Webroot SecureAnywhere Discussion & Update Thread

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Triple Helix, Jun 6, 2014.

  1. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    6,697
    Location:
    Hawaii
    If they find a go-getter CEO, a quick fix would be to license BitDefender's sigs (as does EMSISOFT, Vipre, & 2 or 3 other top tier AVs), put those sigs at Webroot's front end, pass some tests, sign up with Newegg, & katie bar the door!
     
  2. ProTruckDriver

    ProTruckDriver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    1,140
    Location:
    "Here on Wilders"
    I'm not trying to knock Webroot but first they have to keep their senior employees. Right now they are fleeing like rats on a sinking ship. Do they know something we don't? Hmm.
     
  3. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,365
    That would be an excellent start, but they also need to work on weak proactive detection too. Bitdefender's signatures are not as good as they used to be and they are a bit slow to add signatures for new threats.
     
  4. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,537
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    WHo knows what the Carbonite crew will get up to...and that is the problem. There is no need to tamper with WRSA...it is great just as it is...nothinig has changed over the years in terms of its relationship with, or the relevance of the 3rd party testing. It is just IMHO that the Webroot decriers have ramped up the falsehoods and focused on the 3rd party testing 'position'.

    Adding signatures to the WRSA front end, just to get a 3rd part testing result that pleases the 'great unwashed', would be pointless and counter intuitive...WRSA is made the way it is.
     
  5. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,365
    Well it would be good, if it didn't do significantly worse than just about every big name antivirus at detecting malware. It does terribly when testing, because these days it's not very good at detecting malware.

    If you use Webroot and are not getting infected, that's good. But it does not mean it's doing a good job at protecting you. I wouldn't get infected, no matter what antivirus I used, or even if I used none. With just a little bit of care, it is extremely hard to get infected.
     
  6. Muddy3

    Muddy3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Posts:
    395
    Location:
    Belgium
    I don't know why I bother still replying to you, @roger_m, as it is clear you don't properly read my (or our) posts:
    In our recent exchange I've already twice cited the above point by Joe in replying to the very self-same issue you raise yet again in your post above. This argument is now going round in circles. It feels like a vinyl disc that has annoyingly got stuck in a groove.

    Evidently, MT spawns a very strange kind of creature. You don't even use Webroot and yet you invest great effort and an inordinate amount of time writing posts to this thread, lecturing us about how awful Webroot is. But you do not even take the care to listen to the answers we give you (Honestly, I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with our answers. What a boring world this would be if we all always had the same point of view! I do however have a very genuine problem when you do not even attempt, having earnestly lectured us, to read our answers properly.).

    Most bizarrely of all, you say Webroot:
    and yet:
    ??$*#??!!

    Frankly, what makes you tick, Roger, is utterly beyond me.


    Enough said. I shall now quietly continue my (productive) weekend ;). Signing off.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2019
  7. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,365
    You keep referring to things that Joe said in 2013. I've told you multiple times that they are not relevant today. One or two other people have said the same. We didn't say this for the sake of bashing Webroot. We said it because it's the truth. Yet you still keep parroting it, because for you, sadly, you don't care about the truth, you just want to keep blindly supporting Webroot.

    What's interesting, is that despite constantly referring to the statements Joe made, you said the following.
    I've read all of your posts and I disagree with what you say. I'm not disagreeing, for the sake of bashing Webroot, or just because others bash Webroot. I'm just trying to explain, why what you are saying is wrong and bring some truth to the discussion. But it always falls on deaf ears. At least some others have taken note of what I've said and are considering changing to a better antivirus.

    You've deliberately taken my comment regarding me liking Webroot completely out of context. It just another of example, of how you don't want an informed discussion. For the record, this is what I wrote.
    It explains very clearly, that I want Webroot to improve. I've explained many times, that Webroot does badly at detecting malware. This is a fact which I have actual proof of, which I will happily supply to you or others. But, strangely you continue to believe that Webroot is a good antivirus. On the other hand, you would not be able to provide any proof to back up what you are saying, because there is none. No one, other than die hard Webroot fans, is going to believe that Webroot is an excellent antivirus in 2019, because of some things Joe said in 2013.

    It's important to note, that I'm not just critical of Webroot. I'm critical of any product which performs poorly. For example, take a look am posts about SUPERAntiSpyware.
     
  8. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    Disclaimer: I'm currently not using Webroot, but I have used it previously and Prevx before that.

    The current discussion seems to be going round and round in circles. I think there has to come a point when one has to agree to disagree and move on. This forum has had much talk over the years about how Prevx/Webroot works and I think we can all agree that this product being what it is has brought about much debate.

    Looking back over the years, I think we can draw from the forum the following salient points:

    • Prevx was marketed to be different to other AV products
    • Webroot purchased Prevx and the latter evolved under Webroot branding
    • Webroot doesn't always do well in AV lab tests because "they don't test it correctly" (there was even discussion with AV-C to change their testing methodology)
    • even though some malware is missed in tests, Webroot says a user is protected due to a combination of Identity Shield, journaling and rollback (there has been discussion on the effectiveness of the rollback feature though)
    • lab tests not always indicative of real-world situations
    • some users and testing organisations have a hard time understanding Webroot's modus operandi
    • Webroot hasn't changed how its systems work so what worked under Prevx still applies today
    • Carbonite has bought Webroot so it remains to be seen what future holds

    It would seem that since Webroot continue to use the same methods today as it did years ago, not everyone will agree with that approach. It is a difficult concept to grasp. There are arguments against and for their way of working. I don't think they are going to change anytime soon so yes, test results may be unfavourable because it is the nature of the beast and due to the way Webroot works. Having said that, it'll be interesting to see if Carbonite make any fundamental changes to the product line.

    If users don't agree with or understand how it works, they can, of course, use something else. Others, however, have embraced the methodolgy and technology. The choice is there.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2019
  9. Muddy3

    Muddy3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Posts:
    395
    Location:
    Belgium
    Well at least you now have cleared the air, Roger, and given me (us?) some understanding of
    ~ OT Remarks Removed ~ You have shown that your real agenda is to persuade people on this thread to abandon Webroot for a "better" antivirus when you say:
    Well, each to their own. I happen to have an extremely low view of at least one antivirus. However, I never would dream of barging in on its Wilders thread and investing a great deal of my time persuading participants on that thread of my point of view and getting them to change their antivirus. Strange as it seems, that appears to be the mentality not only of yourself but also of many MalwareTips members, some of whom regularly visit this thread and clearly seem to demonstrate by their actions the same agenda as yours. As I say, each to their own.

    Also, I am glad you eventually got round to properly reading all my comments.

    Regarding my citation of Joe's comments, I think it was pretty clear to any reasonable person that I was showing that despite your saying that Webroot:
    in point of fact, this has always been so because the way most tests are currently designed is not fitted to Webroot's AV methodology. Incidentally, this is why Prevx resolutely and determinedly always refused to participate in any tests (apart from just one).

    By the way, I also wondered if you would pîck up, on the one hand, on my declared instinctive distrust of what corporations tell us and, on the other, my implicit trust of what Joe would tell us when he used to post here ;). There are rare moments when someone abundantly shows us by their words and their actions that they are somebody we can really trust. For me, Joe was one of those persons. I believe I am far from being the only person on this Forum that came to this conclusion. Joe was a very rare type of person. I honestly wish there were more like him.

    And yes, I still find it a disingenous self-contradiction that you can say in the same breath that Webroot:
    and yet:
    I don't believe you. And you know that you're not going to change the Webroot programmers' policy by posting here, despite your claiming that is your aim.

    Anyway as far as I'm concerned, this going-round-in-circles exchange of posts must and will finish here. I have no more to say in our exchange of views. I expect you probably feel the same.

    Indeed, I think @TonyW's excellent summary of where the ground lies vis-à-vis the two opposing sides, provides both pause for thought for all of us and a convenient point of closure. Thank you, Tony, for opening that avenue to us.

    Time I believe to move on.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2019
  10. Gein

    Gein Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Posts:
    178
    I was thinking about that PCMag review. If all you needed to do to get a positive result was to pay the mag, don't you think that the bigger AV companies would be doing the exact same thing? Why would PCMag be only giving that option to Webroot? If you're gonna take bribes, you're gonna take bribes from everyone. There are far bigger AV companies than Webroot who have much deeper pockets:

    https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/271048/market-share-held-by-antivirus-vendors-for-windows-systems.jpg
     
  11. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,365
    @Muddy3 This will be my last post here too, unless someone wants to have an informed discussion.

    I just need to clarify a few things.

    I have not had any agenda, when I've been posting. I have not been trying to get people to ditch Webroot. My sole aim has been to being some objectivity to the discussion. If people read the discussion and decide to change antivirus, or stick with Webroot, that's fine with me in either case. However, hopefully this discussion can help some people make an objective decision on what antivirus they use.

    With regards to testing. I understand what you're saying, but I believe it is essential for any antivirus do well at detecting current malware. It's not about having good test scores for marketing purposes. It's about being able to detect current malware and no matter how well Webroot is working for you, it is currently doing very badly at this, both when the malware is scanned and when it is executed. If an antivirus does poorly at detecting current malware, then it's not good at protecting computers from malware. That's been my main point all along. Just about every major antivirus, typically does significantly better at detecting current malware. If you take a little bit of care, and are not click happy, it's very hard to get infected. But if someone is click happy, they will get infected sooner or later, no matter what antivirus they use, but it most likely will take then longer to get infected, if they use an antivirus with excellent detection rates.

    I've never said I was expecting Webroot to make any changes due to my comments. I was just stating that I want Webroot to improve and become a better antivirus. It should be clear from my posts, to other, if not to you and other die hard Webroot fans, that I've been making objective comments, rather then bashing Webroot for the sake of it. If you were to have a look at my posts in general, here and at MalwareTips, you would see that I never bash any products just for the sake of it.
     
  12. Bertazzone

    Bertazzone Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Posts:
    216
    Location:
    Wonderland
    This I can confirm!
     
  13. Muddy3

    Muddy3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Posts:
    395
    Location:
    Belgium
    @roger_m, thanks for your post, and your declaration, reinforced by @Bertazzone, that you don't have any agenda, which I will certainly consider.

    In that post, you summarise your (and, in effect, MalwareTip's) basic bleat about Webroot. I disagree profoundly with your assessment (particularly regarding "execution" of malware when it comes to a real-life as opposed to a synthetic test environment). But I'm sure you already know that, and I agree with you that this exchange of posts has more than run its course.

    Some of this exchange has been productive (though, ideally, I think it would have been better conducted round a jar of beer in a pub rather than on a Forum ;)) but I think we would both agree that it has gone on too long.

    I return to the last sentence of my previous post (and again, I think we can both agree on this): Time to move on!

    I wish you a productive week.
     
  14. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,365
    Agreed!
    You too.
     
  15. Muddy3

    Muddy3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Posts:
    395
    Location:
    Belgium
    @fax, you posted this back in late 2016:
    which incidentally, you may have noticed, I took the liberty of referring to recently (I hope you didn't mind :doubt:).

    It would be great, if you are willing, for you to give us an update on this. Are those customers still using Webroot and, if so, what is their current experience?

    Thanks!
     
  16. ProTruckDriver

    ProTruckDriver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    1,140
    Location:
    "Here on Wilders"
  17. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,893
    Location:
    localhost
    Holy ***** already three years have passed!!??.... Amazing! Well the situation has not changed around 7 years of the same installations which I check remotely and only minor instances of malware which WSA took care of. Before installing WSA I was used to visit these installations every 6-12 months to make some major work of cleaning (various junk installed). This has not happened again since I have installed WSA.

    While reading these last posts I am starting to wonder if it is only due to luck or may be the users suddenly have matured and don't click anymore at random? Well, rather remote possibility but cannot be excluded.

    I was thinking to make a major shift and try another solution. EMSISOFT has now a beautiful remote management system. This would indeed be a good test. May be one day I will try. For the moment I am very happy not to have issues and would like to keep it as it is!

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers,
    Fax
     
  18. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,365
    I'm sure that is the case. Almost always infections are caused by manually launching infected files. If you don't do that (and keep your system updated), then most likely you won't get infected. Webroot's detection rate for new malware is consistently terrible, so it stands to reason that if people are click happy, that they will get infected sooner or later. This is true for all antiviruses. But if will surely happen sooner, rather than later, with an antivirus with terrible detection rates.

    As I've said all along. Webroot's poor performance, won't matter too much, if you don't open infected files.
     
  19. Muddy3

    Muddy3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Posts:
    395
    Location:
    Belgium
    Thanks for the info, @fax
     
  20. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    6,697
    Location:
    Hawaii
    For Oct. 4, 2019 test results for Webroot, go to MalwareTips forum at HERE and HERE.
     
  21. Cruise

    Cruise Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Posts:
    1,175
    Location:
    USA
    Well, I'm a concerned user. What are you guys switching to?
     
  22. SSherjj

    SSherjj Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Posts:
    167
    Location:
    New York, USA
    All I have to say is I rarely hear of any or many who get a virus while using Webrooto_O
     
  23. davisd

    davisd Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Posts:
    19
    Location:
    Latvia
    Rarely because no smart human being is using it anymore as a security solution, Webroot is on the finito road, stop twisting the facts and making excuses for poor protection performance throughout the months/years without serious and continued development from Webroot, its an expected letal crash, those who still praise it - just stop.
     
  24. Muddy3

    Muddy3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Posts:
    395
    Location:
    Belgium
    *yawn* So?? What's new?? Nothing has changed since Prevx first came out circa 2003/2004 (Prevx steadfastly refused for obvious reasons to ever participate in any malware test). And nothing has changed since Webroot SecureAnywhere came out. Webroot has never performed better than badly or extremely badly in most of the tests because those testers have never made the slightest attempt to adapt themselves to Webroot's way of working.
    Why did I always get infected before I installed Prevx and never have since?? Oh, wait a minute... An enormous fluke, of course :(

    Why have @Techfox1976's customers, @zfactor's customers and @PC_Fiddler's friends (all referenced in my post I cite above) never got infected since moving over to Webroot although they regularly got infected before that date? Why of course, how didn't I think of it before, stupid me? Another enormous fluke!

    Pity they don't still post to Wilders. If they did, we could get back to them so they could confirm that their customers and friends have since returned to form and are regularly getting infected, click-happy and Webroot users as they are, thus proving the point that it was all, yes indeed, just a temporary aberration.

    Oopps sorry!! I'm being thick-headed in saying the above. Truth is, what really happened, as several posters here have already patiently pointed out to me, is they all converted en masse from click-happy users to sensible ones the instant their providers moved them over to Webroot. Silly me! I'm going gaga in my old age. I do apologise.

    @fax's customers too. And glory be, their reformed behaviour continues right up until today. Pity he's thinking of moving them over to Emsisoft instead of moving them back to Kaspersky. As the latter would be a great way of proving the obvious point (again, I apologise for my thickness in not seeing this before) that they have all converted en masse from click-happy to sensible users.

    But then again, I don't think they would be very happy with the idea of being put back on Kaspersky.

    Oh well, you can't have everything...
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2019
  25. SSherjj

    SSherjj Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Posts:
    167
    Location:
    New York, USA
    Well Well I must be one of those not so smart human beings eh? For five years I've had Webroot on my 6 PCs and one is a Mac...Saved me a few times from viruses. The main take down IMO was Webroot selling out...the lack of a Mac expert..and a few other false Positives has given Webroot a bad name. Personally I do not need facts to feel secure.

    It's free speech here and I believe I can defend Webroot if I wish to. Comments will not stop here.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. mood
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    7,131
  2. ako
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,395
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.