Canceling the Cleanup Scan

It seems thus far that when I watch videos of people testing Webroot SecureAnywhere, they will become frustrated and cancel the cleanup scan every time WSA detects something...

How might this affect the effectiveness of the product?

 

It will reduce the reliability of subsequent scans. Real users very rarely see infections so we much prefer to be thorough. As WSA doesn't scan every file every time (rather, it runs an intelligent scan), it relies on the subsequent rescans to detect any possibly missed threats.

Canceling the scan will tell the engine that it shouldn't add any files to the scan job and will therefore detect far fewer threats which it didn't find during the initial scan.

 

I'm getting really pissed off at the people that "review" WSA on YouTube because they throw link after link at Webroot, cancel all the cleanup scans, then they open a folder on a USB drive packed with 110 malware detections and have WSA scan it and they complain when only half of it was detected. Then again, not many vendors fare well at those testing methods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRs9g5F4GLQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1HIHWonIMU

 

The only one on YouTube that I liked doing reviews is Matt Rizos Reviews that has a website: Remove Malware dot com. I think he was pretty fair with his reviews and it looked like he knew what he was doing in reviews. But I still don't put all my trust into YouTube Reviewers that are out there now-a-days.

 

I agree - I've liked Matt's reviews. I'm not sure if he's done any for WSA, though.

 

Oh my gosh is that funny I was just thinking to myself the same thing--Matt at Remove Malware is the one AV tester guy that I always enjoyed on YouTube.

These new guys though sound like punks and not only do they lack testing experience, but they do not familiarize themselves with the product at all beforehand. For example, one of the reviewers kept bashing on WSA for not having an exclusion functionality, when it clearly does.

These new guys also rarely test real world scenarios.

 

Lol, I also think Matt is the only decent YT tester

 

Has anyone from Webroot contacted Matt to do a review on WSA? Or maybe if we all sent him a message to do a review and include that after finding malware to allow the "Cleanup Scan" (the way WSA is designed to work) at least Webroot would have a decent review on YouTube.

I know to a malware tester it could be a pain in the rear to do the "Cleanup Scan" after testing dozens and dozens of malware and waiting for the "Cleanup Scan" to complete. But to the normal users like us it would not.

 

"Has anyone from Webroot contacted Matt to do a review on WSA?" Not a good idea ProTruckDriver, what would you post if he was not as impressed as you and your friends are with WSA ?

 

Maybe it was not smart of me about asking Webroot if they asked Matt for a review (senior moments ), since company's usually don't do that anyway. But even if Matt did a review, which he probably will someday that's one mans opinion. I still do not put all my trust in YT reviews (even Matt's). It's not fair to do a 15 to 20 minute review on anti-malware programs and say it passed or failed. It takes weeks and months of testing for that.

 

What's your point? I speak for myself but I am pretty sure that people posting here want the truth, and Matt is a lot more reputable than some of the other stuff that has been referenced on YouTube. As much as I like Webroot SecureAnywhere, it's not like it's part of my body. If it scores poorly in multiple reputable tests, I have to take that into consideration.

 

It seems that the conclusion to be drawn here is that canceling the cleanup scan can have an adverse, significant, possibly irreversible effect on the performance of Webroot SecureAnywhere.

Seeing that there is not even a warning that displays about this matter, I find it alarming.

I am inclined to suggest making the cleanup scan mandatory and not offer an option to cancel it. Alternatively, it could be done in the background, since we all know how efficient and unobtrusive WSA's default scans are.

At the very least, I would think a setting (that is ON by DEFAULT) should be added called "Force a follow-up cleanup scan after malware removal (Recommended)".

I am starting to believe some of the very poor detection rates WSA is having on some tests are due to those testers canceling the scan out of confusion/ignorance.

I don't know what your thoughts are on this, but it concerns me.

 

I think this is a very good point - or at the least, a warning message saying "This scan is required to ensure accurate detection and removal of threats."

I'll be sure this is included in the next round of builds

Thanks!

 

No, thank YOU!

One quick addition to my concern: If is just a warning being shown, I would be concerned about non-administrative users canceling the cleanup scan. I always look at security and the functions users can do from a broad perspective.

The reason I had suggested an option to force the scan is to ensure the safety of the system, while not risking any administrative users feeling inconvenienced.

But you are the expert as you wrote the product. I am not sure of course how significant canceling the cleanup scan is - I am just drawing the conclusion from what you have said in the past that it should not be done.

 

STVO726 "If it scores poorly in multiple reputable tests"
Multiple ? Reputable ?

 

Sorry, but I do not understand what you are trying to say/question?

What I meant by my prior post was: If SecureAnywhere rates poorly by reputable organizations like AV-Test and AV-Comparatives by mid of 2012, it would be irresponsible of me to continue to endorse their product as much as I have to family, friends, co-workers, etc.

 

Thank you STV0726 for this comment, my thoughts exactly. As it has been stated in other posts that the ratings will probably be low because of the older Webroot product, we should know by mid 2012 how the new WSA rates. I love running this product but if the ratings are low I'll have to move on to another product. If the ratings are high and good I'll back it 100%