Carbonite Announces Webroot Purchase

Carbonite Announces Webroot Purchase
The purchase will add WebRoot's cloud-based security to the cloud-based data backup and recovery platform of Carbonite
February 7, 2019
https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/carbonite-announces-webroot-purchase/d/d-id/1333823

Announcement (PDF): https://carbonitewebroot.transactionannouncement.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Carbonite-to-Acquire-Webroot-Press-Release.pdf

 

This should be interesting watching where Webroot goes in the future. I wish Webroot the best of luck with the changes.

 

Interesting, only 618 millions?
Webroot share 7% of the market, Cylance had 1% and were bought 1.6 billions.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/c...acquire-webroot-2019-02-07?mod=hp_minor_pos20

edit: not 2% but 7%

 

Wow crazy news.

 

That is interesting.

 

yes, i think the undervalue, and the fact Webroot board even accepted to be acquired, seems to be the result of the multiple issues they faced in the past, especially those corporate system breakage due to badly made signature updates... those are unforgivable in a corporate point of view, it is a death sentence.
I won't be surprised if Webroot disappears from home market.

edit: not 2% but even 7%...(based on these sites), which make it even worse...
https://www.statista.com/statistics...eld-by-antivirus-vendors-for-windows-systems/

https://metadefender.opswat.com/reports/anti-malware-market-share#!/

 

This is amazing news. I guess I will have to check out Carbonite down the road.

 

Time will only tell and the deal will not be completed from the link in the first post.

 

I'm not sure they will release a "Carbonite (Webroot) AV" for Home users. It is mostly tech acquisition than a company acquisition, like Norton did with Threatfire or Emsisoft with Tell Amu.
The best case is they keep the Webroot consumer division, which should be only if the incomes worth the cost.
All that is just suppositions and theories (based from similar cases) since the deal isn't much detailed at the moment.

 

Just received:

Dear Valued Webroot Customer,

I am delighted to tell you that Webroot has entered into an agreement to be acquired by Carbonite, a leader in cloud-based data protection.

Rest assured, the Webroot product you own today will continue to protect you, your family and your most sensitive data now and in the future. And, we will continue our dedication to award-winning customer support.

In the coming months I look forward to sharing more about our exciting plans!

Sincerely,

Mike Potts

President and CEO

Webroot

 

you mean tall emu?

 

Just this? I guess Webroot was facing some serious issues, this isnt a good news at all.

 

Yes me too

Yes

 

I do hope that Carbonite makes Webroot a leading anti-malware app. IMO, Webroot's near-total avoidance of being tested has signified weakness rather than strength. Granted, AV tests are very far from perfect, but the "big boys" (ESET, Avira, Kaspersky, et al) don't run from them. Neither should Webroot.

 

Personally I qualify those labs as just marketing proxies for vendors, both having something to gain from each other.
Find a lab where AVs score less than 90%, you will have hard time. All could do it but then the vendor will never participate anymore.

Back to your statement, usually those doing so is because they underperform in those test. Often pretexting the methodology used by the lab:
1- it isnt adapted to the way the AV works (webroot).
2- the methodology is "lab only" and doesn't reflect how things works in real world (Norton mentioning their AV focuses on prevalence, not unique, obscure malware/simulators used by labs)

Whatever those arguments are valid or not, for the Average Joe, this look like a deflection.

 

I assume those tests DO use actual malware samples, right? Ergo, are you saying that those AVs being tested are made aware of the composition of the test samples, prior to the tests?

Yes, but doesn't that "underperformance" infer that the underperforming AV DID in fact, allow a larger amount of malware to slip by it than was true for the AVs who DID block 90% or more of the malware?

I assume that the tests are based mainly on the simple idea of seeing whether or not each tested AV does or does not block each given malware from getting past it. Thus, if a malware gets past Brand "W" AV, then Brand W did NOT block that malware. Thus, if Brand W consistently lets significantly more malware get past it, UNblocked, than is true for other tested AVs, why should I buy Brand W?

Is my view too simplistic? guest, i am honestly asking these questions as purely questions, not argument.

 

It is more shady than that, the labs seems to select malware not so fresh...
I used to have real serious zero-hour obfuscated malware, of course no AV detected them. So if I was a lab doing a test with such samples, you imagine the PR nightmare I will cause for them..
Not saying if you start using scriptors...

Did you observed than many labs dont mention the samples age?
When you ask them publicly the details of the samples, they don't even reply, when you mention you work for a vendor, they ask you to email them....

Some brands never perform well in test or even in real. They have customers because the hype or some fancy features.
The thing is when you work in Q&A, you have the duty to manage to bypass your own product, then you try to do the same with others just to compare, and sadly none are invulnerable, some disclose it, others just silently pushes updates with the very popular "several bugs fixes" not to alarm customers.

 

@ guest -- Fresh malware or old malware, the fact is this: an "underperformer" did NOT block as many nasties as the other AVs.

You have convinced me that AV Tests are not perfect but, even so, their test-result data surely are based on actual tests & are not fabricated. Apart from their test data, the average user has no other basis for choosing an AV -- it's just a crap shoot.

I feel that a very possible reason why Webroot sold to Carbonite at a bargain basement price (compared to what other AVs have sold for) is their failure to compete in the "Test Lab's Arena" with other top-selling AVs.

 

Great one @Muddy3 ! I miss Techfox aka Kit from Webroot as he knew the ins and outs of WSA and I learned allot from him.

 

ussualy these " takeovers " bring bad news to the company involved , some examples : pc tools ( spyware doctor ) ---> norton , norman ---> AVG , AVG ---> Avast. it ussualy means ; if you cannot beat them , buy ( BURRY ) them...I guess it means that webroot will be gobbled up by carbonite , and will sease to exsist as a standalone product in a couple of years.

 

You could be true but the thing is Carbonite isn't an AV but they wanted to add an AV to there product line, only time will tell.

 

@ Muddy3 -- Techfox's rationale sounds valid, to a point. The fact remains that, when it comes to stopping nasties *at my computer's door* many of the other AVs have a *success rate* in the high 90th percentile. As I understand Techfox, Webroot might not stop nasties at my computer's door but, instead, let's them into my computer and eventually catches & blocks them "in the act".

I will discuss two hypothetical nasties: Nasty 1 & Nasty 2. Kaspersky AV (for example) blocks Nasty 1 but Nasty 2 is part of KAV's <1% fail rate so it gets into my computer. Webroot on the other hand may allow both Nasties into my computer because of its low rate of blocks at the door.

Techfox's write-up centers on nasties like Nasty 2 -- the ones that KAV (et al) didn't catch. The inference is that Webroot will have a 100% success rate in preventing any & all damage by Nasty 2, whereas KAV did not prevent it. FURTHER, the infererence is that Webroot will have a 100% success rate in preventing any & all damage by Nasty 1 -- the nasty that WAS prevented by KAV.

Is there ANY AV that is 100% bullet proof? Is Techfox infering that Webroot IS 100% bullet proof? Since Webroot refrains from any & all outside testing, what we have in Techfox's comment is a *concept* that is unsubstantiated by anything but words.

If Webroot IS that elusive 100% bullet proof AV then, yes, Webroot will kill Nasty 2 whereas KAV did not. However, if Webroot is NOT 100% bullet proof, then Webroot might NOT kill Nasty 2. More than that, if Webroot does not stand alone as the 1 & only bullet proof AV, then Webroot might NOT kill Nasty 1, either -- the one that WAS killed by KAV.

Several AVs license another highly-effective AV's engine & sigs, to use as their own. So I wonder why Webroot doesn't add this readily available capability as a sort of "front door guard" to its splendid existing engine? In other words, WHY NOT block >90% at the door, as other AVs do, and THEN monitor the ones that are like Nasty 2?

PLEASE don't get me wrong. I am a friend of Webroot -- I have been so since it evolved from my beloved Prevx. But a friend tells his friend when that friend's fly is unzipped.

 

Your post seems to assume that the samples we see tested by the AV testing companies are representative of the vast majority of attacks that we see in real life. Of course, whether you are assuming that, I can't be certain but that is the impression. I do not make that assumption.

You also seem to infer that I believe Webroot "is 100% bullet proof". I really have no idea where you got that notion from. In fact, I haven't even expressed my view in the above post. I was just quoting another person's post that I thought is illuminating, regarding a serious limitation of AV tests as they are currently conducted, for certain types of AV including and probably especially Webroot.

It would be well worthwhile to read all of that thread, perhaps starting from the post I linked to, as there is a great deal of invaluable information there from @PrevxHelp (Joe Jaroch), who was the architect both of Prevx (particularly Prevx 3) and of Webroot SecureAnywhere—which is, in effect, Prevx 4 onwards.

 

I inferred nothing relative to you, Muddy-san. I was referring to Techfox's post. I began my post by referring to your user name only because you are the one who quoted Techfox. After that, the only user name I mentioned was Techfox's, not yours.

It was Techfox's rationale (in the post that you quoted) where it was inferred that Webroot would always succeed in blocking nasties missed by other AVs. Moreover, the solution to Webroot's avoidance of testing seems obvious -- simply add a guard at the front door, as other AVs are doing. Doing so would enhance Webroot's protection, & would also enable Webroot to equal or surpass other AVs in the test arena -- which would certainly enhance Webroot's marketing.

As it stands now, Webroot's effectiveness is mainly asserted, rather than demonstrated or proven.