Why is Webroot no longer on the AV-Test tests

I don't see Webroot on the AV-Test from Nov-Dec onwards. http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-8/novdec-2013/

Any one have any idea why ?

 

Folks say I bash Webroot, but really nothing I have said isn't true. I've noticed it generally not being tested much anymore, which is a bit alarming to me. I've noticed a lot of things about it, but don't care to sound like I am bashing it so I will just say - many places just don't test it anymore.

 

Because they asked not to be tested as i recall it, they don't feel an "oldschool" type test is going to show the real level of detection and was last i read anything working with one or two of the testing orgs to develop a proceedure to do just that. What has become of that i'm not up to speed with.

 

As I understand it is hard to test their way of protecting system. Sometimes they might "miss" malware upon execution, but would later (after analysed in cloud) remove it and undo all changes malware has made. I guess it's hard to test that kind of protection.

hqsec

 

Regarding no longer participating in these kind of tests, I was thinking all the time they were too easy and predictable for the vendors, hence all these near 100% scores, which seem too good to be true. Yet AV-Comparatives and AV-Test results are quite reputable, hence you can have the sugarcoating and inflating effects of advertising backed by a neutral testers solid reputation.

They are such an essential part of AV advertising that, if a product offers good protection and the funds are available to pay for the testing, it would be unreasonable not to participate. Unless the results would be bad, of course.

 

I've got 5 years of WSA subscription and love it, but am using KIS and Bitdefender right now on all my machines until I can see some hard evidence that the protection is there. I'm not saying I don't have any faith in Webroot, but with 2 other paid solutions that I know are effective it's hard to use WSA

 

Its a catch 22.... unless you use it you will never be able to assess it as external testing has, so far, failed to properly test it.
So, with your approach I fear you will have to wait veeery long...

 

Its there..Not to impressive of scores tho..

http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/producer/webroot/

 

I have licenses for KIS and BIS but don't use them...too slow. Been using WSA 2 years without a hitch!

 

Yes, its there but too little and too wide variations + they stopped in August ... so you can't do much with those results. And there is a reason why they are not tested anymore... not going into it as it has been discussed ad-nauseam in wilders.

 

Yes, some products (not only Webroot) are difficult to test to their full potential but without any 3rd party testing organization, then the only thing left is believe the vendor's promises alone, which also is not a strong point as every vendor pretty much promises the same. Yes, some will say - see our users and so on but this is not enough and here comes also the percentage of users compared to that of other AV vendors. It's normal that vendors with larger user base will have more reports of their solutions being compromised.

 

Simply put, they don't get tested anymore due to getting bad results which they then claim "you did not test our product correctly". I get the fact that their product works differently, but for any good antivirus product regardless you would expect them to have even semi-decent file based detection/signatures for active malware. If its really that bad why not just do what every other vendor is doing and rent Bitdefenders signatures and put them in the Webroot cloud then people will stop complaining and you will get good test results.

 

I agree if you have a good product that yielded good results wouldn't you want the public to see them results?? I'd think so.

 

There are actually very good results by all users out there (many millions) but I guess this does not count in your mind...
Though this is really getting a bit boring... lol. With such a large base (fast growing) its normal that the product is targeted with bad publicity... there is no interest for large traditional AV companies to have this too much discussed... in the good way.

 

Thats the first thing most people look for i think are these "tests" then make there judgment. thats what im reading around the www.

 

yes, but test in this case do not catch the reality that's why Webroot is working with test organisations to improve the situation:

https://community.webroot.com/t5/Community-Announcements/Joint-message-from-AV-Comparatives-and-Webroot/m-p/54632#M1133

 

I don't use an antivirus but if I was to use one again, I would consider Webroot. I know sometimes is hard to understand how a program is protecting the computer when malware don't get flagged right away and taken care of in the traditional way but I know there are programs that work differently and that are better than traditional programs. I even know of some programs that don't ever detect anything but still protect the computer better than the ones that look great detecting malware.

I also know that when I go to the traditional antiviruses forums, the ones that score 98% or so in the tests, all of them have a section for users reporting infections. And many users are reporting infections everyday. To me thats the tell tale sign that means something.

I mean, when someone doubts Sandboxie, I just tell him to go to the SBIE forum to see iif people are reporting infections. And there are none. Anyway, a few days ago I read this post by Triple Hellix:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2342637&postcount=7

If its true what he says, you guys using an AV (of the ones that detect almost 100% malware in test but in the real world don't) should put your attention at Webroot. After I read his post, I took a quick look at the Webroot forum and what he says seems to be true. To me thats the bottom line and it means more than any test.

Bo

 

Well said...

 

I have never been in a situation where any of the various security products I have been using over the last 12 years had needed to protect me. That doesn't say anything about the quality of their protection. There's people out there with unpatched Windows XP surfing the internet without an infection. Time to downgrade, I guess.

 

That doesn't make sense to me...Considering that free AVs like avast! who has more than 200 000 000 of active users, it's quite normal to see new infections topic everyday on their forums. On Immunet forum, I don't see any infections like topic, does that mean that Immunet is a good quality product ?

 

Spywar, to me, Immunet, Avast are about the same. I am sorry but I don't see much difference.

Bo

 

No offence But this comment only shows that you have been locked inside your sandbox for too long making a comment like that. FYI they are not about the same.

 

BIS is very snappy, but I did find it noticeable at times. KIS 2013 was slow, as well as 2014 (patch a, b, and c) until I tried patch e, what a world of difference. I can't tell it's there, just the same as WSA, and it gave me peace of mind, even if it was artificial and meaningless.

 

No offense taken, I knew I was gonna take flak from some of you boys for giving my opinion. The XP in the pictures below is my XP. I installed Avast five times after Firefox 27 came out. Some people were reporting problems using Firefox 27 and SBIE after Firefox 27 was released. I was the one that found that the problem occurred when users also had Avast installed in their computers. In the first picture, you can see Avast messing things up in the sandbox. So you can think whatever you want to think but I know about Avast and understand and appreciate the work that the people at Webroot do. All I did was give my opinion, you can think what you wish.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=29marfs&s=8

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=35befqa&s=8

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=205f49s&s=8

And you know, the last two W7 computers that I bought came with free Eset license, they were wasted because I never used them. Sandboxie works better for me without ESET, IMO.

Bo

 

As Fleischmann also said: normal usage with updated PC on Win7/8 won't get you infected in a day when yoor AV scores 90% on tests. I also noticed that so few users report issues with it. Then from ESET and F-secure I also got the impressions user were happier with the products as the test results showed (in the past that is, there are fine now).

Also I have no AV, but have WSA on my Wife's laptop since PrevX4 was launched as pre-alpha. I kept it because it is very light and I really like the web protection. In the last 3/4 years my wife has reported it had warned at two on-line sites, so it at least has saved me money twice