Nice Job Webroot!

Nice of you to say, even though my first post was maybe over-aggressive in tone. Now it's on to arguing about the important stuff.

 

Yeah nice job, but could do better. WSA no great shakes in this just published result over 6 months where WSA joint 8th out of 15 AV products:

http://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-single-view/artikel//the-best-internet-security-suites-for-windows-complete-an-endurance-test-lasting-6-months/

So yes nice job, but still not nice enough for me....! (Yes, i do know how WSA works......... )

 

If you know how WSA works then you should also know why you see those results and also know that WSA staff is working with AV certification bodies to improve testing methods and practices to better reflect the real capacity of their product.

 

Well i guess it depends on the test's definition of what a 'compromise' or 'fail' is. For example in the recent MRG test, a definition fail is: "The security application fails to prevent the simulator from capturing and sending the logon data to the MRG results page or local store location and gives no, or informational alerts only".

Webroot did a cracking job in protecting the user in these specifc MRG tests. However if WSA had failed a test according to the definition of a 'fail' ie the data is compromised, like other AV's, Webroot has not yet discovered how to turn back time and retrieve compormised data ie sent externally. I do understand that it will attemt to 'roll-back' system changes made by the malware as part of it's clean up routine.

Were you implying that WSA, 'due to the way it works', will prevent data being compromised in all situations against all threats?

 

Yes, that how is designed. A design that does not need specific signature to protect data leakage as data is locked/jammed at source. Of course no security tool can ensure your definition of "ALL"

You can say instead: