WSA Review from Computer Shopper magazine.

Discussion in 'Prevx Releases' started by Blackcat, Dec 9, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Blackcat
    Offline

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2011
  2. JCRUYFF
    Offline

    JCRUYFF Registered Member

    1 Star of 5 T_T , I'm starting to doubt WSA.
  3. Thankful
    Offline

    Thankful Registered Member

  4. james246
    Offline

    james246 Registered Member

    On the basis of the MRG and Computer Shopper results, it is beginning to look as though the the WSA product line is poor.
  5. PrevxHelp
    Offline

    PrevxHelp Prevx Moderator

    They tested using 27 samples and we haven't been able to get a copy of the samples to see what they are. I don't think this reflects the overall performance of WSA - we're finding hundreds of thousands of threats every day. If you look at the other reviews done for WSA, you'll see a much different picture. We can't please everyone, of course, but we stand by our malware detection and cleanup. If we ever do miss something, we'll fix it for free.

    I don't know of any other vendor who does that or who could even consider doing that.

    Edited to correct the sample count - Thanks, Thankful! :)
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2011
  6. Thankful
    Offline

    Thankful Registered Member

    The sample size wasn't 59.
  7. PrevxHelp
    Offline

    PrevxHelp Prevx Moderator

    Ah, you're correct. I misread where they that we blocked 59%, letting 41% through and refer to "11 test viruses" as what was missed.

    That would mean they tested with 27 samples - 11/27 = 40.7%.

    I'm not trying to defend us blindly as our goal is 100% detection, but 27 samples isn't exactly a representative sampling this decade.
  8. TonyW
    Offline

    TonyW Registered Member

    It's important to note from their "how we test" section that:
    That seems to imply they visited known infected websites via IE i.e. URLs that can be found at places like MDL, malc0de et al. I don't think they will be legitimate websites that have got compromised in that list.

    To those who may doubt WSA [or any other vendor that may fail such tests] ask yourself if you're likely to come across malware in the manner they describe. I can understand if you're testing anti-malware products, you may go and look specifically for malware to test the product against that threat. I understand your favourite website may become compromised and that might be the infection vector, but how often does that happen?

    There is malware out there, but there are apparently users here who surf without any AVs/AMs for example, and they say they don't get any of these threats. It's a weird world when we have one group of users who can be malware-free and another who worry if their AM of choice appears to not be performing as well in tests of this nature.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2011
  9. STV0726
    Offline

    STV0726 Registered Member

    To add to what Joe said: If you look at all known reputable testing parties that have gotten their hands on Webroot SecureAnywhere thus far, they have nothing but positive things to say, at least in terms of the antivirus. I am not personally crazy about the complete suite, but then again, I don't like any suites usually.

    I have already strongly stated my opinion and doubts about MRG's reliability, but Expert Reviews? Come on guys, really? Are you just trying to troll now? According to AV-Comparitives, that is the exact kind of site that is NOT a reputable test site.

    That I already knew, but then, they infected me...

    Even though I am aware legit sites routinely get hijacked, it is worth mentioning that after I visited that expert reviews website, I searched on their page for "Microsoft Security Essentials." I read their latest review on that, because I was curious, and apparently some object or advertisement on their page was hijacked and proceeded to load a rogue antivirus onto my system. I was in a virtualized, sandboxed browser session, so I enjoyed playing with it and got a laugh out of it. Great review site you got there...I haven't seen one of those in a long time actually.

    Then don't post "results" from questionable testing bodies.

    If Webroot gets abysmal results from a known trustworthy testing entity, I would of course accept that and change my opinion respectably. But until then, as of yet, all known trustworthy entities that have tested this product gave it very positive reviews, so please...stop.

    EDIT: I wonder if some of these test results I have questioned that are rating WSA abysmally are disconnecting their test machines from the internet. If so, that is completely unfair to compare the results to other AVs, unless those other AVs being compared had one month or older signatures.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2011
  10. Thankful
    Offline

    Thankful Registered Member

    Nothing wrong with this test. Other AVs are able to do well. Testing done by a member of AMTSO.
  11. ProTruckDriver
    Offline

    ProTruckDriver Registered Member

    Yep, I got it to while on that website : Trojan:JS/Redirector.HQ
    I was using another computer that has MSE on it. It pick it up and blocked it.
  12. STV0726
    Offline

    STV0726 Registered Member

    1. Extremely small sample size

    2. Method of testing doesn't line up with what the major organizations do

    3. They didn't report the sample back to the companies, just like MRG doesn't, which is a tell-tale sign of questionable reliability.

    4. Their site is hosting malware; intentionally or not, this doesn't look good in terms of their knowledge of security issues and how to prevent them.

    I can see no benefit to posting these results with limited veracity.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2011
  13. Thankful
    Offline

    Thankful Registered Member

    From the article:
    People can make up their own minds. Over and out.
  14. STV0726
    Offline

    STV0726 Registered Member

    I have already made up my mind on certain things. [edited]
  15. PrevxHelp
    Offline

    PrevxHelp Prevx Moderator

    I've de-linked the page now as a precaution. Thanks for the heads up - I definitely don't want any users to get infected while attempting to read a review :doubt:
  16. Tarnak
    Offline

    Tarnak Registered Member

    Have I been pwned?...I checked it out a few hours ago. :eek: ;)

    ScreenShot_WSA_review_pwned_01.jpg
  17. hogndog
    Offline

    hogndog Registered Member

    The OP link wouldn't open for me hxxp://www.expertreviews.co.uk/softw...where-complete. As for WebRoot products they were always good to me, when i ran their SpySweeper they were there to help if i needed it, and all withing a reasonable time. The detection rate was always near the top as it should have been. So i see no reason to flinch when a review comes up, never did get to read it, something about that link i think.. :argh:

    Hogndog
  18. STV0726
    Offline

    STV0726 Registered Member

    The malware I have observed on their website is a rogue. If a rogue is not installed on your computer, I would think you are fine.

    Just to be sure, you could boot into safe mode and run a full MalwareBytes' Scan if you are experiencing any symptoms.
  19. Blackcat
    Offline

    Blackcat Registered Member

    As already shown by previous posts, shoot the message instead. And further as a Scientist, I believe that all results, good or bad should be subject to review.

    So despite your plea, I will continue to post, comment and read ALL test results.
  20. STV0726
    Offline

    STV0726 Registered Member

    Subject to review is one thing - I can agree with that.

    But when you are dealing with a consumer shopping magazine that fits the profile of questionable veracity, let alone one that hosts malware on their website...

    ...I tend to advise people to wait for major testing organizations to publish their findings.

    EDIT: Though I wonder, if you have never and will never have any interest in Prevx/Webroot products, why do you post here, only to bring bad news of questionable veracity? This is a support forum.
  21. Blackcat
    Offline

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Get your facts right before any accusations. If you read any of my recent posts I am a user of WSA.

    With your advice we need the likes of you as a Moderator here :p :mad: :blink: :thumbd:
  22. STV0726
    Offline

    STV0726 Registered Member

    Sorry, my mistake.
  23. TonyW
    Offline

    TonyW Registered Member

    Should WSA alert on visitation then? I did exactly the same thing as STV0726 by searching for MSE, but nothing happened. Maybe the "rogue" has been removed or because I'm using Firefox & ads are blocked, I don't see the threat. [14 items are blocked.]

    PS: Incidentally, Brightcloud gives expertreviews.co.uk a trustworthy green tick.
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2011
  24. Victek
    Offline

    Victek Registered Member

    Do you feel sample size is not important? There was a video a while back showing NIS being disabled by the zero-access rootkit. In other words it was a test with a sample size of "1". All that test proved was in a particular moment in time there was a malware that NIS could not identify/block. The fact that it couldn't block it is serious especially if it infected you personally, but it's a dubious basis on which to draw a general conclusion because the whole anti-malware industry is in a constant race to identify malware and update their products - there will always be a window during which new malware will be unrecognized. An important question is how quickly does the vendor close the window and what support do they provide to users who were infected before the window was closed? PrevxHelp says "If we ever do miss something, we'll fix it for free". That kind of follow-up support is valuable. Webroot also offers additional free security tools that target specific malware, such as anti-zeroaccess. A test offers a more complete picture when it takes all these things into account.
  25. PrevxHelp
    Offline

    PrevxHelp Prevx Moderator

    :thumb: I agree, and I think testers need to start taking this into account. If you call most vendors saying their product missed an infection, they charge you $99 just to get an engineer on the phone.

    I actually just heard this from the support team last week when I was in our head offices: before Webroot had the capability to remotely support other users and a cloud-based product from the Prevx engine, they were overnight physically mailing PCs back and forth, free of charge to the user. A single user having that happen would cost many times more than their subscription, but that's the level of support Webroot has for their products. As a user myself, I was stunned to hear that (and we still do offer that if we can't fix it remotely). While Webroot's protection in our previous products wasn't anywhere near as strong as it is now, we have a lot of happy users because of how much effort we put into ensuring they're protected and running clean systems.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.