is prevx 3.0 webroot good enough stand alone scanner

I did see, but that's what I'm talking about. You now have more then one way of doing the same thing and yet another page to find. It complicates rather then simplifies, for me anyways. So many pages for the same options.

 

The slider view lets you manage settings without using the granular pages - you would generally use one or the other, which is why the individual checkboxes are hidden under the advanced menu and the help file describes what the differences are between options.

 

Hello, I registered for 6 months for 5 PCs.

So far so good, I use it as standalone even on my kids PC and have Malwarebytes to scan daily, without finding anything.

I think I will renew the subscription, however some things that I don't like are:

- impossible to use autohotkey if the identity shield is on
- have to disable the option "analyze search engine results" as I couldn't search via firefox's addressbar.
- firewall's option, that even I have set it to warn if any process connects to the internet, it blocks the process for 120 seconds only (if I remember correct) but afterwards, after the time passes, its set to allow it. I think it should be set to block the process unless explicitly allowed, as the option says, so the network access of the process should be blocked by default.
- i don't like the interface at all, sorry.

Apart from that it truly feels like a next gen security product, although it feels like beta sometimes.

What I really like: very fast PC boot, minimal system impact (or no system impact at all), very very fast and reliable scanning, cheap as programs should be, multiple licenses and system backup.

I hope they continue to evolve. As a standalone is great I didn't have a malware on around 3 months at 5 PCs.

 

Are your thoughts about the interface similar to mine? I would be interested to know.

 

Let me put it this way.

I am one who thinks the paint job on this product could have been different, covering all aspects. I honestly have tried to flush this product, dump this product, shame this product, and to my dismay, it still protects my computers.

It works, it works very well, and as much as I would love to see some things change, it for the money, is the best protection out there. Stand alone? It does on my 3 prized computers, and Stands proud.

 

Amen brother. I too have used many, MANY different security products over the last few years, I have not found any product that I have more confidence in than WSA. It's also true that on most of my systems I am running WSA in conjunction with PrivateFirewall and MBAM Pro, or WSA and BullGuard IS; this is not due to a lack of "trust" in WSA, it is simply to give a more layered approach to computer security.

There's my $.02 worth....

 

It is ironic because this product is really still in its infancy. The ability to grow and develop WSA are endless for the future. Yep, it and one other product, I will always have a license for.

 

Hi from what I read from your 1st page post, my thoughts are similar to yours

Additionally:
- to access the advanced settings 4 mouse clicks are needed
- no sub-window available (so if I press alt+F4 to close the advanced settings the whole application goes to system tray)
- no keyboard shortcuts, not even windows native like Ctrl+Tab to change to the next tab
- no possibility to sort somehow the applications that are listed in the firewall settings, and the window that are listed into is really small. So if I have hundred apps listed there, I need to be very accurate in my scrolling and watch out very carefully to find the one that I am looking for.

Its not that I don't like the product - on the contrary I find very functional and I am planning to renew subscription - but I don't like the GUI.

 

I agree with most if not all of what you posted. I would use the product if it did not have so many GUI issues. Its a good product stunted by a messy GUI.

 

Any tests on its effectiveness?

 

Personally, I have zero issues with the WSA gui. I think it's fine. If I had a complaint, it seems a bit washed out (i.e. not much color). But that's minor, and doesn't really bother me.

 

OCD is a hell of a thing

 

I think this is the consecuence of multiple requests by users to have more controls and options in WSA. Slowly WSA/PREVX has been populated by these. Its like bending a small cover left or right... there will be always some space left out. In other words you cannot make 100% of users happy.

The solution was a compromise, first level = no action required and just one page of customisation, if needed. And.... to make happy the more demanding users, a second level with full customisation for each of the features in WSA/PREVX.

If you have the ambition to be at the second level but feel lost with all those options then better to limit yourself to the first level. You actually don't need to touch anything

 

hi there - a couple of ?s from someone who's not the most security savvy.
i have prevx 3.0 - is this the same as the webroot product that's being referenced? if so, i wonder if the name will be changed to provide further clarification.

next, this is the only AV i have - others have recently expired (this computer is a hand me down, hence multiple other AVs). i have confidence in prevx but am also wondering about keystroke loggers, etc. i'm pretty safe with my web use, but am curious if i REALLY need anything else if i'm visiting my bank and other sites with personal info.

thanks in advance!

 

It is indeed. Webroot purchased Prevx in 2010. The Webroot line of products are essentially Prevx 4.x.

All existing Prevx 3.0 users are currently being migrated to the newer product, which is still developed by the same Prevx team. It will happen automatically and you should see a window like the one shown in the screenshot in this post:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2203560&postcount=9

There is a dedicated Prevx forum here if you have any further questions.

 

Very much Agree and for the addition of the firewall that I did not buy but was forced upon me

You might want to look at the Baidu Antivirus
it may be a viable replacement for WSA

 

The firewall and its monitoring are crucial to the behavior collection of WSA - it has a 0% increase in CPU/RAM usage by having it in place, so there is absolutely no downside to having it in the AV product as well. It will not conflict with any other firewall, and it won't warn unnecessarily in the default settings.

 

Not to sound mean
but I don't care about the resource use or anything else
I want to be able to chose my own firewall or none at all,
all without having another "program, firewall helper, or anything
brought into the picture that I did not buy or want

This actually reminds me a little of what transpired with Nero
burning rom

But for anyone who likes it, I say go for it, I have never said it didn't
do it's job

 

You can choose your own firewall should you want it- in order to perform its antimalware functions, WSA needs to analyze network connections for behavioral protection and this provides the same correlation as a firewall, so we exposed the firewall UI as an added free feature in the AV product.

As for Nero fiddling as Rome burned, that is a misinterpreted historical event- Nero actually led the repair efforts of Rome paying for it with his own funds personally. That's a debate for another day, but I think Nero and all of Rome would have appreciated a firewall for their protection back then

 

0% is definitive, you should have said less then 1% as 0% indicates nothing, and nothing would be impossible since the product is functioning. I also understand why he feels that way of the firewall, there should be an option on installation to have firewall or not, and if not the AV should handle the firewall tasks invisibly if there are tasks that you have built into the firewall that effect detection. as they should not be part of a firewall in the first place.

 

No, it is actually 0% - the code is identical with or without the firewall function: it is just conditional dependent upon the presence of a license key flag but otherwise performing the exact same actions. The blocking/filtering is 100% identical to what WSA is already doing for behavioral categorization of network events and requires no additional resources.

 

If the firewall uses no resources there are two things wrong. How can a program exist and be functional when it uses no resources, or the other which would be why have a firewall section of the product if it does nothing and is (the code is identical with or without the firewall function), why have the firewall in the first place?

 

The user facing firewall function allows users to block programs and connections which they want to block, rather than just relying on our cloud. If the user doesn't want to do this, they can just leave the defaults in place and it will work on its own.

 

In my knowledge of how the program works, it auto-clears any known programs to be safe and monitors the ones it does not know so they can be rolled backwards if detected later as malicious. In this case why let a user decide? The program is still useable when monitored and if cleared and known set to allow so they don't need to change it. Why need a user to choose, and if you say because it let's them customize their product how they want it, then add a choice to the antivirus/proactive screen, why make it a firewall choice? Your firewall does not even seem like a firewall, It kinda seems like you guys bundled it on just to use the world "Firewall" in your marketing as a buzz word for people who don't know, to encourage them to buy the more expensive product.

 

A user may choose to block processes from communicating online- exactly what a firewall is. Yes, WSA will reverse any changes made by untrusted processes, but that is a completely different area from network connections which obviously can't be "reversed". No, it is not just a feature for marketing, and we aren't charging anything more for it, proven by the fact that it is available in the AV product as-is and we never increased the price for the AV product.