2008 updates. I don't know if they had anything to do with the slowdown. All I know is that I kept running SFC scans and it was a never ending chore because it was constantly finding corrupt files. Reboot after each one. I had done three scans in a row and then shut down. When I went to boot up, neither drive would boot.

I managed to get Vista installed on a new drive using the ISO provided by ex_brit. I'm not going to do a lot of installations on it until efforts to get the other drives to boot fail. Then, I might try installing MB v3.5.1. I don't think I'll bother with the 2008 updates since I had no problems before them.

 

[lmacri]

...That was after I had install all those 2008 updates. I don't know if they had anything to do with the slowdown. All I know is that I kept running SFC scans and it was a never ending chore because it was constantly finding corrupt files. Reboot after each one. I had done three scans in a row and then shut down. When I went to boot up, neither drive would boot....

Hi wither 3:

I've asked if installing Win Server 2008 security updates on a Vista SP2 machine could cause problems with System File Checker e.g., due to version / SHA hash mismatches when SFC tries to repair corrupted files by replacing them with a "fresh" cached copy stored on the hard drive (according to the MS support article Use the System File Checker Tool to Repair Missing or Corrupted System Files the repository is a hidden, compressed folder at C:\Windows\System32\dllcache) or Windows installation media, but I've never gotten a satisfactory answer. I'm not sure how SFC determines the "correct" file version for users who manually apply Win Server 2008 security updates using .msu standalone installers, or whether SFC could find cached copies of Win Server 2008 files in a repository on the hard drive if they're ever damaged and need to be replaced.

At the end of the day, the best thing to do is to have a good emergency recovery plan in place so that you can re-image your entire system if something goes wrong and repairing your OS isn't a viable option. I use Macrium Reflect Free to create disk images and emergency rescue media (a bootable CD/DVD or USB thumb drive) but there are lots of other good choices.
----------
32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * Firefox ESR v52.9.0 * Norton Security Deluxe v22.15.1.8 * Malwarebytes Free v3.5.1.2522-1.0.365

 

[Vistaar]

Update, the scan finished and found nothing but PUPs.

I never had such an experience myself, but "malware" has reportedly been known to interfere with Malwarebytes. If they have the talent, the creators of PUPs certainly have an incentive to do so. PUPs typically arrive on your PC when you install free software that was downloaded from a third-party website. Best practice is to avoid third-party downloads altogether. If that would cramp your style entirely too much, a good practice is to scan the installer with Malwarebytes before you run it. An even better practice is to upload the installer to VirusTotal for analysis before you run it. However, if the free installer in question is an online installer (a.k.a. stub installer, web installer, download manager), there might not be anything to detect, because the payload won't actually be delivered until after you launch the installer with administrator privileges. This is one case where Malwarebytes Premium's real-time protection might be worth a nickel (although I never used it myself), and one reason why you should use full offline installers whenever you can find them. For those running Vista, another reason is that today's web installers often do not support your XP-era default browser.

End of security lecture. You can now return to surfing the net with your favorite unpatched browser on your unpatched OS.

 

[wither 3]

Imacri-

My emergency plan included a image created in Macrium Reflect. That was on my secondary drive. Since I was unable to boot either driver, I couldn't do the recovery. Last night I got looking at the contents of that secondary drive and found that my attempt to reinstall Windows on that drive had somehow deleted that image. A reinstall isn't supposed to affect the folder it was in. I then reinstalled Vista on that drive also using the ISO. In the long run, what it does is make me take the time to reinstall software.

This morning I was thinking about it and some time ago I might have created the one time allowed Vista recovery disc. I have to look for that. If I have it, I might try it on the drive that was my primary. The ISO doesn't give me the full administrative privileges I had originally. I have a bunch of files to copy off that disc before I mess with it.

 

[Visturalator]

Visturalator most likely gets "the update does not apply to your system" when attempting to install Windows Server 2008 SP2 updates on the Gateway laptop because they are only compatible with Vista SP2 - not with SP1 or the mythical "SP3." I'm pleased to see that you are finally beginning to write about recovery before that thread grows to 2 pages in length. A repair install using a Vista SP1 ISO might be worth a try, but probably wouldn't work.

Hi Vistaar would you be able to guide me to a Vista Home Premium x64 SP1 download for a repair reinstall? I'd be willing to try any suggestions at this point. Many thanks

 

[wither 3]

You can get a full blown Vista ISO from ex_brit. Go here-

Vista ISO download

You want to return the machine to the state it was in when bought; i.e. Vista with no S/P's, or do you want me to send Vista x/SP2 included?

www.vistax64.com

Click on ex_brit' avatar and start a conversation. Note whether you need 32 bit or 64 bit.

It has the Startup Repair option.

 

[wither 3]

Based on Imacri' reply in Brink's thread on nodersok, I remembered I hadn't tried to install Malwarebytes 3.51 after installing the ISO and only Microsoft updates to Vista (no 2008 updates). I downloaded the legacy version for the 4th time and it installed.

After it installed and was running a scan, I got the same message as previously that it is for an unsupported OS. However, it finished the scan and I can restart it without problem.

 

[Vistaar]

...I hadn't tried to install Malwarebytes 3.51 after installing the ISO and only Microsoft updates to Vista (no 2008 updates). I downloaded the legacy version for the 4th time and it installed.

We established last month that you were running Build 6003. Frankly, this thread was always about a nonexistent issue.

 

[wither 3]

Just following up on what I said I was going to do and what happened. Don't like to leave things open.

 

[Vistaar]

What was wrong about it? I download the "legacy" version that they said was still viable for Vista. When I tried to install it it said that it wasn't applicable to my OS.

And now you think it might be a satisfactory replacement for your “maintenance mode” version of Norton? Malwarebytes 3.5.1 was released on May 8, 2018, and testing by independent labs found that the premium version with real-time protection was not particularly effective as an antivirus. (Of course MB Free never pretended to be an AV, but was very useful for removing PUPs.) Avast Free was found to be significantly more effective, which is why I would never choose to rely on MB Premium to protect my old Vista PC.

 

[wither 3]

Just wanted to pass on what Malwarebytes told me regarding this subject-

"Let me put it to you this way...

Virus - a piece of code that is capable of copying itself and typically has a detrimental effect, such as corrupting the system or destroying data.

Malware - software that is intended to damage or disable computers and computer systems.

As you can see by the definition of those 2 terms a virus is a specific type of malware. Whereas the term Malware encompasses any type of damaging software/code. We do not brand ourselves as an Anti-Virus but rather Anti-Malware. We believe that our product is more than sufficient to fully protect your computer by itself. Malwarebytes 3 has incorporated four additional tools into the Anti-Malware program which are :

Anti-Malware
Anti-Exploit
Anti-Ransomeware
Web-Protection

These 4 features also come with real-time protection. There is nothing wrong with running both MBAM and Windows Defender as they work well together. But there is really no need for more than 1 Anti-Malware program on your PC at one time weather or not you are using MBAM, McAfee, Norton, etc....."

 

[Vistaar]

...Malwarebytes 3 has incorporated four additional tools into the Anti-Malware program which are :

Anti-Malware
Anti-Exploit
Anti-Ransomeware
Web-Protection

Anti-Ransomware did not support Vista or XP (see this link). I gather that you are not overly interested in tests conducted by independent labs, but MB Premium 3.5.1 was not nearly as effective as Norton or even Avast Free. (Of course those tests were not conducted using outdated browsers on an unpatched OS where Anti-Ransomware was inoperable, so your actual protection should be much worse than suggested by independent testing.) But it sounds like you have made up your mind already, so I wish you the best of luck in avoiding malware.

 

[wither 3]

Well, I bought a two year subscription to MBAM a couple of weeks ago so, I trusted them before I got the above response.

Anti-ransomware is enacted but that is all I can tell you about it. I am thankful they're still supporting XP and Vista. Funny thing is that the Norton software itself has not yet indicated that support is no longer in effect since Feb. 28.

In the last 31 years, the only malware I was affected by was something called RootKill (I believe) and I don't remember if I ever got a virus. In either case, my system was never made inoperable or affected such that I had to do a reinstall. Must be living the good life in that regard. Biggest problems were caused by failing hard drives.

 

[Vistaar]

I am thankful they're still supporting XP and Vista.

Malwarebytes has not supported XP or Vista since version 3.5.1 was released on May 8, 2018, so the answer to this thread’s title question was always “True.” I’m sure you could look up Malwarebytes system requirements as easily as anyone. In 2021, only a few Chinese companies and Panda (which is Spanish) are making anti-malware products that properly support Vista, but I wouldn’t be inclined to recommend any of those. On the other hand, if “support” has been redefined to mean only that “legacy” versions can still receive definitions, then there are still several options for Vista. Again, I wish you the best of luck with the option you have chosen! I won’t take your thread off topic by discussing other options here (although it wouldn’t be surprising if someone else does).

 

[wither 3]

If MBAM isn't supported in Vista, why is it working using v3.5.1 Premium? Yesterday, it stopped me from getting to this forum because of a trojan and updating VLC Player as an application exploit. Obviously, I resolved the first via exclusions. I'm talking to Malwarebytes about the second.

 

[Vistaar]

If MBAM isn't supported in Vista, why is it working...

If “support” means “old version still working,” then even your browsers are supported and you are in great shape!