is prevx 3.0 webroot good enough stand alone scanner

What you just described is more what myself would call "Leak Protection" which should be part of proactive defense modules, yes it can be a firewall feature but without comprehensive inbound rules it really feels more like a part of proactive detection rather then a firewall, the fact you can run another firewall with it and there are no compatibility issues should be a good gauge of the fact that its not functioning as a true firewall because if it was it would cause networking issues.

 

WSA's firewall monitors connections in both directions but only blocks outbound connections because that's all that's required. That's why WSA leaves the Windows firewall enabled - there isn't anything anyone can do better at blocking inbound connections. We would just be reinventing the wheel if we wanted to make an inbound firewall separately. I know some people feel that the Windows firewall is inadequate with inbound protection, but when properly secured (which is what WSA does on top of it), the protection passes every test.

Additionally, the absence of compatibility issues is not indicative of it doing nothing. If our AV components are an indication of anything with compatibility, you can most certainly use both at once. WSA's firewall filtering is active across all ports and all connections and fully compatible with any firewall because we didn't take the "easy" route with our firewall design and use some of Microsoft's APIs which allow only a single hook to be installed at once, again a common misconception that this method is the only possible means of providing strong connection filtering.

 

I still think that if something is to be a firewall it should do what any old firewall would do on its own. Blocking all ports on that computer unless an allowed application needs one opened for communication, or in the least stealth all ports to outside traffic. It should also contain all the rules and filtering rules that any normal firewall contains, windows firewall / online armor etc. You say windows firewall has enough rules so that WebrootSA just uses them and improves it, then why is it advertised as a firewall, it should be advertised as a windows firewall improvement, or just a product without a firewall that enables windows firewall with an advanced rule-set. I can't go and make a small program that enables windows firewall with some rules changed and then go selling it as "XYZ Firewall" and then claim it as my own because technically its windows firewall and not my own. Hijacking another firewall is not the same as having a full firewall in product coded by yourselves.

 

That's exactly what the Windows firewall does. While I appreciate the desire to do everything ourselves, we would spend more than a year developing code which does exactly what's already installed on every PC and incidentally become incompatible with the already in-place Windows firewall. It would be a great case of reinventing the wheel. On top of that, on Windows 8, all firewall drivers are required to use the Windows Filtering Platform which is based on logic from the Windows firewall so any firewall from any vendor that you have that you're using on Windows 8 is leveraging Microsoft's filtering components.

WSA does not add rules to the Windows firewall, nor does it use the Windows firewall for any of its blocking except for the inbound connection blocking that Windows would be doing already. WSA has its own rules engine for its process blocking.

Again, we do have our own firewall coded by ourselves - it covers the areas that the Windows firewall does not: it doesn't just change rules in the Windows firewall. Go ahead and take a look for yourself if you don't believe me: install WSA, block some processes using its firewall, and look at the Windows firewall rules - they will be unchanged.

 

Hi PrevxHelp, is there any chance to use autohotkey with identity shield enabled?

 

The most recent versions of WSA should have fixed compatibility with AutoHotKey with a fresh install of WSA. If they don't fix it for you, you may want to write into our support inbox again as we can provide a registry flag for you to enable compatibility mode for them.

Let me know your results!

 

Well you are 100% right, a clean install fixed the problem, thanks!

 

"CubonesCastle"

I mostly agree with you
and this sounds to me as "cough, cough" double talk
of a program leaning towards being bloatware

It should had been left out of the UI as it once was

 

Bloatware is the last word I would use to describe WSA.

 

Indeed . All this discussion about Firewall not firewall makes little sense to me and just show how some users (no offense intended), regardless of the information given, simply refuse to accept a given fact. I would call it the "ISS", no, no... not a new Internet Security Suite but an Irreversible Stubborn Syndrome.

 

Asking questions and debating functions of logic are what made the modern world, not questioning is not thinking.

 

I'm curious as to what exactly you think is bloatware about exposing functionality to users to improve their security? I'd have to calculate exactly how much it is, but showing the firewall in the UI, counting all of the text and code to render it, probably takes up about 2KB, far less space than the cache storage of the message you posted complaining about it

 

What is going on here!? - People are talking about bloatware and messy GUI? WTF?!

Webroot Secure Anywhere is the DEFINITION of NOT being bloatware, has a nice GUI (you can ignore if you don't like it!) and I think, Webroot should not listen AT ALL to people who have OCD or other severe problems. Especially those people telling us how they can't use the product because they fear or hate the numbers growing .. that's all totally ridiculous to me and sometimes I think trolls are on the roll here.

Don't listen to this nonsense please and don't change anything just because of a fringe group of people who should maybe visit a doctor, that's not the job of Webroot to take care of their "problems".

I like the product as it is and I don't want to see it needlessly changed and resources wasted just because some strange persons are talking about problems that aren't problems to the most of us.

Use the product. Let it do it's job. Don't change settings if you get easily disturbed because you have an illness. Performance of Webroot WSA is the most important thing to me so don't change things that could possibly endanger the most important feature of the product.

Please just use other products if you don't like WSA the way it is now. - I could thing of many things getting changed and listen to suggestions is fine but what I read in this thread makes me want to puke, sorry.

PLEASE DON'T WASTE YOUR PRECIOUS TIME WITH ALL THIS STUPID NONSENSE, JOE!

 

You think WSA is starting to become bloated (well as picky as you seem to be it's impossible that you have used a bloated product in your lifetime) and you are considering to use Baidu instead, well good luck with that Sir

You're welcome back to WSA at any time though

 

"all of the text and code to render it, probably takes up about 2KB"

There is more ways to be bloated than how many KB a program may use

"well as picky as you seem to be it's impossible that you have used a bloated product in your lifetime"

Just because you think I have no right to a opinion does not make it so

"and you are considering to use Baidu instead, well good luck with that Sir"

I am just trying this out, thank you for wishing me good luck, even thou
I know you just meant in a smart way I will loss no sleep over it

I can see there are a few people on here that if you don't share the same
opinion as them then you are a troll

 

No one is calling you a troll. I'm trying to determine what you define bloatware as? I think that's where the confusion lies.

 

"I'm trying to determine what you define bloatware as?"

The basic program was sold as a AV ""only"
now it has more than that,"at least in the UI" some people may consider
that as a extra they did not want or need

also when a program has lets say 15 zillion difference
controls to do a simple job to tell if a file is a virus
maybe it is just a little overboard for some

The program may still do it's job but so does Nero Burning Rom
and look what that has become

Some people want a program that does it core job to an excellent extent
but still have a simple interface

 

Our job is protecting PCs and we feel that you need more than just an AV saying a file is a virus to fully protect the system, so we gave the core functionality to all of our users.

So how is that any different from you using Microsoft Windows which has literally tens of thousands of configuration options in it? It works out of the box at default settings if you want, or if you have something specific you want to change, you can go deeper and change it but you never have to do so.

And you get precisely that with WSA - you never have to change any configuration option, or even look at any of them. Over 95% of our users never even open the Settings page or change a single configuration option.

 

I'm out of the thread, my questions and queries about the product we're honest ones in my personal opinion the UI seems more cluttered then it needs to be which bugs me and may not bug others because they are able to ignore things better or have a better tolerance for things being where they don't need to be. I also still think a firewall should be a firewall with all the functionality of a firewall without the need for any other product or program to supplement protection. You don't need to have Microsoft Security Essentials enabled to run WSA-AV so why should you need the Windows Firewall enabled to run the firewall at full capabilities.

I like to leave when threads start to turn into bashing and troll hunting threads, I think the word troll is retarded and people who use it for the most part use it to defend their own issues with competition of thought, as you know if you disagree with any point you are always a troll.

Thanks anyways Joe.

 

Because one is part of the system, any windows systems. The other not. Why replacing something that is already there and does the work? The argument makes little sense. BTW, this was explained in details above by prevxhelp.

 

I'm out of here too, I didn't mean for the thread to take a turn like this but I will answer the last post directed at me

""Our job is protecting PCs and we feel that you need more than just an AV saying a file is a virus to fully protect the system, so we gave the core functionality to all of our users""

You were already doing this when you had 3 difference levels that could be purchased, one of them being a AV only and for people who wanted more it
could be easily purchased


""So how is that any different from you using Microsoft Windows which has literally tens of thousands of configuration options in it? It works out of the box at default settings if you want, or if you have something specific you want to change, you can go deeper and change it but you never have to do so""

Well, I do not run a normal windows OS, over years working on it and with other peoples help, I have a win xp that has 99% of the crap and"bloatware" riped out of it and it runs dam good as long as I keep "crap and bloatware" out of it, so I don't have "literally tens of thousands of configuration options in it" so if you need to do a configuration there is ONE way of going in to do it

"And you get precisely that with WSA - you never have to change any configuration option, or even look at any of them. Over 95% of our users never even open the Settings page or change a single configuration option"

I don't know, when I opened it up I seen a multitude of difference options
that a regular user would find more than confusing and are not necessary
to do it's "core Job" by some this could be consider to be bloat, but this is not saying it is not a good program, I also think "ImgBurn" is a excellent
Program but it is way bloated too

 

Again I think you definition of bloatware is askew and not what others would consider bloatware. Yes WSA is very configurable. I do understand what you're saying though. When I look at the overview page I find it very informative. I can see where someone with less experience might find it a bit too much.
From you're posts I can divulge that you like simplistic UI and programs that don't have lots of options to do it's job.
If that is the case then I can see why you dislike WSA. To each his own. I wouldn't consider WSA bloatware only because it's very light and performs all its tasks without lagging the system.

 

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this then. There is no reason at all for the average user to go through the settings and change anything or even know they exist. However, for a "power user", they are given control over every aspect of the product, just as Windows gives users the ability to change anything about it.

If you want a product that works out of the box and never needs a configuration change, you can use WSA. If you want a product that you can change and control every aspect of how it responds, you can use WSA. If you want a middle ground product, you can use WSA and use the slider bars to configure it.

 

I can see how some folks are confused about the Firewall issue. Before I started using WSA I was also under the impression that the "firewall" was an actual inbound/outbound packet filtering third party firewall. The first time I realized that it didn't have any inbound control, I was kind of irritated. Then I did some research. It uses the windows inbound firewall which is pretty secure. Outbound is covered by WSA for process control. It truly makes use of what is already there.

 

Looks like some users are climbing on mirrors to justify their arguments. I am afraid there is no cure for ISS