Mersenne Forum vs. Malwarebytes

[kladner]

In the last few days, Malwarebytes Anti-malware has intermittently decided that mersenneforum.org is a malicious site, or has a suspicious IP. This has not happened on other sites in the same time frame. Restarting MBA makes the complaint go away for some hours. MBA scans turn up nothing. Norton Security doesn't see any problems. This is happening in Firefox 53.0.3. I have not tried another browser when the problem occurs, as yet.
EDIT: It came back in minutes instead of hours, just now.

[retina]

So then delete malwarebytes. It seems you can't trust it.

[VictordeHolland]

Does it do the same to other non-SSL sites?

Does upgrading Firefox (I'm on 57.0.2 64bit) remove the issue?

Could it be that Malwarebytes thinks vBulletin v3.8.11 is too old and therefore flags it?
I'm not saying the forum should update to a new vBulletin, I quite like the current (clean) layout.

[kladner]

Those are good questions and suggestions. I dislike updating Firefox unless I have to. New versions often muck up my plugins and add-ons, and "helpfully" update the GUI from my carefully preserved "Classic" look. I suppose it is worth a try at this point, anyway.

I don't think I've seen this block anywhere else. I suspect that Malwarebytes changed some definition in an update. I'll see about updating FF.

Of course, some people will say that if I was still using FF 3.0.1, I would not have these problems.

[ewmayer]

Does Malwarebytes give users a per-site whitelisting option along the lines of FF's 'confirm security exception' pop-up?

[retina]

Originally Posted by kladner

Those are good questions and suggestions. I dislike updating Firefox unless I have to. New versions often muck up my plugins and add-ons, and "helpfully" update the GUI from my carefully preserved "Classic" look. I suppose it is worth a try at this point, anyway.

I don't think I've seen this block anywhere else. I suspect that Malwarebytes changed some definition in an update. I'll see about updating FF.

No, don't update other things just to please malwarebytes. That is backwards. "Update" malwarebytes with the delete button and use something else, or nothing at all.

Originally Posted by kladner

Of course, some people will say that if I was still using FF 3.0.1, I would not have these problems.

[a1call]

There does not seem to be any issues with this site at the moment:

https://www.virustotal.com/#/url/b01...5c5a/detection

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by kladner

Of course, some people will say that if I was still using FF 3.0.1, I would not have these problems.

Most browsers are going to start warning about any site that isn't over SSL (read: HTTPS) shortly.

Of course, the malware people are already there.

[retina]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Most browsers are going to start warning about any site that isn't over SSL (read: HTTPS) shortly.

I think you mean TLS? And not only that many sites now require at least TLS 1.2.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by retina

I think you mean TLS? And not only that many sites now require at least TLS 1.2.

I stand corrected.

mersenneforum might want to get it's act together sometime soon.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by kladner

...
I dislike updating Firefox unless I have to. New versions often muck up my plugins and add-ons, and "helpfully" update the GUI from my carefully preserved "Classic" look. I suppose it is worth a try at this point, anyway.
...

You might try the ESR (extended Support Release) of Firefox, but even that one will "upgrade" in May 2018 to version 60, at that point you will have to use themes to try to get a reasonable interface, but will still have telemetry, data collection, sponsored links, etc.
If you like the classic interface there are forks available. I am currently using PaleMoon which is based on Firefox 27 but receives security updates. You might try Waterfox that will continue to support the old plug-ins like "Classic Theme Restorer".

Jacob

(It is a pity that so many software developers want to impose their view on how we should work and what layout our screen should have. Very often the customisation options still exist in the code but are hidden because "they" know what we should like.)