SecureAnywhere!

I totally agree. Webroot hasnt accomplished crap till they are able to detect 99 plus. Regardless of what else the product can do. So, I am hoping that may be attainable this year, or I would say they have issues.

 

I think kaspersky does this too

 

For the AV-C, the automated classification as malware from the missed samples took from a minimum of few minutes to a maximum of few hours. This malware while active cannot leak data as data is rendered not readable by design (by the identity module). Also most of the missed sample were first/last seens only by AV-C.

I found the discussion around the effectiveness of a software tool based only on results by one test source very biased. If you don't have expertise and you want to judge a tool based on tests then you should not just take one test as reference. Otherwise you seem just using the test that support your amateur feelings (i.e. WSA is not good).

For example, AV-test, that is considered another reputable source for tests like AV-C is reporting results that are actually very positive. WSA is performing well above industry average in key tests compartments.

 

Sorry fax I know you love the product but he's right. If Webroot pulled out because it was scoring badly or failing that's not a good image. I also don't think he's feelings are "amateurish', we all have opinions about our security on here no one is trolling....

 

I am glad I asked the question. I learned some things, and spent some time at an interesting discussion.
Jerry

 

If you look at recent "repair" scores in official testing, you will find WSA is somewhere in the middle / bottom end. So what's the use in "roll-back" if you can't "roll-back" its not as simple as her-dur lets roll back 100^% of the malware 60% of the time, every time.

 

If you're talking about WSA repair score in AVTest, the systems are infected prior to WSA being installed (or its disabled manually before executing malware), so there's nothing to monitor in realtime for malware changes which renders the rollback feature useless. In such cases AVs rely on disinfection routines in signatures/disinfection microprograms instead of changes rollback feature.
Edit: BAM! Triplepost.

 

Neither AV-C nor AVTest test in such a manner where our rollback is used. They test on pre infected PCs which uses a different cleanup algorithm altogether.

 

Even so, don't you think it would be good to work on this also? because you know... most people's PC's are infected before they put an AV on these days.

 

Of course we're always improving every area, but if you look at the breakdown of scores, you'll see that the only lower part of the score was over inactive traces, and we scored at/above average in every category across the entire test, and far better in many areas.

 

In other words, some of WSA's protection mechanisms are so revolutionary that testing firms have not yet adapted to be able to test them.

 

I can read minds but my mind reading is so revolutionary that testing organizations have not yet adapted to be able to test it.

 

Agreed here. Webroot performed better than most the competitors in AV Test's recent rounds of testing.

The average user won't encounter any viruses as long as their AV is up-to-date and they don't browse suspicious websites. I'd say that whenever I am asked to remove malware on PC's the main cause is either that the computer doesn't have any antivirus on it or signatures are out of date/license expired and the user had visited a dodgy link on a social networking website.

Webroot is definitely improving and I am happy to renew my license each year because even the customer service seems a notch higher than the competitors.

 

I've never used any vendor's customer service in the 15 years I have used an antivirus. Not that customer service is not important, and it obviously is for you personally, but do most people I would think never deal with CS.

 

I've had to deal with some really bad customer service on the support forums for different vendors. Most people don't bother with customer service because they just give up and swap to another solution.

If you can get by without needing to contact any vendors customer service then good for you.

I've never had a virus infect a computer I've used personally before but it still helps to know more about the software I am utilising on my PCs.

 

Tried WSA for a week but had problems with lockups, so gave it the chop. Not a particularly mature product and recent test results suggest it has a bit to go to reach said maturity.

Paul

 

I have been running WSA for approximately 6 months now and never had an infection. Weekly I run MBAM Pro on demand and Hitman Pro on demand for second opinions and still come up clean.

 

If you ever try it again and have similar problems, please let me know so that I can help resolve them.

Thanks!

 

Is Prevx SafeOnline still being developed?

 

The cloud database is still being developed; the client software hasn't been updated in quite some time.

 

Sorry it isn't but it still supports:

Prevx SafeOnline is compatible with:
Windows 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 2008, Windows 7 (32&64bit).
Internet Explorer (5-8 ), Firefox (1-3), Google Chrome (2 & 3), Opera (9 & 10).

TH

 

So in other words no. I am using Chrome 21 so seems like it is not compatible. Will there be a new version in the works?

 

It will be replaced with Webroot SecureAnywhere. For many browsers, the incompatibility is just the browser tab not showing, but the rest of the monitoring/protection is still in place. It is still definitely a valid additional layer of security as-is.

 

Thanks. Just looking for some additional banking protection.

 

Is that really due to WSA? - the fact that you have not had any infection I mean. As I see it you just have not encountered any malware yet. WSA has not yet had any chance to prove it self.