Identity shield fails MitB simulators

Discussion in 'Prevx Releases' started by BoerenkoolMetWorst, Nov 17, 2012.

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

    BoerenkoolMetWorst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    3,764
    Location:
    Outer space
  2. claudiu

    claudiu Guest

    That is not true

    Either:

    a) the test is flawed

    b) in real life is different

    c) you do not understand how the product works

    d) user experince is different, they are happy

    Thank you for your sugestion!

    or

    e) Yawn, yawn...and again, yawn!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2012
  3. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,728
    Location:
    localhost
    LoL... I was waiting for this post since yesterday. You are late :D
     
  4. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
  5. BoerenkoolMetWorst

    BoerenkoolMetWorst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    3,764
    Location:
    Outer space
    Please read the test report. This is not about some test methods not being compatible with WSA and therefore not detected it because it is not executed or other stuff. On other threads about WSA scoring bad in tests Webroot has stated that even if a sample is not detected after execution, it will still be blocked from accessing sensitive information entered into the browser eg. email passwords, online banking etc. The most popular attack vector with recent financial malware is MitB(Man in the Browser) attack. Webroot claims Identity Shield protects from MitB attack. As the report shows there are at least 2 methods to do a MitB attack that Identity Shield does not block and so if a sample which uses these methods is executed on a users PC and WSA does not detect the sample, then it can succesfully steal sensitive information and attacks can use it to steal money or worse. Webroot should update Identity Shield to block these methods so they can't be used to steal sensitive info. I also suggest Webroot looks more pro-actively for new methods to do MitB attacks and update protection, as while they have passed the BBC sim in the report, that was only a retest after Webroot had access to it and was able to update WSA as it didn't pass the first time and there have been other cases as well were they weren't able to protect against new methods at the time of the test while other competitors like Zemana Antilogger and Trusteer Rapport passed them all.
     
  6. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    I apologize but I'm going to opt to not respond to this specific test due to past events.
     
  7. TerryWood

    TerryWood Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Posts:
    703
    Hi PrevxHelp

    BoerenkoolMetworst makes a fair point (in my view) so what are these past events that make you so coy about responding? Is it that there is some substance to what BoerenkoolMetworst relates?

    Not much point in having a help contact in the forum if he or she chooses to abdicate his companies responsibilities.

    Commercial life comes with costs and liabilities !!?

    Terry
     
  8. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    Feel free to ask further at the Webroot Community or through our support inbox. I am just personally removing myself from this discussion here, but there are many more people at Webroot who can help answer.

    I'm happy to answer questions about any other test in the meantime, or any other product related questions as always.
     
  9. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    17,875
    Location:
    New England
    As Joe has referred this to the Webroot forums, this thread is now closed. Feel free to post your questions there.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.