Skip to main content

Malwarebytes detected as adware


Even though all posts I have found on this topic claim full compatibility between WSA and Malwarebytes, I am consistently finding WSA flagging what seems as genuine Malwarebytes components as adware:
wajam_validate.exe-k.mbam
wajam_validate.exe-u.mbam
wajam_validate.exe-r.mbam
 
in Malwarebyte installation dir are all reported as Pua.Adware.Pass.Show and cannot be cleaned...
 
Any idea?
 
Thanks!

5 replies

Baldrick
Gold VIP
  • Gold VIP
  • 16060 replies
  • July 19, 2015
Hi dgOnWRSA
 
Welcome to the Community Forums.
 
I use MBAM also (as a 2nd opinion scanner only) and I have never come across an issue of imcompatibility between WSA & MBAM.
 
Having said that I have checked up on "wajam_validate.exe" itself and as far as I am reading it is a search-enhancement product, but it does not change homepage or search; it shows display and/or text ads into third-party websites which may alter normal web page layouts.
 
Apparently, the software is typically bundled with third party installers such as Open Candy and Download.com, and as such it is indeed considered by the anti malware community as a PUA or Potential Unwanted Application.
 
Also, I have scanned my installation of MBAM and can find no reference or trace of "wajam_validate.exe", so I conclude that WSA has indeed correctly identified and blocked a PUA.
 
For information, the key to avoiding them is to make sure that when downloading apps one does so from the author's own website or one that they have recommended, and not 3rd party downloading site.
 
In terms of riding yourself completely of this PUA, iIf you feel or consider yourself technically proficient then you can try these steps to remove it from your system.  However, if that does not work or you do not feel technically capable then the best thing to do is to Open a Support Ticket & ask Webroot Support to take a look and remove these for you.  There is NO CHARGE for this for valid WSA license holder.
 
From what  I have read BHOs, scheduled tasks & services related to this are involved and therefore I would opt for the Support Ticket as I believe that you will require the help.
 
I hope that the above is of assistance?
 
Regards, Baldrick

  • Author
  • Fresh Face
  • 1 reply
  • July 19, 2015
Hi Baldrick,

Thank you very much for the quick reply and taking your time to investigate this on your side.

I decided to try and turn off MBAM during cleaning and the issue seems to have disappeared. It seems WSA picked up a real issue after all and somehow MBAM was preventing the cleanup process... somewhat troublesome.

BTW what do you mean by "use MBAM as a second opinion scanner only"? are you just running MBAM as needed rather than at start-up?

Thanks again,
DG

Baldrick
Gold VIP
  • Gold VIP
  • 16060 replies
  • July 19, 2015
Hi DG
 
You are most welcome...that is what the Community is here for...to help members.
 
Yes, it is possible that if you are running both WSA and MBAM with realtime protection active they could conceivably conflict although this is most likely a very rare case as WSA is designed to be compliant to other security apps and step in if and when they let something through.
 
I personally use WSA as my primary anti malware app and run MBAM on demand, i.e., does not start with Windows and has realtime protection disabled.  I use it as a check on WSA and also because a layered defense is IMHO the best approach to security.
 
Hope that helps further? Let me know if you have any further questions.
 
Regards, Baldrick

Nemo
Community Leader
Forum|alt.badge.img+34
  • Community Leader
  • 644 replies
  • July 19, 2015
Hi guys
Just chipping in to say that I also use MBAM as a backup scanner but I use the free version. This doesn't have real time protection anyway so no possible conflict  with WSA can exist.  MBAM  is more aggressive towards PUAs than WSA and reassures me that I haven't inadvertently downloaded a PUA. 
 
Nemo
 
Fixed HTML Text: TH

Baldrick
Gold VIP
  • Gold VIP
  • 16060 replies
  • July 19, 2015
Hi Nemo
 
Many thanks for the follow up...good points made.
 
Regards, Baldrick

Reply