Discussion in 'Prevx Releases' started by james246, Oct 9, 2012.
Another result that looks very grim for Webroot
Yes, I read the report as well. Umm, Umm, Umm....
There is a discussion about webroots results here in wilders where it is explained why these results occur.
Read this thread in entirety for explanation:
The problem is with how Webroot works against how these type of tests are done, which is based on how we expect the traditional AV to protect us. We can either expect Webroot to behave in a similar fashion or examine closely how it actually functions. If the latter is important to understand, then AV testing organisations also need to look at that too.
Lucky for me, I am blind to tests.
As Joe has already said in the other thread if WSA was that bad the forums and support would be full of complaints about infections but where are they?
True, but it is likely in the real-world scenario they don't come into contact with the malware corpus testing organisations have in their collections.
It's the same with the FPs: many of the software packages rated as a FP are probably not on any of those users machines at any given time either. If they install any of them now, they shouldn't be noted as a FP anyway as the issue should be fixed, as is the case for all other vendors who had FPs.
I'll say it simply still:
I still use WSA everywhere and I have fewer problems with known problem-causers than with any other solution I've tried.
I trust reality more than faked up tests.
The high-scoring stuff has a huge number of people complaining about being infected while using it as well as way too many infections I've had to clean up that it didn't catch.
The low-scoring WSA is hard to find people complaining about infections and WSA together.
I know that I've had the infections I've had to clean up drop by nearly 100% since implementing WSA (had one case of PEBCAK where the wetware made an epic effort to remove WSA so it could watch pornvideo.exe... *twitch* The computer was rendered inoperable and had to be repaired offline.)
If the tests say one thing, but reality and experience says another, which is right? If somebody walked up to you and told you that all of your skin was neon green, but you knew it wasn't just by looking at it, would you believe the person or your own eyes?
I figure that the tests don't make WSA look bad... WSA makes the testers look bad. XD
I'd be curious to know what constitutes a fp.In 1 years time i have only ever confronted 1..1..and it was fixed within hours of my reporting it(jv powertools 2012).I do not pay much attention to testing in general,and i pay even less attention to fp's.I am sure 99.9999 % of fp's aren't critical system files or the like,and the other minute percentage noone uses anyways>I'll take these test results,long before i ever accept an app that flags itself and other critical files like sophos.Consider me a 1000% satisfied Webroot customer.If Webroot can keep my wife's pc malware free with some of her haphazard ways,it can keep us all malware free.Let me take the time to congratulate the development team on this latest build.Really really tight
Personally, I find these tests more "real world" than AVC.
"As Joe has already said in the other thread if WSA was that bad the forums and support would be full of complaints about infections but where are they?"
Maybe WSA doesn't have enough educated customers to complain on Webroot forum.
I've been saying for a while that someting is not quite right with WSA, but no, I am troll, I do not understand.
Maybe this world is not good enough for WSA which has an "inovative" aproach in PC security.
~Comment removed. Discuss the software, not users.~
I agree with you there, same in my household.
~Personal comments removed. Stick with the software and only the software.~
Like I said.
Webroot paid PC Magazine to made them a Good Review and EC.
The truth always come to light.
If nobody likes the product then simply dont use it instead of coming into this forum and making useless comments.
Sound advice in my book.
Generally I find the less-aware people are the more likely to get infected and complain about it. The more intelligent people who get infected are just gonna take care of it on their own and not complain in forums or need help. So what this means is either Webroot is working and not very many folks are getting infected (which is the case), or the majority of Webroot's users are highly intelligent people who just fix it and don't complain if they get infected.
While Webroot does have a lot of highly intelligent users, it also has a lot of people who create constant PEBCAK issues, and I deal with them on a regular basis. So I put Webroot on their systems and now they don't get infected anymore, despite how hard they try to be unaware of stuff and click on everything they get. I like that.
I'm confused as to why Webroot would want to be included in a test that it knew it was going to perform poorly in. If the test method does not accurately reflect Webroot's ability then why enter the test and have all the test result drama? Is there some collateral reason for being in the test? (such as getting access to the samples?). I believe I have seen results from AV-C in the past where a vendor was tested but did not want the results shown or where a vendor chose not be included in some particular test. Why doesn't Webroot opt for one of those routes? Is Webroot somehow contractually bound to be included in the tests and have the results made public? That would be a surprising reason.
There is no such thing as bad press.
While a lot of drama occurs where people scream and point and jump up and down like monkeys about the test results, a more important hidden thing occurs in the background:
The smart people stop and ask themselves, "Why does the test show it so badly, but reality shows it so well?" They don't take the shortcut of trusting the testing organization like sheep. So they do their own research.
Then the smart people start learning what's going on. They can see where the tests are failing at being even vaguely right. After all, if somebody shows you an orange orange, and tells you it's green, and you should trust them because they are experts on fruit, you'd still look at them funny because reality tells you differently than what they said. It casts doubt on the tests, because reality is easily observable.
People start to realize how things are failing in the status quo. The tests say "A is the best" and people flock to A. Then a month later F is the best. Yet with all the tests, people are still getting infected past those "great" antivirus programs without intentionally trying to, yet the same people don't get infected past WSA.
They see that despite what the tests say, reality is very different.
That gets more smart people to use WSA based on the drama and finger pointing and monkey jumping. Then the smart people make the less-smart people they are responsible for use it so they don't have to clean up infections the best scorers missed every month or so.
Like I said, there is no such thing as bad press. It makes smart people think, and when they do, they get WSA.
I think you are making an assumption in that people will come to the plate with a mindset already in place, that being that Webroot performs well in reality. If someone has never heard of Webroot, and most av shoppers have never heard of Webroot, the mindset you hope for is not present. Maybe some will do research and decide to purchase Webroot or not. But I would not be surprised if bad test results cost Webroot a lot more sales than it ever generated. I'm not bashing the product at all. I've used it and it wasn't for me. But it is an oddity, to say the least, to have a market strategy of paying to take a test the company knows it will perform poorly in. It certainly does not to appear to be a marketing strategy other companies employ.
i prefer av-test's methodology as well.
I test the heck out a lot of these programs. My results are almost always very similar to AV-Test's. I am not suggesting AVC is doing anything dishonest, but sometimes I find some really odd things with their results.
Also, similar to others, I had my brother buy Prevx (what WSA is based off of) for him families PCs a year or two ago. Prior to that, they had a ton of virus issues with the AVs they were using. Once they had Prevx installed, the problems went away. WSA is one of the few AVs I would actually pay for(vs. using free programs).
Good day !
I don't really care about the testing hype, for me, it's like to said 'here's the best safety belt that will hold you last longer...before your crash your face on the windscreen...if you drive at 200 MPH...'
I my day to day computing usage, I don't run forward on malware and I use a global security strategy to minimize the risk of the infection. So I don't drive at 200 MPH...
I love WSA because, my old rig (Pentium 4) finaly breath and run like a charm...
Nice job Joe and your team ! keep your good work
I’m not seeing problems with the people I know who have moved to WSA, one in particular person who had continual problems is a relative (a teen male) who it seems goes looking for stuff he perhaps ought not too, I’ve racked his security up from here & in the past month WSA has stopped 4 infections, & the whole family have now moved to WSA - Each & every person who 'I know' who has tried WSA has been impressed & stuck with it.
I’m not getting the phone calls I was & if WSA was less than at least approaching good I would be?
I learnt a long time ago that real life experience is best followed - I stopped subscribing to a UK consumer magazine some months ago as they feel for example: The car brand I drive is unreliable & problematic, though the fact I have owned 5 over 15 years & the next car I buy might be the same brand tells me a different story - I have yet to have a major issue with one? (the fact I've been fixing vehicles & things mechanical & electronic since I was 12 years old also adds weight to my opinion) Advice as to what is great one month & a piece of junk six months later is intriguing to say the least & is based on their testing & it seems from increasing reader feedback regarding some household appliances that the testing isn’t done in real life situations - This would seem to be the reason for my personal conflict of opinions, so I stopped subscribing.
Personally I will not be swayed from what I know is either right or works well for me (based on empirical evidence I personally have acquired) because a report or a group of people tell me differently - If you go down that road you will be changing your worldly goods on a monthly basis.
WSA works well for me, I will continue to tell others WSA is the AV I use but what they you do is their choice but maybe try it WSA, they sometimes do & then more often than not keep it.
The Webroot forum is as quiet as the grave, why is that I wonder?
OK the report would indicate WSA is a piece of junk, as I know differently I am forced to the inevitable conclusion - The report is either wrong or the the techniques used for the collating of the report are flawed somehow -
I've just had a PM from someone who feels that I ought to be unhappy with WSA - Although interestingly he/she at the same time is glad I'm happy with WSA which is good as I am - I though can only wonder he/she feels the need to PM me though as I've never done that - It seems my post on trolling ruffled someones feathers - Good !
Edited for grammar -
Well said !!
Separate names with a comma.