How to explain Prevx/Webroot's eliteness?

I sometimes try to promote Prevx (and now Webroot) products to friends, family, co-workers, classmates, etc, but one thing that I have a hard time explaining is how you guys manage to be just so efficient at scanning.

Almost all security software/suites offer a quick scan versus full scan option. However, the quick scan on those products is NOT meant to replace the full scan.

With Prevx/Webroot, this isn't the case. The Deep Scan, taking about 2-5 minutes max (so it is a quick scan essentially), IS intended to replace the full scan in most cases as I've been told in the past.

I remember hearing from I believe a Prevx support personnel that "the only time you ever need to run a full scan with Prevx is if you have just installed it. If you have had it installed since you loaded your OS you never need to run a full scan." Something of that sort.

People tend to have a hard time believing that a 2-5 minute scan is as effective as their Norton/McAfee/AVG/Avira/Microsoft whatever's 30 min to 1 hour (sometimes 2 hour sadly) scans.

How can this be explained without getting too technical?

Also I am not doubting you guys here, I believe Prevx is the best, I'm just curious fundamentally how it works and why Prevx is able to be just so much better by a long-shot compared to everything else out there.

Thanks!

 

I've had scans of another AV run in less than 10 seconds. Doesn't make one "better" than another.

 

1. That wasn't my question. My question is, a lot of AVs offer a quick scan that may or may not be faster than Prevx's 2-5 minute deep scan. However, only Prevx makes the claim that their quick scan can replace the full scan. How is this technologically/security-wise possible?

In other words, any other AV I've tested, used, or heard of, offers a quick scan, but they tell you to do regular full scans as well, which usually take between 30 minutes to 2 hours on various systems I've used. Only with Prevx can you get by, so they claim, with just doing 2-5 minute "deep scans" and not need to bother with the full scan. I want to know why Prevx is able to do this and guarantee your safety while the other competitors are failing at protecting people with 30 minute to 2 hour scans. It seems like Prevx is 10 years in the future and the rest of them are 10 years behind.

2. What AV did you use that ran a scan in less than 10 seconds? And was that 10 second scan claimed to be the only scan type you need to stay safe?

For example, Microsoft Security Essentials offers a quick scan that may take 2-5 minutes, but NEVER do they say it is all you need to stay safe. In fact, the product will turn yellow if you haven't run a FULL scan (45 minutes on average for me) in a week or two.

 

WSA looks at what is, can, and does run. It doesn't look at any inactive parts of your system. Other AV programs waste your time and resources looking at EVERYTHING because they are not programmed to look specifically at the parts that actually matter. Every time they run their full scan, they look at all your documents, all your pictures, all your videos, and everything else, even if you nor anything on the computer has looked at them or touched them.

WSA watches EVERYTHING for you, so it knows what it doesn't have to look at. It knows that nothing got close to your vacation photos, so it doesn't spend time looking at them every main scan. Other programs have no idea what might or might not have changed, so they need to check everything every time to see.

Since that scan uses computer resources, which translates directly to electricity, which most people have to pay for, WSA saves you money on your power bill. When I run my computer's processor and HDD power use against it, WSA saves me a bit over $43 a year on power. So I've just got the AV version for free.

 

Thank you, now that's something I can explain to people.

When they say to me, "Big deal, my antivirus has a quick scan feature to. I'll just use that."

No, you won't if you want to be truly safe. Their quick scan just guesses the commonly infected spots, whereas Prevx is scanning what has changed by actively monitoring your system.

There, problem solved.

P.S. If any other AVs start doing what Webroot is doing than they are just copying. Prevx is the original smartest, lightest, fastest AV by a long shot.

Other security vendors have made similar claims, and if they are true and not total lies, it is only true by a hair line of a margin, before they bloat it up again and lose on AV-Comparitives the next year around.

Only Prevx has consistently remained a "sneeze and you might miss a deep scan" product.

With that being said, I am an advocate for Microsoft Security Essentials for free, good, traditional anti-virus that's reasonably proactive, 1st party software, and reasonably good for older computers or netbooks. I've also endorsed ESET in the past, and I've heard great things about Avast though I have not personally used it. To me though, if you're going to pay for something, I want the absolute best protection, not just for that year, but consistently. It scares me that many traditional AVs flip and flop how well they do year by year on test reports. NOD32 version 4 used to be one of the best, then they dropped to just Advanced. Same happened to Security Essentials--their first version was Advanced+, now on version 2.0 with network inspection & heuristics, and they are only Advanced. What the heck? I'm sick of the flipping and flopping.

My guess is once Prevx/Webroot is reviewed by these test organizations, you'll see much less, probably NO flipping and flopping. They will consistently be Advanced+ and in the 98-100% detection range for most categories, because they have eliminated the error prone human element that most companies have the need for, using research labs to constantly keep up with malware.

 

Mine was a full scan. Why are you assuming AVs are failing to protect customers? Are you telling me Webroot catches 100% of malware. I already know this not to be the case.

 

A full scan as in the context of every file on your computer, assuming it is a standard system, in 10 seconds, is impossible.

Prevx's full scan in which the user forces it to scan every file without smart scanning takes 30 minutes. Malwarebytes' is similar.

10 seconds to scan every file on your hard drive is technologically impossible, unless you were running in an extremely light, file-less virtual machine.

EDIT: And I'm not assuming, I know for a fact that people who tend to rely solely on AVs (which most home users do) often become infected and wonder why their AV has a green checkmark on it. Ever heard of Bonzi Buddy with Norton disabling? The solution is two-fold; obtain an anti-virus that uses the latest and greatest technology that will consistently be up-to-date, which one of the only ones to use this technology is Prevx/Webroot. And secondly, utilize other methods such as a "default deny" environment model to protect against attacks your antivirus may not be able to block.

I am only comfortable using a system setup wherein I might download a malicious executable, and whether my AV catches it or not, that thing couldn't run or do anything based on how the system is set up. I want to be safe before the AV software is even drawn into the equation.

 

If you look at MRG zero day testing, you will see Prevx/Webroot failing zero day samples. Owning Prevx/Webroot is not a guarantee against infection.

 

No antivirus is a guarantee.

But I would strongly argue that in theory, Prevx/Webroot, so long as they keep their current security model/strategy air tight, is as good as it is going to get.

Antiviruses miss zero day threats all the time.

The difference with Prevx is, as soon as one is discovered as malicious, everyone is instantly protected. There is no window of vulnerability due to release of a signature update.

Also, the entire technology is based in the cloud, so there is little to no need for individuals researching malware before they compile it into signature updates.

Prevx is as good as it is going to get in terms of detection rates and performance, but even Prevx can't guarantee your safety because there always can be a threat that misses the cloud and heuristics. That is why my first layer of defense is creating a default deny environment where nothing can execute anyway.

 

There are plenty of security solutions that use the cloud. This is not unique to Prevx.
Here are some results for zero day testing for this year:
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/malware-tests/flash-test-results/

 

Prevx is one of the only solutions that utilizes the unique cloud/behavioral system in which malicious processes are sandboxed to be determined if they are bad or OK files.

EDIT: I've done some reading on MalwareResearchGroup.com and while they look promising, they are quite new, and they certainly are NOT on the list of tried and true antivirus testers that are fully independent, and have fully documented, trusted, accurate testing methods, according to this report: http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/AVTW.pdf

Needless to say they are giving failing ratings to many AVs that I know are performing better than they say they are, so I am inclined to believe MRG is not using the best test methods.

Once Prevx/Webroot get reviewed by the tried & true guys, then I'll consider the results. Until then, we have to go by what PC Mag and what the other editor review type sites have said, and Prevx/Webroot is looking good. It even scored 10/10 on detection on the PC Mag one, and I remember the author saying it was better than anything he had tested before.

 

I am not anti-Prevx. I am just participating in the forum. As you stated, there are other security solutions that use the cloud along with behavior analysis.
Prevx is not unique. There are security solutions that use other techniques which are performing very well.

 

Grabs popcorn.

 

It is safe to say Prevx/Webroot is the only security solution that is fully in the cloud with advanced heuristics, community age and popularity based detection, and is so small a screenshot would be larger than the program itself, and only uses 3-5MB memory while removing threats, and does scans in 2-5minutes that are as thorough as need be while most vendors come in at about 30+ minutes. And let's not forget ability to also be a companion AV.

It doesn't get better than that for me, but like I said, I'm not foolish. The key to true security is a layered approach as you'll see in my signature. Every Windows function I mention is essentially configured to be be at it's most robust, maximum protection.

Don't grab popcorn Trooper, I'm don't want to talk about this anymore.

 

If that appeals to you, great.

 

What appeals to you? Anything with more memory usage, more scan time, and less detection rates?

I was under the assumption that the commonly held American Dream was to have a security solution that is as close to unnoticeable yet as close to 100% protection as possible.

 

What appeals to me are security solutions that have proven themselves over a period of time. I said, if you like Prevx, great. What's wrong with that?

 

Nothing...it's just I find it very rare to find a security solution, especially a traditional one, that has proven itself over time without some "flipping and flopping."

The winners always change when comparing them on trustworthy anti-virus review sites.

I have found no traditional anti-virus that consistently remains in the top place.

 

But few if any are monitoring and recording the changes by unknown components to be able to revert your system to its original state (including re-stating OS original components) as soon this is determined as malicious by the cloud based engine.

 

In my opinion, as I keep a favour on using the Prevx (Safeonline); but now the Webroot Secure Anywhere for more than 3 years, I can say to anyone that it's absolutely much more than fair to middling amongst the other Windows security software.

In particular, I think that their supporting accountability could be called as very 'élite'.

 

Until WSA has been regularly tested by the main AV testing organisations for a while, it isn't possible to know with any degree of certainty as to how good WSA really is when compared with the competition.

Speaking personally, I hope that WSA is consistently a top performer; but for me the jury remains out until I've got some hard evidence in the form of test results on which to base an informed opinion.

 

I'm not sure that the Prevx 3 'guaranteed removal or your money back' promise is still true with the new product though. Perhaps PrevxHelp can clarify if this is still the case with WSA.

 

I haven't heard anything formal with this guarantee but I know we have support staff that spend considerable amount of time with users free of charge to correct their PCs if Webroot can't.

 

That's good to know. Does that include the offer of free remote connection sessions with users to diagnose problems the way Prevx support used to do it?

 

Yes, although from a much larger support team than just the Prevx team (Webroot's support spans several more timezones)