Webroot SecureAnywhere PUBLIC Beta

Excellent idea!
Easily switchable profiles will be very useful.

 

What other security software are you using if any? No issues here with WSA and IE9, FF 6.0.2 & Opera 11.51 and Flash! You could check your Flash settings via Control Panel!

TH

 

Just Vipre. When identity Shield is disabled then flash works

 

Disable VIPRE and then check to see if you can see Flash with your Browsers! As it could be conflict between VIPRE and WSA? And one more thing is it VIPRE AV or VIPRE Premium? Because I use VIPRE AV only with WSA in my Win 7 32bit VM without issues!

TIA,

TH

 

I already tried that with vipre. I have vipre av

 

What Level do you have the ID Shield set on Low, Medium, High, or Maximum ?
Try lowering and see if it works afterwards, if it's not on Low already of course

 

I don't know if that is the issue as I have HTTPS at MAX and HTTP on HIGH and it works for me in my VM VIPRE AV only and WSA 8.0.0.12! Maybe it's best for zach to contact the support inbox directly https://www.webrootanywhere.com/servicewelcome.asp?

TH

 

I don't know either it was just a thought. But after I lowered mine I got my sound back and Bee Gees in my ears

 

I replied to your post also!

TH

 

And I replied to yours.

 

I lowered the identity shield to low and that didn't work either.

 

Can you contact the support inbox for they can help you further? https://www.webrootanywhere.com/servicewelcome.asp?

TH

 

Hi,

I was able to reproduce your issue and found that temporarily disabling the Web Threat Shield allowed flash to work again (once firefox was closed and opened again). Can you confirm if that is the case for you so we know we are experiencing the same bug?

 

All PrevxHelp is able to say at the moment is:

[Source: post #5]

WSA is still very much in beta so it'll be sometime before the final release is submitted to any testing organisations.

 

I want to Thank everyone's input trying to help me resolve this issue.

 

I dont think so. I feel it is very, very close to a RC or even a full release. I think folks with current Prevx licences are getting ready to get some info they will like.

 

I agree the program feels stable and runs smooth as well as being light, but I believe there is still more testing to be done. The closed beta testers are getting builds earlier than everyone else; as I understand it, there is going to be a point where everyone receives the newer builds at the same time as part of a wider open beta test.

Components such as the backup and password management features need to be tested, and PrevxHelp has already indicated these will be available to beta testers "soon". This is why I think we're still going to be in beta phase for a little while longer. Of course, if things change from that, I'm sure PrevxHelp will tell us.

 

Although the actual release could be consider stable there is a lot of basic features of an AV to add (exclude folders, purge nonexistent files from the lists... I already reported them), also I hope that they will not release the product with the actual interface.
Also we need to test all the rest of features as you mentioned, but I would consider that once we start to test the backup, password manager is because the main product is practically finished.

 

There is definitely still some ground to cover with further improvements/bugfixes but we're getting close. We do have some new features coming up soon which will fill it out more as a full suite (optionally, of couse, as we're not forcing users to waste resources on components they don't want ).

I probably don't say it enough but I really appreciate the help everyone here has been giving, not only with bug fixes but with all of the feature suggestions as well w

 

It's you, Joe, that's making it possible for all of us avid security fans that's making it possible! I've been around since Prevx 4 pre-alpha and testing it (remember the old Shadow Defender BSODs I reported back then?). Big improvements, top-notch response to feedback and not to meantion the most important thing; great product!

As I do have access to loads malware from different sources... if you want me to test malware against WCA with a predefined method of your choice, I am up for it. All in private or in public if you'd like. PM if if so!

Gabriel

 

TH

 

I want to suggest something about integrity levels. I don't think I've mentioned what I'm about to mention. I know I mentioned about ILs, but I don't think it's related. Or, I'm just adding a few more info...

What do you think of the following scenario.

Under SafeStart Sandbox have options to run any application the user would like (and that the user discovers that it works fine... lol) as Restricted User (= low integrity level), Basic User (= medium integrity level) and Elevated User (= high integrity level). Not to forget about the NoWriteUp, NoReadUp and NoExecuteUp flags.

Obviously, WSA should remember such options, so that when the user executes the application it starts with those explicit integrity levels. To run with the high integrity level, WSA should present the user with an UAC alert, otherwise it won't run with a high integrity level.

For quite some time that I've got a few relatives running the browser (Chromium) with an explicit low integrity level, media player with an explicit medium integrity level and password manager with an explicit high integrity level with the flags NoWriteUp, NoReadUp and NoExecuteUp.

The isssue is when applications get updated. Integrity levels will be restored. I easily fixed this by creating batch files, but a central mechanism that would do it automatically when the executable gets changed (by checking hash value) would be nice and less confusing to relatives... Batch file for this... batch file for that. They already got a few to enable/disable things as they need.

WSA does have some integrity level features... why not improve it a bit..

This, together with what I previously mentioned (interaction between a lower IL object with higher IL containers) would make WSA a bit more perfect.

By the way, what would you folks think of an option to run the browser (when used for banking) to run in an isolated desktop?

An isolated desktop plus WSA identity protection, such as MITM, would make it a bit more perfect.

 

-edit-

There's a typo in the word HOSTS in Core System Shield. It's HOSTS, not HOSTs. (I'm being picky... )

P.S: This makes question something. The option prevents any application from modifying the hosts file. I haven't tested it yet, but does that include scripts as well? Anyway, it would be nice to have an exclusion option, so that one can allow an application/script, by verifying hash and/or publisher.

 

Just auto updated to WSA v8.0.0.15