webroot/prev x

webrrot security essentilas had it all, maybe not the best firewall but a firewall all the same, what is better about secure anywhere, webroot had thousands of definitions against what to work with. so in comparison, and i am not knocking the new version, very light, but it does not stop the eicar test file. actually windows defender picks up eicar.

 

it should do, see similar
www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=272629

 

Because SecureAnywhere is compatible with other security software (including Defender), other software may step in and block a threat before SecureAnywhere even if SecureAnywhere would have blocked it. We don't try to force ourselves to the "top of the stack" as it produces incompatibilities - rather, if a threat actually did try to execute, we would of course block it.

I've double checked Eicar here myself and we do indeed block it without a problem.

 

ok thanks for reply, what do you reccomned we run with it or do you think windows firewall and defender with webroot are enough for just normal browsing and internet banking. I do like the feel and look of it and being a previous customer of both webroot and prev x i am looking at jumping in for a few years.

 

From my experience I would say WSA Essentials is more than enough. I run it with Look N' Stop firewall (paid for years ago). It's your choice...

 

Secure anywhere dont react on eicar,because its not a real threat.Another good reason to pick Secure anywhere instead of the "old" Webroot suite, is the exstreme low ressource consumption.We are quiet a few that have that parameter high up on the wish list.As far as I remember,the "old" webroot suite took its good bite on the ressources,yes?

 

WSA should react on the eicar.com test file. See:



That was as I attempted to download it.

It is possible that if you have other security software running that their real-time agent stepped in before WSA. Are you running anything else alongside WSA? If not, there must be a configuration or compatibility issue as eicar is definitely detected by WSA.

 

yes i got that also tony but a couple of days after i tried to run it

 

That was probably on a scan. If you have another AV, it will step in first but if you don't, Webroot/Prevx will block it.

 

not to sound like a party-pooper but, any reference to WSA running along with another security product or, that, " If you have another AV, it will step in first." with what WSA will cost me, just doesnt make any economical sense. If I am paying what Webroots wants for this product, well, it better darn sure be my first line of defense.

 

yes trjam i know what you mean, £30 for an AV (cheaper on e bay) and £40-£50 for webroot is certainly overkill on the price. I do like webroot and it is light on the family laptops, but unless the price does come down, when my licence expires (5 user webroot security essentials from e bay £9.99 bargain) i cannot afford to renew. Just gets cheaper on longer term deals

 

This is missing the point. WSA's approach of letting another AV catch the file is so that it can be compatible with other AVs. If there is no other AV, WSA will block it. If the other AV misses it, WSA will block it. You have no reduced protection - WSA just looks like it misses the file because it can crash the system if it tries to prevent the other AV from finding the file, hence the age old "don't use two AVs". WSA and Prevx 3.0 get around this using the same approach.

 

How is that missing the point. It wasnt about the products ability, I know its good. The point was about refeering to its being used with another security product. I dont know of any major AV product that even gives a hint, that you should use another security product along side of it. It cheapens the product.

You folks have done this since Prevx was out and did not need to. Prevx was great by itself, and I have no doubt that WSA will be to. It is how you promote it that concerns me. It leads folks to think that its good but,,,,,,,,,

 

You can definitely use it by itself - I can't even find any reference of it being a companion product on our website. The reason for remaining compatible is to prevent the user from having to uninstall their existing product immediately. For example, if a corporation has 10,000 PCs, they aren't going to remove all of their existing installations to just install WSA (or any product). We've seen this many times and has been a reason why corporations use Prevx - it's a much easier proposition to say they can install it alongside another AV just to see what they find rather than having to uninstall, reboot, install a product that may possibly not match what they wanted initially if they had other requirements.

 

Joe, I am not saying you are incorrect, nor that this is implied at the website. I am saying in conversations, here, at Wilders, is where it is discussed and should cease. Thats all.

 

And most are going to uninstall the 10,000 computers to install WSA for 2 reasons. They would not have bought it if the other product worked and, as a IT Manager you dont want the headache of trying to migrate a new system into a system that has failed you. You buy the new product and test in a secure enviroment and when you know it is stable after testing , you deploy it. I know, I do this for a living.

 

I agree, and while the marketing team would love Webroot to always be the first one to warn on a system if another AV is installed, it unfortunately is down to the fact of multiple products forcing it to not be overly pushy.

 

It's logical that if you have two AVs installed one or the other is going to catch the malware first. The difference in WSA's, and Prevx's, case is by nature of the program code and lightness of being, it can sit with the other software nicely without overhead issues.

I doubt you could say the same with two different AV products working together; yes, one or the other would catch the malware first, but they most likely don't sit well on the same couch. This is where the old "don't use 2 AVs" advice comes from I think.

I think this is what Webroot/Prevx are trying to say.

I personally would only use one AV, and WSA/Prevx has shown it can be used by itself.

 

I agree as I only used Prevx and now WSA as my only realtime anti-malware and don't need anything more! It's small, light, fast and secure! I just got fed-up trying other security solutions that slowed my old P4 down now dead!!!! Also it's nice to see that more powerful the systems get and someone keeping the security solution light as WSA 5MB of memory out of 16GB what should I do with the rest?

TH

 

Before reading this thread, I thought I was doing a good thing combining Prevx with another AV product. I thought this use of a multi-layer defence was prudent. For example:

URL Link: http://www.prevx.com/blog/112/ZEUS-steals-information-from-home-and-business-PCs.html

URL Link: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1665832&postcount=8


However, after reading this thread I am now frankly confused:

Up until now, I have combined Prevx 3.0 with Nod32 but the renewal of my Nod32 comes in about a couple of weeks. Are you saying that it is more advantageous for me to use Prevx 3.0 (->WSA) as a standalone than to have this multi-layered defence?? I KNOW you would say that I should regularly do a scan with other AV scan engines but this is easily overlooked when one is busy, and so having two AVs concurrently running without too much slowdown seems to me to be a sort of foolproof guarantee for idiots like me

What is your recommendation, Joe and TH (and others), and can you elaborate why??

Can you help me

 

You can use Prevx/WSA by itself if wanted but you will always have stronger protection with multiple layers.

 

Thank you Joe

 

It all depends on what kind of user you are? Do you click on everything you see? Do other users use your computer? I found that Prevx 3.0 and now WSA are fine for me as I'm the only one that uses my system and I don't click on suspicious links and Email attachments! But I do have a few on-demand scanners if need be but all they find are yummy cookies! If I want to do some testing then that's were VMware comes in because if it gets infected I just delete the VM! If you are an average user and want a second layer run WSA and MBAM and you should be fine! That is the good thing about WSA you can use a second AV with it but other vendors don't recommend it but is it necessary no in my opinion!

HTH,

TH

 

Thank you TH.

Quick question: why MBAM rather than Nod32?

And how would you react to Neil Rubenking's review of 2009? According to his tests, the MBAM full version just doesn't give the same realtime protection as other products. Its reputation among pros, in his opinion, is based on the free scanner version and is not merited for the full version.

Btw thank you very much, Joe and TH, for your extremely swift replies

 

MBAM is 1 lifetime charge NOD32 is not but that is up to you, to each there own!

TH