[Duo Test] Webroot SecureAnywhere feat Comodo Firewall (Manzaitest)

[Manzai]

@thepierrezou request's

 

[soinvisage]

i have often submit to webroot so its not good for me, so much undetected files compare to other engines

 

[Manzai]

i have often submit to webroot so its not good for me, so much undetected files compare to other engines

I speak not about only Webroot in the review but to Webroot and Comodo Firewall

 

[soinvisage]

yes but the antivirus is webroot and webroot only its not enough

 

[MikeV]

Good Job by Comodo Firewall

 

[ALi]

Great review Thanks

 

[yigido]

Good job CFW Thanks for the review @manzai

 

[Ink]

Most URLs were flagged by SmartScreen (before Webroot/Comodo), but ignored, why is that?

 

[Manzai]

Most URLs were flagged by SmartScreen (before Webroot/Comodo), but ignored, why is that?

I don't test SmartScreen.

 

[Ink]

I see, but if you're not testing it, why not disable it. It's clear SmartScreen beat Comodo and Webroot.

Some users believe Webroot is not enough (see post #4), can you re-assure users that Webroot in hands of a sensible user, you are protected?

 

[Manzai]

I see, but if you're not testing it, why not disable it. It's clear SmartScreen beat Comodo and Webroot.

Some users believe Webroot is not enough (see post #4), can you re-assure users that Webroot in hands of a sensible user, you are protected?

I tested Webroot : http://malwaretips.com/threads/webroot-secureanywhere-2014-manzaitest.27576/

 

[yigido]

Why you @Huracan against these security products? (especially Comodo) Just wondering!

 

[Ink]

I'm not against the products, I actually like Webroot, previously Prevx. Comodo is default-deny, unless it's whitelisted, but even safe programs get sandboxed. And just because it's sandboxed by Comodo, doesn't mean the file could have been malicious. - Hard to see what's being clicked in the video, sped up too fast, imo. So I don't see how Comodo did a great job, when you can clearly see that SmartScreen was first to intervene - even if it wasn't supposed to be included in the video review.

The user can run Webroot with Windows SmartScreen & Firewall, without the need for Comodo Firewall - especially on an OS like Windows 8.

 

[MikeV]

I'm not against the products, I actually like Webroot, previously Prevx. Comodo is default-deny, unless it's whitelisted, but even safe programs get sandboxed. And just because it's sandboxed by Comodo, doesn't mean the file could have been malicious. - Hard to see what's being clicked in the video, sped up too fast, imo. So I don't see how Comodo did a great job, when you can clearly see that SmartScreen was first to intervene - even if it wasn't supposed to be included in the video review.

The user can run Webroot with Windows SmartScreen & Firewall, without the need for Comodo Firewall - especially on an OS like Windows 8.

+1 if the OS is windows 8

 

[stephentony]

soinvisage said:
yes but the antivirus is webroot and webroot only its not enough.

Now why in the world would you say that? You may not like or even believe in the way Webroot protects, but that certainly does not mean it's not enough and does not work. It's funny because I am seeing that the tide has changed on this subject just a bit recently. If you follow some of the YouTube testers that post here, too, you will fine someone like "Manzai" who just did a great review or the "MalwareDoctor" who tested Webroot over a year ago and tore it apart. Now, in the past couple of weeks he decided to re-test Webroot according to the unique way it does it's job, and what do you know? Webroot does do a great job, just not the way many of us want it to. I am not referring to the "MalwareDoctor" as an independent source of testing to stand alongside AV Comp or AV Test. No offense Doc! What I am saying is that Webroot needs to be tested differently and it feels like people are coming to understand that. Webroot does not have the beefed up webfilter that slams the door on every questionable website or instantly identifies every piece of malware you download, but if or when you execute that download, it will act. And even if it does not act instantly it will watch that file and roll everything back after it has completed it's analysis, and finds the file to be malicious. I've run it on one of my home PC's along with Windows 7 FW for close to 5 years now, and I've never been infected. My employer is large and even in that enterprise environment Webroot has been nothing short of amazing. Okay, I'm off my soapbox.

 

[marg]

I used to use Webroot a long while back & got infected. I knew I was infected because my computer started acting very strange. I installed Avast & it caught the nasty stuff. I don't know if Webroot has improved a lot or not since then. I won't use it ever again unless it gets real good reviews IMO.

 

[stephentony]

I'm sure you did get infected Marg but I can get infected running any security software there is. Nothing is 100% effective. I used to travel to some dark parts of town where the buses don't run and I would get infected. I was running KAV IS back then in 2007. I'm talking more about how WSA works and it being tested properly. I'm curious Marg, when were you using Webroot? I was wondering because you said a long while back. In 2006 or 2007 this was Webroot Spy Sweeper with AntiVirus and was a very different product. Webroot didn't buy Prevx until the last couple months of 2010 and the incorporation of Prevx took place after that. It's like when someone says I tried Norton AV but it's a resource hog and we know that was more than a few years ago.

 

[Littlebits]

I see, but if you're not testing it, why not disable it. It's clear SmartScreen beat Comodo and Webroot.

Some users believe Webroot is not enough (see post #4), can you re-assure users that Webroot in hands of a sensible user, you are protected?

Since SmartScreen is completely compatible with all other security products and is enabled by default when you freshly install Windows, I believe it should be included in the tests as well. It gives the wrong impression of the products tested when a Windows component (totally free) does better than a paid product.

Enjoy!!

 

[stephentony]

I would not use SmartScreen as my only security

 

[omidomi]

Good