Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Triple Helix, Jun 6, 2014.
Thanks Muddy3 for your input!
Not worth bothering with or trying to reason with any of the lemons out there...they have their views as we have ours. And nothing will change that...period. But as Daniel says, facts speak louder than words...and those running WRSA and whose bacon it has saved in the past, know this.
Again, I agree with Daniel...the really bad news in all of this is the purchase by Carbonite.
Yes @Baldrick you seemly and effortlessly put things in perspective!
I got infected with Sality while using WSA from a infected Steam backup copy of Borderlands 2 that I obtained from a friend that was using Webroot Secure Anywhere too.
The worst part of this infection is that was me that recommended WSA for him.
I still have an unused legit WSA key from that time, I was a Prevx enthusiast and a closed beta tester for WSA, you may doubt my words, but you can look my very olds posts about Prevx and WSA to see that I used them for a long period of time until it failed to protect me and my friend computer and its bugs annoyed the hell out of me.
WSA is a subpar security solution that barely improved along the years ...
Ps: I still remember clearly that almost all other antivirus detected the file, but because WSA lacked a properly emulator it allowed Sality to trash my machine.
As I stated...like all security solutions...some workl fopr some and not others...that is the way of the world. Have used BitDefender and not only did it fail tyo stop an attack (just the one, mind) but it alsdo tradshed my system...whereas WRSA has perfromed flawlessly for me and saved me from infection on at least 4 separate occassions. But as I said what works for me does not necessarily mean that it will work for others.
I don't think it is possible to adapt the tests. It's just not possible for Webroot to perform well in testing, when it does so baldy at detecting malware. I note that for the most part every big name antivirus performs better (usually significantly better) when tested, than Webroot does. Even Malwarebytes, which is regularly criticised for its poor performance these days and does badly when tested, does better than Webroot.
Surely the whole point of using antivirus software is to protect your system. In which case, why would use one which consistently has one of the worst detection rates?
Because some users of the tool has experienced exactly the contrary on their PCs and therefore they keep using it. You can disagree but there is no need to keep insisting. At the end of the day its about personal preferences and how a user feel secure.
If Webroot has worked well for you, it does not mean it has good detection rates. It is a fact that it has absolutely terrible detection rates. Every single day, I see tests which prove this.
But as I've stated a number of times, if you take just a little bit of care, it is extremely hard to get infected. Personally, I never get infected and it's got nothing to do with my antivirus. I never get infected when I visit compromised websites. I never download infected files. I'm careful enough not to open random email attachments (which of course, may be infected). As a result, not only do I never get infected, my antivirus never detects any malware on my system. I also would never get infected Webroot, or any other antivirus.
If it works for you, then by all means keep using Webroot. But stop this ridiculous denial of how bad it is.
Webroot is designed to be ran alongside existing antivirus so it may catch something your main av misses.I have never used webroot so i cannot testify to it's effectiveness.As for av tests,they are very subjective and not conclusive to the security provided.
While it can be, the posters here are using as their only antivirus.
In a review from Tom's Hardware, they recommend using along side another antivirus, rather than as your main antivirus, due to its poor performance.
When big name antiviruses, always perform better and usually much better, it shows a big problem with Webroot.
You seems to suggest that you cannot use an AV if it is bad in tests. But as you may have understood by now, users can make their decision based on how well they feel their own computer has been protected. You cannot force someone to stop using an AV because its bad on tests. They are happy with how it has been working for them, so leave them in peace.
I would highly recommend that people use an antivirus which consistently scores well in tests. But, not once in this thread have I recommended that anyone ditches Webroot. I don't care what antivirus anyone uses. I've just made a number of objective statements about Webroot and people can make their own choices. I just don't like the constant misinformation posted by die hard Webroot users.
For the record, I'm a Webroot user myself. It's one of a number of antiviruses that I'm running on my test computer.
Well I felt the need to correct your incorrect statement which implied that Webroot doesn't have terrible detection rates.
It doesn't based on their use and experience which is not the same of those tests. Its very simple to understand. You trust more those tests and they trust more their own experience. They have the right to make their choice as they wish. You can't force them otherwise. Keep insisting on this doesn't make you more right than the others. Sorry.
Well said, fax...hopefully the 'obvious' will now get through to those that insist that they are 'correct' in a debate that is NOT a debate.
A moot point, roger_m...and just because you view that its detection rates are bad does not make it so...real life experience is far better than all the staged tests. If the tests were 100% correct then we would all be using one of three of four secutity apps...because the others would have 'perished' as no one would use them...which is patently not the case.
I would suggest that you stop the ridiculous claims as to 'how bad it is'.
A suggestion that "constant misinformation" is prevelant here "by die hard Webroot users" is both fatuous & extremely arrogant. If one uses Webroot as "one of a number of antiviruses " then how can one objectively assess its effectiveness, or conversely, its lack of effectiveness objectively.
And before you mention that I run VS as well as WRSA...please note what the developer of VS has oft stated...VS is NOT an AV...it is a computer LOCK.
As ever this thread on this topic is going nowhere fast...and therefore has become...again...pointless in the extreme. We all have our views, and more importantly our own experiences. We have aired them...so best to let the curious consider everything said...and then make their own decision as to what is RIGHT FOR THEM.
It's not a personal opinion, it's a fact, that is proved every single day in testing. Just because you are Webroot user and don't get infected, it does not mean that that it has good detection rates and I've explained the reason for this many times.
The simply fact, is that when tested against recent malware, is that Webroot performs terribly. You can criticise the testing if you want. But, as I've said, every big name virus I've seen tested, performs better than Webroot. You may think Webroot performs wonderfully at detecting malware, but you are demonstrably wrong.
That's simply not true. There are many antiviruses which perform terribly yet mange to sell. A few years ago I tested over 65 different antiviruses. Many of them were pretty bad, but they were being sold, so there was obviously a market for them.
I have 14 different installations of Windows 10 on that computer (at this point in time anyway), with a different antivirus running on each installation. In any case, I only do testing to satisfy my own curiosity and because I feel the need to try every single antivirus there is. I leave the real testing, to those who have access to malware that is currently in the wild.
I suggest you reread what wrote, in particular the following statements.
We read all what you are saying. The users simply haven't encountered the 0-day that tests have encountered. Therefore your results are simply irrelevant for them. BTW, for example, the installations I am supervising do see malware but these are treated effectively by WSA. So, stating that users don't get infected because they are not exposed to malware is factually incorrect. Possibly the 0day you or other are testing are not sufficiently spread to the sample users here. If the things are as bad as described than we will see users slowly moving on to other AV solutions. Lets wait a couple of years more to see the developments.
Which explains with crystal clarity why you invest such an enormous amount of your time arguing here, to those who use or are thinking of using Webroot, how demonstrably useless an antivirus solution it is. Thanks for the clarification, Rog
Large percentage of these static tests are not really credible evidence for the effectiveness of an av.Questions arise.
1.what malware is used.
2.what settings are the chosen solution using.(stock or custom.)
Is the average user likely to come across the malware used in the tests.
Too many variables to consider to give an accurate conclusion.
I think it is very simple, if you don't trust AV's test companies, anything is good for you, as long as you test it yourself. But then again when people say " I've tested it for a few days or for a few years, and it's good", what does it mean?
It means that the foot print is light and the normal computer's speed is unaffected, but it certainly doesn't give any evidence about its efficacy about blocking new malware.
This is the damning conclusion about Webroot, one needs to have some kind of proof, that it can actually block malware... My Avira Pro hasn't done much to prove anything through the years, but at least it has done well in tests. To say tests are doctored does not help to provide other alternatives to gauge the effectiveness of AVs, tests may not be accurate, but they still offer an indication in the long run of the AV's state of alertness...
I think it should be reminded that this is the Webroot discussion thread. So people can criticize or praise it if they want.
Also hasn't anyone ever thought how the Webroot developers test their product. I mean they need to test it to confirm it is working properly, right?
Yeah, it always was a daft suggestion (Edit:@roger_m's) that those Kaspersky users of yours that were repeatedly getting infected had all converted from click-happy to sensible users the instant you moved them over to Webroot. Good try though.
Clearly, even if the posters here are reading what I say, they refuse to believe any of it. If Webroot is working fine for you or anyone else, that's good. But that does mean it's an excellent antivirus. I could use no antivirus at all and not got infected, but that does not mean I would suggest that everyone stops using antiviruses.
Well it was a logical assumption on my part, due to Webroot's poor detection rates. But, if users are not getting infected with Webroot, then they almost certainly would also not get infected if there were using a big name antivirus.
I find it interesting, that while there is a lot of talk about how wonderful Webroot is and that it is better than other antiviruses, no one can explain exactly what makes it "better." It's just a blind belief that Webroot is better than other antiviruses, because they don't get infected. I don't think Webroot is a good as some users believe it is, because literally every day, I see proof, that other antiviruses are better at detecting malware. Yet, no one can provide any actual proof of Webroot being better at detecting malware than others. The constant criticism of my posts actually means very little without actual proof. I cab provide proof of my claims, bot Webroot users can't provide zero proof of it being better than other antiviruses.
Webroot's poor performance does not matter (too much), if you're not getting infected. But on the other hand it does not automatically mean the Webroot is better than other antiviruses. As an example, I've never gotten infected when using Panda. I know others who have used Panda and not gotten infected. But does this make it a good antivirus? Most definitely not! It's one of the worst well known antiviruses there is and not a product that I'd ever recommend these days. It's important to note that they also would have not gotten infected if they were using Windows Defender, Webroot, Kaspersky or any other antivirus.
Separate names with a comma.