Solved
Conflict between WSA and MBAM Premium
I have WSA as primary AV/AMW software and MBAM for extra protection. Both are good, but MBAM sometimes reacts to WSA features. I can whitelist WSA on MBAM but I need the IP address9 as opposed to the URL to do that. Where do I find the webroot IP address. Winxpsp3/Seamonkey 2.26.1
Best answer by RodWilliams
Looks like i'Ve opened a hornets nest. MBAM 2.0.2.1012 (32bit) identifies some WSAC activity as PUP. IT takes no action, other than to warn (and eat up memory). The user then has an action option. The answer would be to treat webroot as a web exclusion, but MBAM demands an IPaddress, and a response to any URL entry is a message to enter a valid IPv4 orIPv6 address. Hence my request for those details for Webroot. I understand Seamonkey is not a declared supported browser but it is derived from the same Gecko/Mozilla code as Firefox and the last lamented supported version of TB, my preferred mail client.
Many thanks for the support though.
RW
View originalMany thanks for the support though.
RW
+56Hello Rod I see you joined last October so welcome to the Webroot Community!
Can you please explain a little more as I have not heard of this type of issue? What version of MBAM, 32bit or 64bit OS? Also Seamonkey is not a supported browser with WSA.
Thanks,
Daniel 😉
Can you please explain a little more as I have not heard of this type of issue? What version of MBAM, 32bit or 64bit OS? Also Seamonkey is not a supported browser with WSA.
Thanks,
Daniel 😉
Hi Rod
Welcome to the Community Forums.
I run MBAM Pro v2 and what yo are describing does not gel with me at all. To 'whitelist' another application in MBAM one just needs to enter the path of the folder or individual file that one wishes to exclude under SettingsMalware Exclusions and so that is how I would exclude specific programs. In terms of needing the IP that is not correct as one can exclude URL by using the domain option underr SettiingsWeb Exclusions.
Hope that helps?
Regards
Baldrick
Welcome to the Community Forums.
I run MBAM Pro v2 and what yo are describing does not gel with me at all. To 'whitelist' another application in MBAM one just needs to enter the path of the folder or individual file that one wishes to exclude under SettingsMalware Exclusions and so that is how I would exclude specific programs. In terms of needing the IP that is not correct as one can exclude URL by using the domain option underr SettiingsWeb Exclusions.
Hope that helps?
Regards
Baldrick
Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete Beta Tester v9.0.24.49, imaged by Macrium Reflect v7.2
I run MBAM and MB Exploit with WSA complete on a 64 bit laptop - Win 8.1. I have no conflits using IE, Chrome, Firefox and Aviator browsers. What features does MBAM react to and what is the reaction? Error? Possible malware? Please let us know.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Hi Rod
Here is an example of how I have configured WSA for exclusion under MBAM.
Hope that helps?
Regards
Baldrick
Here is an example of how I have configured WSA for exclusion under MBAM.
Hope that helps?
Regards
Baldrick
+56Is it really necessary to do so Baldrick? Just wondering?
Thanks,
Daniel
Thanks,
Daniel
1 person likes this
Hi Daniel
Probably not but in all cases of running anything with WSA (have done so with KIS in a previous life) I do so as an insurance...a just in case to make doubly sure...after all...what harm can it do?
Regards
Baldrick
Probably not but in all cases of running anything with WSA (have done so with KIS in a previous life) I do so as an insurance...a just in case to make doubly sure...after all...what harm can it do?
Regards
Baldrick
Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete Beta Tester v9.0.24.49, imaged by Macrium Reflect v7.2
1 person likes this
I dont need to, but if MBAM is flaging WSA as possible infection, then you do@ wrote:
Is it really necessary to do so Baldrick? Just wondering?
Thanks,
Daniel
+56In the past MBAM 1.75 some had issues but the majority didn't as I have tested the pair and never needed to do anything?@ wrote:
Hi Daniel
Probably not but in all cases of running anything with WSA (have done so with KIS in a previous life) I do so as an insurance...a just in case to make doubly sure...after all...what harm can it do?
Regards
Baldrick
Daniel
@BB97 wrote:If that's the case I would report it to MBAM support to get it undetected!
I dont need to, but if MBAM is flaging WSA as possible infection, then you do@ wrote:
Is it really necessary to do so Baldrick? Just wondering?
Thanks,
Daniel
Thanks,
Daniel
1 person likes this
@ , I hope you check back and read our responses. Please let us know if the advise from@ solves your issue. Also let MBAM know what you are experiencing.
@ wrote:
In the past MBAM 1.75 some had issues but the majority didn't as I have tested the pair and never needed to do anything?@ wrote:
Hi Daniel
Probably not but in all cases of running anything with WSA (have done so with KIS in a previous life) I do so as an insurance...a just in case to make doubly sure...after all...what harm can it do?
Regards
Baldrick
Daniel
@BB97 wrote:If that's the case I would report it to MBAM support to get it undetected!
I dont need to, but if MBAM is flaging WSA as possible infection, then you do@ wrote:
Is it really necessary to do so Baldrick? Just wondering?
Thanks,
Daniel
Thanks,
Daniel
Looks like i'Ve opened a hornets nest. MBAM 2.0.2.1012 (32bit) identifies some WSAC activity as PUP. IT takes no action, other than to warn (and eat up memory). The user then has an action option. The answer would be to treat webroot as a web exclusion, but MBAM demands an IPaddress, and a response to any URL entry is a message to enter a valid IPv4 orIPv6 address. Hence my request for those details for Webroot. I understand Seamonkey is not a declared supported browser but it is derived from the same Gecko/Mozilla code as Firefox and the last lamented supported version of TB, my preferred mail client.
Many thanks for the support though.
RW
Many thanks for the support though.
RW
+56Really a PUP I will do a scan with MBAM and report the results to get it corrected if need be! So it sounds like also MBAM's Website protection and WSA's Web Shield are conflicting I will do some testing also and reply here.@ wrote:
Looks like i'Ve opened a hornets nest. MBAM 2.0.2.1012 (32bit) identifies some WSAC activity as PUP. IT takes no action, other than to warn (and eat up memory). The user then has an action option. The answer would be to treat webroot as a web exclusion, but MBAM demands an IPaddress, and a response to any URL entry is a message to enter a valid IPv4 orIPv6 address. Hence my request for those details for Webroot. I understand Seamonkey is not a declared supported browser but it is derived from the same Gecko/Mozilla code as Firefox and the last lamented supported version of TB, my preferred mail client.
Many thanks for the support though.
RW
Thanks,
Daniel 😉
OK, scanned with WSA and then MBAM whilst both WSA & MBAM are active with open browsers shielded by both Web Threat Shield and MBAM Web Protection...and not a dicky bird peep out of either about the other.
So not issue at this end, and that is with WSA excluded at the folder level in MBAM & MBAM excluded at the .exe level in WSA.
Ahhhhhhhh, perfect harmony...:D
Baldrick
PS. Rod, don't worry...we like hornets' nests here...don't we Daniel, but only if they relate to WSA...it gives us something to get our teeth into...;)
So not issue at this end, and that is with WSA excluded at the folder level in MBAM & MBAM excluded at the .exe level in WSA.
Ahhhhhhhh, perfect harmony...:D
Baldrick
PS. Rod, don't worry...we like hornets' nests here...don't we Daniel, but only if they relate to WSA...it gives us something to get our teeth into...;)
Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete Beta Tester v9.0.24.49, imaged by Macrium Reflect v7.2
+56Same here nada and enabled realtime protection on MBAM and rebooted! Win 7 x64 and I will try on my Win XP 32bit VM now and report back!@ wrote:
OK, scanned with WSA and then MBAM whilst both WSA & MBAM are active with open browsers shielded by both Web Threat Shield and MBAM Web Protection...and not a dicky bird peep out of either about the other.
So not issue at this end, and that is with WSA excluded at the folder level in MBAM & MBAM excluded at the .exe level in WSA.
Ahhhhhhhh, perfect harmony...:D
Baldrick
PS. Rod, don't worry...we like hornets' nests here...don't we Daniel, but only if they relate to WSA...it gives us something to get our teeth into...;)
Daniel
Reply
Login to the community
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.