Disappointing False Positives

Discussion in 'Prevx Releases' started by Duradel, Jan 12, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Duradel

    Duradel Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Posts:
    363
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Hello,

    Based on these results can we conclude there is still alot of work to go in regards to identifying valid websites/files?

    I noticed a warning message from WSA popped up when I was renewing my Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 subscription. Totally unexpected and useless so I just ignored it.

    2787 false positives seems abit high. Did someone from Webroot annoy the testers from VB100? :D

    http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/test?order=result&id=169

    Just wondering if these results were to be expected?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2012
  2. STV0726

    STV0726 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Posts:
    900
    Yeah they kinda were expected.

    Joe explained that these results would be posted soon and this was an unfortunate, very short lived issue that has long since been addressed. Those aren't all actual false positives, they are Webroot going nuts and flagging like everything.

    It is just a shame they used that build to test it. Nevertheless, I can assure you that issue is resolved. Unfortunately, test results can't be un-posted, and those are valid, reputable results, so users are free to draw conclusions based on those.

    I myself am hopeful that by mid 2012 or a bit earlier enough reviews will be put out to get Webroot over this rough spot they are going through now since it is so early and their product is so new and different. I have confidence in the end they will finish at the top.
     
  3. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,723
    Location:
    localhost
    Yes, few hours bug... and test done just at the same time. Bad luck to say the least... LoL
     
  4. STV0726

    STV0726 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Posts:
    900
    :thumb: But here's a great review I just stumbled upon doing a routine Google search...

    ...I will say this is of course questionable in terms of review reliability since the website is relatively unknown according to WOT.

    ComparedandReviewed awards Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete "Best Buy" and ranks it # 1 out of 10 tested products.

    EDIT: Still might be worth looking at, but after examining the rest of this website and some of the mistake they are making (calling a product one thing and including screenshots of another), this might be one of those scammy review websites like TopTen. Nevermind, lol.
     
  5. Duradel

    Duradel Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Posts:
    363
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    This PC Mag Review rates WSA highly as well:

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393678,00.asp

    I can tell the product is one of the upper tier products available at the moment from a few of the positive reviews I have seen plus my own testing using it so far.

    There are a few false positives I've noticed but I'll just need to report them so that others don't have the same problem next time I guess.

    To be honest the product is really amazing and since it is mostly cloud based there aren't any massive depositories of signiture files stored on each local PC to clutter disk space.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2012
  6. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Crow, is starting to taste like pheasant under glass.:cautious:
     
  7. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    These were expected, but it was definitely an anomaly, as the forum would certainly be blowing up if we were to detect every file on every PC ;)

    While it was definitely unfortunate that it happened to a tester like VB, we'll have everything corrected for the next test round which should be accurately representative of what our users are seeing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.