What needs improvement with Malwarebytes?

There are no built-in backups or integrated backup options, which could be an opportunity. The free version is effective, however, the paid version is pricey compared to it. Other customers have mentioned issues with false positives. It lacks enterprise-level management and more enterprise functionality. CrowdStrike and SentinelOne are much more enterprise-grade solutions. Malwarebytes has limited integration with cybersecurity tools and lacks enterprise integrations because it is not an enterprise product.

The product could be improved in blocking malicious traffic, such as communication with known malicious IP addresses.

When it comes to Malwarebytes, you get a product that does its job. The tool has all the features you need, and I wouldn't think of anything that would make it better. I am a happy consumer when it comes to Malwarebytes. My clients have frequently encountered some tech support scams where when you go to a particular website, it throws up a fake warning to you and states that you need to call this number. I think that there is an area for improvement if they could figure out a way to prevent or to keep the users safe from some of the tech support scams.

The product's stability needs improvement.

A solution must be installed in the main gateway to give an overview of the incoming and outgoing traffic. The technical support team's response time should be faster.

The UI could be more user-friendly.

The only area of improvement is that on the central manager part, the reporting is not as flexible as you would find with other antivirus software. So, reports from all of Malwarebytes could be improved.

Malwarebytes should improve its mobile compatibility.

The product is a little bit more expensive than the other brands. The product’s pricing must be improved. I would like to see AI enhancements in the product.

Malwarebytes can improve its network database. Malwarebytes can scan the files and registry. It can scan the system with a light agent. It will not impact the performance of your PC. You can do the full scan and database scan using the EDR, and the RAM and CPU consumption will not increase. There are some features that other vendors have that should be in Malwarebytes.

We had a little performance problem with the solution, but that's been resolved. Since then, it's been running well. The pricing model could be more friendly to the consumer, especially when we pay for the premium version.

From my use case with it, it works fine. I am not going to comment on its ability to integrate with other solutions that are not strictly endpoint protection. They now have the capability of centralized management. When I first started working with Malwarebytes, they didn't have it. It's adaptable, as are all of the products I work with. They are compatible with the major platforms I encounter, which are Windows and Mac, as well as mobile devices such as iOS and Android. I don't have much opportunity to customize it other than to write a rule here and there to try to find something. And I have never been in a situation where I was forced to do something I couldn't. Malwarebytes, Sophos, and Fortinet, in fact, any product I will gravitate toward, will have a consistent development release cycle. Strictly in terms of cyber security, the release cycle should be quarterly, at most. It shouldn't be more frequent than that because, for one thing, keeping up with tech support is difficult. You are more likely to receive an incorrect response from the support team. It should not be any more frequent. In my opinion, the quarterly release cycle is ideal. This allows them to keep up with the market and the threats that exist in the market, as well as have enough time to run a reasonably developed test and release it to the public.

It's not covering everything as we just started in EDR. In Malwarebytes, there's no response. The response is very limited, and integration is very limited. It's not good in search hunting. In fact, it has no search hunting at all and no strict intelligence tools. It offers no account monitoring at all. I want to see XDR functionality so that I can respond. I want to have some strict intelligence integration with malware attacks, and integration with other tools that I will use to respond to threats. I was satisfied with the antivirus capabilities originally, however, in my new environment, I was not satisfied. Now, I'm trying to have an XDR. I have to have a complete solution. Therefore, I'm looking into Microsoft, an XDR in CrowdStrike, or Sentinel ONE.

They could come up with better reporting capabilities.

I would like to see a little more detail in the log. So, when an event occurs, I'd like to know not just when it happened and on what device, but what activity was taking place on the machine at the time so that we can drill down. If we get a false positive, we have to do a lot of research and go back and forth with our end-users to know why it was a false positive. So, having a little more detail around detections and events would probably be my most asked feature. Its price can also be improved. It is really expensive.

I'd like to see increased efficiency in terms of detecting false positives because we sometimes have cases where detections are repeated despite requests for them to be identified as false positives. It creates a problem for our security department and is annoying to deal with. Once you mark it as a false positive that should be it. It would be helpful if they were to introduce more flexibility in terms of cloud management because there are certain things that could be more granular or specific. It sometimes lumps three or four cases into one group.

The EPP solution lacks the sophisticated artificial intelligence required for automating reports and letting you know about things in real-time. It stops a suspicious activity in real-time, but it doesn't let you know in real-time. You have to look at a report, and then you find out that something is wrong. You have to manually kick off a scan. With the Advanced EDR solutions, Malwarebytes has the ability to alert you in real-time, but they still don't do automatic remediation or quarantining of devices. That is something that you still have to do manually. So, the endpoint protection piece, which is just like their basic endpoint protection, lacks AI. For the advanced detection and response piece, there is an add-on that comes with it, but it still doesn't go far enough in terms of automatic remediation of viruses. It won't separate that virus from your network if something happens. You have to manually go there and do it.

We have noticed that when the solution is doing the scanning, all the scanning activities make the device heavier. It slows down your machine. Alternatively, sometimes when it's scanning the application fast, you find that your applications will be slow in response. If you compare it to, for example, Trend Micro, this slow down doesn't happen when you use that solution. Basically, this solution seems to have issues with CPU and Memory. If you have got a good, high spec machine, then you won't feel it. If you go running SSDs and other stuff, you won't feel that performance issues. We have got customers in Fiji who are using 5,400 RPM hard disks, so they feel the pinch. The solution is a bit expensive.

The interface could be improved. Currently, you need to really dig around to find the elements you need. It would be ideal if they could make it easier to navigate. The minimalistic design could be better. Mainly from an enterprise point of view, they could probably get involved a little bit more with the firewall aspect. That said, Microsoft is doing quite a good job in this area. As long at they keep pace with the threats, we're pretty happy with them.

The pricing could be improved. In terms of general improvement, I can't think of any features that are lacking. It's a pretty solid solution. If they want to compete with bigger players, they should consider adding items like threat detection and website warnings.

They can include advanced scanning and improve reporting. I scan malware on the pen drive. Some more reports need to be added for that. It should also provide better protection because we have a new version of the malware.

The online reporting needs to be improved. Currently, we have to look at it online, and if we want to download a report, it just downloads as an Excel file. It's just raw information. There needs to be some way to better display it when it's downloaded. It would be helpful if the solution could integrate with Unbuntu.

Overall, I haven't found any ways the solution lacks in features or usability.

I know of more than ten critical cases with clients which affect their use of the product adversely. We work with the Malwarebytes company a lot and have discussed the existing problems with the manager of Research and Development. He would not just say "You are right." But even though he knows that there are issues, there have been no changes in the results and improvements with the product even up until now. I want to help secure the environments of the clients I work for. I want to benefit a lot of people, a lot of clients and a lot of users. I have specific things, technical details for each feature and each use case that I have worked on. But the company is not making the broader changes they need to in the product to make it an effective solution. The most obvious problem is that basically the product comes up with a lot of false positives. This needs to be resolved. There are other particular pain points with the current solution which have to do with the reporting and the problems with difficulty of installation. But these are still not the biggest problems for people using the product. An additional feature I would like to see is a randsomeware roll back for 72 hours and for 100 GB of files. It is supposed to be a feature in the EDR to defend against randsomeware. But we cannot stop ransomware with EDR. We are supposed to be able to roll back the encrypted files. But it is a fact that, in production, we can not effectively roll back the ransomwares and encrypted files after this kind of attack. The company fails to say we can not go back. It is an important feature in these products and to the clients. But it is not effective.

If the company was going to do something, it would be great if they could open up the free version to an app blocker that would block malicious applications. I don't think they would do that because they need to make money but it's what I would suggest they do. There's no indication on the system as to when the software is doing a scan. Additional features they could include would be notifications. The solution doesn't let you know that it's scanning the system, it's all done in the background and it might be helpful if a little icon popped up and said, I'm just running a scan for you.

We experience a lot of false positives. I would be helpful to have more built-in exclusions.

This solution reports far too many false positives!

If everything were on the cloud then it would be nice. The company and the enterprise are in the cloud now, so we can manage security through there, and then try to put another layer of security in place. The product update capability needs to be improved.

I would like to see integration with other vendors going forward. Contacting other teams for sending information to partner organizations could be improved.

There is room for improvement in the way it is deployed, in terms of being able to distribute it. Right now we have to get our hands on a machine to deploy it. It would be nice if there was an easier system.

I would like to see it protect itself a little better from other people's updates. Every once in a while, the product gets clobbered. It's not just one thing. So, it could be a Microsoft update or a Kaspersky update. It could be another update from some other application, then you just have to reload it. This doesn't happen that often. It happens around three or four times a year.

They should make it faster, less taxing on the processor.