MalwareBytes Has Stopped Working

Well I am not that much faster than you with about 1.88 Mgps, but I am not having any problems with MBAM Primium 2.0.2. What I used to have with version 1.75 was that once in a while the Web protection would come out deactivated at boot time and I had to exit MBAM and started it again for the 2 protection modules to be active.

What you can do is to uninstall MBAM and run its removal tool and reinstall it again.

What AV and Firewall are you running ?  Did you make the appropiate exclutions to each other ?

Dale wrote:  "Hopefully, I can find the log in key and product info."

I think you should be sure you have access to your license identifier and key before you uninstall MBAM.

Dale also wrote:  "... and do a[n MBAM] scan a couple of times a week".

Years ago, I was paranoid about infection, and used to routinely run lots of scans (Anti-virus, Ad-Aware, Spybot, and who knows what else).   Having not experienced a malware/virus issue over many years, I ultimately decided that routine scanning was just a waste of time.   Indeed, for a system that's functioning normally, running routine scans is more likely to produce a False-Positive than an actual malware infection.

With MBAM PRO (as well as with your anti-virus program) running continually, in real-time, I see very little need for ROUTINE on-demand scanning... rather, I would run an on-demand scan only if I had reason to suspect something was "off" [e.g., if I were getting some unexpected popup warnings].   I also tend to run an on-demand scan when the program (anti-virus or anti-malware) has a major version upgrade.

For systems where I don't have a PRO license for MBAM --- meaning it's not running in real time ---  I might opt for an on-demand scan maybe just once in a week (or even less), unless I have reason to believe such a scan is really necessary.

Still using the Windows Firewall and Avira AV and most of the time things seem to play well together, but I think I might try to delete and reinsall MBAM Pro. Hopefully, I can find the log in key and product info.

Very pleased with the simplicity and ease of using MBAM Pro by the way. Sorta set it and forget, and do a scan a couple of times a week.

Hernan wrote:  "What I used to have with version 1.75 was that once in a while the Web protection would come out deactivated at boot time..."

I had that happen more than "once in a while''... in fact, quite often... on my XP system... with both the older MBAM 1.75 as well as with the newer 2.x.   A solution (at least, for me) seems to be going to MBAM's Settings, Advanced Settings, and checking to box to "Delay Protection at Startup for 15 seconds".  [Perhaps something else needed to be loaded first, so as not to conflict/interfere with Website protection initiating itself???] 

Hernan also wrote:  "Did you make the appropiate exclutions to each other ?"

MBAM offers suggestions as to what [mutual] exclusions can be made for several common antivirus programs:   https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/topic/10138-common-questions-issues-and-their-solutions/

First, be advised that the information there is quite old --- for example, it's talking about avast 6, which is about 3 years old --- so not everything carries-through as stated there for the current programs.   [Perhaps Hernan is aware of a newer/updated version of this thread???]

Second, I believe the intent of these exclusions was that they were to be tested/tried/used in the event of an overt conflict between MBAM and one's anti-virus.   Personally, I have never experienced such a conflict between MBAM and avast (6, 7, 8, and 2014).   As such, I have never felt the need to implement any mutual exclusions here.   In fact, I believe that's the case for most MBAM users --- it will run just fine without any "tweaking" of exclusions.

Now, it's possible that, even without solving an actual conflict, such [one-sided or mutual] exclusions might result in either/both programs running faster.   However, given the speed of my Win7 system, if there is any slowdown, I don't believe it is noticeable/significant.   In fact, I can't say I ever felt I noticed any slowdown even on XP.   Accordingly, I follow the philosophy, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"... meaning I saw no need to try setting-up mutual exclusions. 

Hernan, I'm curious if you've set up any MBAM/avast exclusions, and if so, did you do it to solve a conflict or slowdown issue, or just to try it?

It is true. MBAM 1.75 gave a lot of problems with the web module, but I have not had any with version 2.0.2.

Hernan, I'm curious if you've set up any MBAM/avast exclusions, and if so, did you do it to solve a conflict or slowdown issue, or just to try it?

For Comodo. Beside giving MBAM and Avast! full in/out connection, I set them up as installer/updater in D+ so they are totally trusted by Comodo.

I can not tell you if I gain or not any speed on the processes or if it is necessary, I just do it. As you know systems behave differently no matter if they are exactly the same. I have seem OS work with Avast! and Zone Alarm and in others these two programs are totally incompatible so just in case and for a long time now I exclude the security programs.

Should the self protection module in MBAM Pro be enabled? Just noticed today that it wasn't. Is this the default setting?

The self-protection module in MBAM is NOT enabled by default.

"This setting controls whether Malwarebytes Anti-Malware creates a safe zone to prevent malicious manipulation of the program and its components. Checking this box introduces a [boot-up] delay as the self-protection module is enabled. While not a negative, the delay may be considered undesirable by some users."

So you need to weigh the pros vs. cons. here:   On the one hand, it offers additional anti-tampering protection to MBAM and its components... but on the other hand, such protection may result in a "small lag" in boot-up time.   Guess each user can experiment with this, if they wish.   HOWEVER:

The "anti-tampering" protection is rather strong:   For example, when you install MBAM, it may place an icon on your desktop so you can easily access/open the User Interface.   My understanding is that, with self-protection enabled, even a user running an Administrator Account cannot delete this icon!   I believe this is the reason why self-protection is not enabled by default, as people who wish to keep their desktop clean will be upset and complain when they can't move the icon into their recycle bin.