WSA Shares PCMAG Editors' Choice Award

Blocking 100% in their tests is empirical data - it did block it all. Will it block everything all the time? No, but PC Magazine tested it against the same samples as other AVs and we blocked everything.

While we don't focus in signatures, we have tens of millions of them in the cloud, so there's no reason why we wouldn't score well.

 

I'm not sure these results are relevant. I switch my security monthly based on some test or other, it's getting expensive. I've been banking and shopping on-line for 15 or more years, never had a problem, bank balance is as it should be and never been subject to credit card fraud. The "best buy" or "editors choice" now cover most of the known security available, if it's on sale the chances are you'll find someone recommending it. The one constant in my security set-up has been Prevx, been using it since it started coupled with whatever was top dog at the time. I have now stopped jumping ship, and will base any ship jumping on how secure Webroot keeps me and not on an ever changing editors choice.

 

Not with any PC - Nuff said ~

 

by "Safe" i meant , not installing or running cracks/keygens, visiting warez sites/torrents, testing malware , etc...

 

Problem is people here won't get infected because we know how not to be, and if the product does not detect a file, the average person won't know about it because they have no clue.

Take an average person, give them no antivirus and tell them there are no more viruses left and it can't infect a windows 8 system. I can garuntee they will "never" question the security of the computer even if it has a bunch of malicious files on it.

 

I go by the Ultimate Test "My Wifes Computer", or as I know the computer "The Happy Clickers Computer". I have to go on her computer at least once a week if not more to fix things or make sure everything is updated. Just this weekend I we were locked out of her email account because she put the wrong password in, and we use RoboForm! I didn't ask her and not going to ask how it happened.
About 2 years now using WSA and Never been infected on all computers! There were some FP's, but Webroot quickly fixed in a matter of minutes. I put my faith in the real world "My Wifes Computer", not in tests.

 

me too

 

I have WSA installed on several clueless users that were constantly get infected with PC collapsing. I now follow them remotely via the WSA console and I had just one case of infection over three years. This infection was, by the way, detected and cleaned by WSA. So, your theory unfortunately does not stand.

 

Everyone seems to be missing the main thing here; PCMAG . That should tell you all you need to know . I like WSA . I use , amongst others and it does seemingly well . Has NEVER been 100 % for me . Been using since beta . Just remember ; PCMAG !

 

No AV is 100% and the one that says so there lying but if an infection got by WSA it's Monitoring, Journaling and Rollback feature will come in to play see this Video http://community.webroot.com/t5/Web...ebroot-Misses-a-Virus/ta-p/20412#.UX2C1sr2k9Y

TH

 

Not sure where you're finding your "Average Person", since the proliferation of people coming into computer shops with infections because of the infections indicates that people are aware of them and definitely have a clue. Of course, if one adjust for "average", then perhaps even these people are not average.

However I can say that if you take a person who comes into the shop regularly to get an infection removed, they are on something other than WSA. Then put them on WSA and they don't get infections they see anymore. So, like I said, by the obvious logic, WSA works to hide the infections so the user can't see them and come to the shop anymore*.

(* Or it's *gasp* actually taking care of them... But no, that can't be the case! There must be some excuse for it.)

 

As a point of interest to whoever it may concern.

Comodo are going to incorporate the "rollback" function into CIS in the future.

 

If anyone is interested, Rubenking from even questioned/inquired about the results in one of his SecurityWatch blog entries from longer ago:

http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/security-software/300445-webroot-bombs-in-dynamic-protection-test-why


Incidentally, maybe some of you remember this one also:

http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/security-software/291874-webroot-accused-exonerated

Hopefully they're not on here anymore!

 

let them fix this ugly UI and bugs first , then implement a true BB as promised, then a better file submission responsiveness, after they can do what they want

 

If you read carefully, it appears over a period of weeks they let WSA scan several times. It makes no mention of doing this with the other products. If they did this its obvious why WSA got a high score, on every scan the undetected samples got sent back. Its like scanning with a signature based product, sending them whats missed and then letting them scan again a few days later.

 

Nice to draw conclusions on the current test based on two completely unrelated articles. One in 2012 and the other back in 2011. Did he do the same this time? We don't know.

And even if we assume he did, he did not need to wait weeks (and, btw, where he mention waiting weeks before WSA detects something??). Normally its about minutes/hours not weeks. This is how it works as WSA will identify malicious activity by analysing its behaviour.

We are always going back to the same problem we had spoken thousands of times here. Users have difficulties in understanding what they don't know and seems not accepting that there are other ways to do things equally or even more effective.

 

The article only says "But it took a little while". Naturally the assumption some people want to make is that "a little while" means weeks, because that is what they are used to with other AV products.

IIRC, the 2011 review made it clear that "A little while" was a few hours. That's something no other AV product does. You need to get new definitions and other AVs will take weeks to detect.

 

This ground has been covered many times - Instead of wasting time with this Prevx ought to be sorting out the many WSA viral problems that the forum is full of, many which are unanswered ~

Edit - I apologise there aren’t any which I find rather odd

 

What about

 

0 day, not monthly.

 

Taliscicero,

How many examples of virus/malware infection can you find being reported by WSA users on the Webroot Forum? Inspired by PC Fiddler's last post, I ploughed through fourteen pages of Webroot Community Topics, that is more than three weeks worth of all topics, and have found absolutely...zilch.

Actually, I'd be interested if you were prepared to continue my test and let us know how many pages you have to go through before you come across a user complaining of an infection? Honest (I got tired of ploughing through the pages)! Perhaps you could report back on this??

Have you ever properly used WSA yourself (and by use I mean use as a standalone AV so you don't start jumping to the wrong conclusions when you see it let the other AV zap the malware rather than doing so itself) or have you just been reading the reviews and the un-real world tests? Or maybe just used it to simulate tests on your computer?

I had several infections while using one of the top AV brand-names until I changed to Prevx in 2006, and since then I haven't had a single infection.

 

Don't just look on the Webroot Forum, Look at ALL Forums that help people clean infections and see how many infections you find that WSA missed. I'm still looking, they must have hid them somewhere like Techfox stated.

 

That does not say whether the product is good or bad just because infections have not been reported.

 

Why would Webroot users hide the fact that they were infected, when other AV users ask for help disinfecting their system?

 

Nobody mentioned anything about "hiding".I dont come across a lot of malware myself and ive only received 2 alerts at most.
But i could be using the worst av on earth and still not be infected.

Good browsing habits are a good start.