Editors' Choice - WSA 2013!!

We've been awarded Editors' Choice for the 2013 version of WSA! Thanks to everyone who helped beta test the product and gave us their feedback to help make it what it is today

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410545,00.asp

 

Congratulation`s PrevxHelp and to all the other people around WSA.

I don`t know what it takes to make such a fine and genius product, surely hours and hours of work, but I know it is working for me and on my computers.

Very nice to read all about it on PCmag.

 

Two of these: ...from Mongol.

 

Well deserved! And to get one over on Mongol I give it It does seem at last that people are catching on to the somewhat different way WSA handles threats & acknowledging that though different the system works very well.

 

Congratulations! x 4

 

Congratulations and Keep up the great work!

TH

 

What about the cons mentioned in that review?

Does Webroot agree with those cons and are you working hard to improve in those problem areas?

 

Yes, we definitely are

 

Analysis!!! *Dancies*

Cons:
Phishing protection just so-so.
This I agree wholeheartedly should be improved. Cut the phishing lines and detect better and that cuts off a lot of the bad stuff at the source. Now I wonder... The old Webroot used Brightcloud to do stuff. I'm not sure what WSA does, but I'm curious if it incorporates Brightcloud or not, and if not, will it?

Unusual detection technique not compatible with standard lab tests.
This is mixed feelings for me. While I'm sure it would make people dance around for joy if WSA were getting top scores in lab tests, it's a double-edged sword. Lab tests can be gamed by subterfuge so easily it's not even funny and in fact, they very frequently have been by various companies. The lab tests very rarely ever represent real life either (See below). I'd rather see WSA improve RL results for the largest number of people and let the labs worry about testing properly rather than tossing odd values on things.

Zero-day threats remain on your system (with limited access) until Webroot can analyze them.
I have a feeling that this was "We need a third con... Oh, I know!"...
I would reword it as "Undetected zero-day threats remain on your system (with limited access) and are fully monitored for future customized cleanup and better analysis until the monitoring triggers a block Webroot can analyze them, which can be done within minutes if you alert them." It's not all zero-day threats, despite that such is implied. But that makes it a Pro instead of a Con. :\ The alternative for other AV programs is "Undetected zero-day threats remain on your system with full system access until the AV gets a copy of them, makes a pattern file possibly days or weeks later, and successfully downloads that to you."

In the body of the review, one thing stood out to me:
"I noticed that the cleanup scan was leaving behind an unusual number of executable traces. It almost always got the main malicious program, but missed some supporting files. When I clicked on these files or, in some cases, launched them, Webroot quickly wiped out most of them. No, I don't do this in every test, but I consider it a reasonable accommodation for Webroot's unusual detection technology. In the real world, those files couldn't have done any harm because they'd be whacked before they could execute."

The above is an excellent example of how lab tests and the real world don't coincide. In the lab test, it would be a case of "There is something left over. Fail on that sample!" immediately. In the real world, the user was still protected and nothing did anything bad.

I'll be curious to see how testing labs start to respond to improving technology and changes in AV methodology. There is already evidence that the malware writers are responding the the way WSA works with new, very-evil stuff, but they're also generally better-funded than the testing labs and only make money when their stuff works.

 

A honest man and congrats.

 

It's true: I AM stockpiling WSA AV!!

See: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=333393

 

Congratulations Webroot Team!

 

Sorry sir - mam where all sold out to that man over there with that full shopping cart.

 

Congratulations Webroot,

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410545,00.asp

"....As noted, Webroot performs a full system scan as part of the installation process. On my standard clean test system, a full scan took about six minutes...."

Is that true? Webroot performs a FULL system scan as part of installation??

Thanks,
Claudiu

 

Yes it does.Took about a hair under 2 minutes on my system during installation.Superb,superb job by the team from the Joe and the devs..down to the testers like Triple H.WSA teamed with Privatefirewall and Admuncher form one heck or a formidable defense.Webroot goes out of their way to listen and respond to their customers needs.It's amazing how many improvements that are there compared to the inaugural edition are there in response to customer input.It will only get better.Webroot does care.They would never have aquired Prevx sometime ago if they didn't intend on bringing the best product possible to market.Again,congratulations to everyone involved.Not only does an award like this bring awareness to the brand,but also awareness to pc security in general.Webroot has come a long way.I can find Webroot software pretty much anywhere now.I was an old Spy Sweeper customer a ways back till it went south.Came back into the fold upon release of the inaugural edition of WSA mainly due the fact of the Prevx team.Noone work harder at making their product better than Joe and the Prevx/Webroot team.Noone.I am certain the product will continue to evolve and get better as it already has.Again,Congrats!

 

As far as I'm aware, WSA still uses Brightcloud in relation to websites. I think this is where the search engine annotation gets its info from.

 

So, once again; is a FULL scan or a QUICK scan?

You do realize that is almost imposible to do a full scan in 2 minutes...
A full scan on my pc (previous version of WSA) was around 55min.


Claudiu

 

Hi

Wow, another great paid from Webroot to PCMagazine!!!
Nice!!!
Keep the money for next year!!!

 

It's more than likely the scan method used is the Deep Scan mode. This is more than enough, and is actually recommended. The Quick & Full Scans are optional scans. The Full Scan will certainly take longer than the Deep Scan.

 

Hi TonyW,

the review clearly states :".....a full system scan as part of the installation process....took about six minutes...."

So, how credible is the whole review if PCMag cannot distinguish between a FULL computer scan and a Quick or "Deep" scan?

As a personal note, Webroot is the only security solution which uses the term "Deep" instead of "Quick" in order to maintain a certain confusion regarding of how fast is a scan.

Claudiu

 

Horse.
Dead.
You can drop the stick now and stop beating it.

Tell me -any- AV that really performs a "Full system scan" and I'll prove otherwise. Then you'll have to go on a crusade against all of them.

Or feel free to go on a crusade against PCMag for misinforming people and see how fast they ignore you or tell you to bugger off.

 

There is actually a KB article over at Webroot Community about the difference between deep and full scans. I'd link to it, but not sure if I'm allowed to. I'll quote one part:

 

Gee...didn't you use that line about 2 weeks ago?

 

Well, if you are happy, this is the most important thing

 

Well, the issue here is about PCMag review and the general enthusiasm...