Suggestion for the Web Threat Shield (I think that's the name...). I'd like to configure relative's systems to only allow connection to predefined TLDs. So, it would be nice to be able to add entries such as *.org, etc... Basically, accept wildcards and/or regular expressions. It could actually work in two ways - whitelist and blacklist. For instance, we could add *.com and *.net, and then have an option to Convert to whitelist, or even have those two as separate components. Am I being crazy? Am I?
You should be able to do this today - click Settings - Web Threat Shield - View Websites. In that dialog, you can add masks of domains to block or allow. I would suggest thoroughly testing software after doing this, however, as many applications update through non-standard domains and it could end up blocking access.
Hmm... Have you folks added the functionality in recent beta versions? Because, I did try that approach like two versions behind, but it didn't work. WSA would block access to, let's say, www.wilderssecurity.com, but not to all *.wilderssecurity.com. I'll give it another try, though. -edit- I gave it a try, and it does block all sub-domains. Maybe I did something wrong back then. Anyway, it does not block by TLDs, though; adding *.com won't block anything terminating in that TLD, for example. It would be nice to have that option.
These are just a few minor, cosmetic suggestions... 1) I don't like the way the "need help" is like a link ln the overview tab. I think it would look better as a 2nd button under "Access Web Consol" 2) Some people have expressed some concern or distaste for all the details on the overview. On the contrary, I am quite fond of them and I feel they are easy to interpret. What if, however, their displayal (my own word I just made up) was controllable via an option in Basic Confg of full settings list...or...what if there was a small arrow above the details on the overview tab that which allowed them to be collapsed?
Just ideas I would like to see implemented. I know it won't happen, but since this thread (which I didn't bother to read before typing here of course) is existing .. 1.) - (W)-Icon could have a (blinking or not blinking, colored) frame that makes the user (me ) aware that the monitor function of WRSA is ON. Reason: I want to disable this function as quickly as I can. Always. That is because I know that stuff I do install is (99.9 %) safe and secure and once I had 1.4 GB of wrdata folder where things were "monitored" (I guess for restoring them later if needed) and that and any slowdown because of monitoring or writing to my SSD I want to avoid. Also I had already reported that in the past browser updates were monitored but not when I checked (right after updating), only later. So a colored frame would help me to see that something is monitored right now. 2.) - Short link via context menue of (W)-Icon to "Control Active Processes" (Right now this is the most used section for me of WRSA and 4 clicks are needed if I am not wrong). 3.) - Make that "Control Active Processes" list (and others, in firewall etc.) able to being sorted by name, so we can find things faster. If all this is possible without making a bloatware out of it, please do it. Just ideas, your decision. I know.
Joe, when you open the GUI there should be a place to click and go directly to any items quarentined. Instead of 3 additional clicks. Actually it would be nice if the main page of the GUI even showed also how many items quarentined. Just a thought.
A right click 'Cleanup Now' option added to the Webroot Task-bar icon would be very handy, perhaps even replacing the 'check for updates' which is superfluous maybe?
Since this is a suggestions thread How about just a true AV instead of trying to be a suite of software some people want just a AV "already paid for I might add" just taken away just a thought
I've finally come around to adding this in Idea exchange in Webroot's forum, so if you like it please Kudo it to ensure it gets noticed by the devs
No offence BonskY, but your username just reminded me of this - Bronski Beat > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronski_Beat The things that pop into ones head.
!!!!LLOLL!!! Yeah! I remember this old good band from the 80, and now by your fault,their tube 'Smalltown boy' running endlessly in my head My username are coming from a french comic book (or it's more a graphic novel) (I've more than a thousand of comic book that collect since 30 years, he, we're forever young ) Have a nice day
I am glad you liked it (the song)...and I learned that your username comes from a character in a French comic book.
It would be very handy to be able to rightclick the systray icon and go directly to Control Active Processes instead of going through the menus everytime.
i would like to see a better way to control pop ups for those that want to see it say it updated and see it say it started a scan etc,
Hello, It seems to me that there can be a lot of confusion over the Identity Shield and the lock on the tray icon along with the message on hover over the tray icon of "The foreground window is protected by Identity Shield". With release 8.0.2.85, Identity Shield give the same protection to all websites you visit unless you make an exception for a particular site in settings. We also know that Identity Shield only works fully on the list of supported browsers unless we add it to the list in settings (along with any other apps we want to protect). If we now have Identity Shield turned on, is there really a need for this lock icon anymore? If we turn off Identity Shield and the tray icon turns gray with the orange exclamation, is this enough? I would also assume now since Identity Shield works the same set to default on all websites, is there a need for the message on hover over the tray icon of "The foreground window is protected by Identity Shield"? IMHO, I think that the list of protected apps under settings is enough for us to know what Identity Shield is protecting (along with just the green icon in the tray when Identity Shield is on). The lock icon and the hover over tray icon message are no longer really necessary due to the "NEW" Identity Shield introduced in 8.0.2.85 and only add to and make confusion for the user. I, for one, would not miss the lock icon nor the hover message. Just my two cents worth.....
IMO it's still needed here's why: Lets just say IE9 and some users don't use full screen and if they click somewhere off the Active foreground of the browser say the Desktop or the Taskbar the lock disappears so the Browser window is not being protected at all but you click back on the Active Browser window the lock comes back and if you do the same when hovering over the Tray Icon while off screen it just says "Protected" meaning the system is protected now click back on the Active foreground of the browser and go back it says "The foreground window is protected by Identity Shield" so in this case the user would still be aware that they are Protected While Browsing seeing the Lock on the Tray Icon or Hovering over and saying "The foreground window is protected by Identity Shield". TH
Then something is wrong somewhere. Say I have 4 windows open in IE. Go to the main GUI of WRSA and see what it says about Identity Shield, "4 secured sessions are currently active and being protected by the Identity Shield." where as hovering over the tray icon says the "foreground window"... Which is it? The 4 secured sessions? OR the foreground window? It can only accurately be one or the other, NOT both... The GUI says you are protected in all four windows and even if you minimize IE...
Ah maybe you just found a bug that shows that on the main GUI page. I have 5 windows minimized and it says: and the lock is missing! Great catch. We will see what Joe has to say! Thanks Kent, TH
Yeah, it just does not make sense. IF the four sessions (in my scenario) and 5 windows for you are correct, then the lock is both misleading and wrong by saying foreground. If the lock is correct by saying "foreground", then the 4 secured or 5 secured (in our respective cases) is wrong. Either case, something is not right, or at least needs to be made a LOT more clear. To me both cannot be accurate at the same time as they contradict each other. Maybe now you see why I said the lock and "foreground" are not needed anymore, but I guess it will depend on whether the tray icon or the main GUI is accurate with the correct information.
