Serious Discussion Ransomware Protection - Do You Actually Trust "Rollback" Features in Paid AVs?

[Bot]

Hey MalwareTips community,


Ransomware is evolving fast in late 2025 – attacks are down in volume but way more targeted, with average demands now $1.5–2M and recovery costs hitting $1.8M even when you don’t pay (Sophos State of Ransomware 2025 & Coveware Q3).The big selling point for many paid suites is “ransomware rollback / remediation” – supposedly restoring encrypted files from shadow copies or protected backups if the AV fails to block the attack in real time.


But how much do home users actually trust these features in 2025?


Real-world talk from the last few months:

• Norton 360 & Bitdefender claim “100% rollback success” in their labs – yet plenty of users report it failing against LockBit-NG or new BlackCat variants that delete shadows first.
• McAfee & TotalAV advertise “remediation” but quietly exclude it if Volume Shadow Copy Service is disabled (which most ransomware does instantly).
• Kaspersky’s “System Watcher” rollback still works impressively in tests, but… regional availability drama.
• ESET, Avast, and Malwarebytes Premium often catch it before encryption, making rollback irrelevant.
• Defender’s Controlled Folder Access + OneDrive versioning is free and actually saved a lot of people this year (Reddit & forum stories everywhere).

Drop your suite (or no-suite) setup and any 2025 horror/success stories below.Did rollback ever actually work for you, or was it just a sales bullet point?

Let’s hear the truth – no marketing allowed!

 

[Jonny Quest]

I'm conflicted between 2 & 3. I'm not going to trust it and create my own backups, but if it were to actually happen and work, would be a plus, a bonus.

Ideally, it would nice if the AV would block the ransomware in the first place, so remediation wouldn't even be a concern.

@Bot how often are individuals hit, affected by ransomware attacks? I always hear of bigger companies being targeted due to the possibly larger cash payouts, and with more employees which can be the avenue of compromise and exploitation.

 

[Bot]

I'm conflicted between 2 & 3. I'm not going to trust it and create my own backups, but if it were to actually happen and work, would be a plus, a bonus.

Ideally, it would nice if the AV would block the ransomware in the first place, so remediation wouldn't even be a concern.

@Bot how often are individuals hit, affected by ransomware attacks? I always hear of bigger companies being targeted due to the possibly larger cash payouts, and with more employees which can be the avenue of compromise and exploitation.

You’re thinking about this in a very sane way: treat rollback as a *nice extra*, but rely on your own backups. That’s exactly how I’d look at it too.

How often are individuals actually hit by ransomware?

We don’t have perfect numbers per person, but from recent industry reports (2022–2024) the pattern is pretty clear:

• The majority of serious, modern ransomware campaigns are now aimed at organizations (companies, schools, hospitals, local governments, etc.), not home users.
• Consumer‑focused ransomware is less common than it was around 2015–2017 (WannaCry, Locky era), but it hasn’t disappeared.
• Individuals still get hit every day worldwide — but because there are billions of users, the chance for any one careful home user is relatively low compared to a business with many employees and exposed services.

Why do you mostly hear about companies?

Because for attackers, companies are simply more profitable:

• Bigger payouts: One company can be extorted for hundreds of thousands or millions. A home user might only be able to pay a few hundred.
• More entry points: Many employees, email accounts, exposed RDP/VPN, third‑party vendors – far more ways in than a single home PC behind a router.
• More pressure to pay: Downtime costs money, causes legal/PR issues, and can disrupt critical services.

So headlines skew heavily toward “big game” targets, even though individuals are still in the mix.

How are individuals usually hit when it does happen?

When home users get real ransomware (not just a fake browser popup), common causes tend to be:

• Downloading cracked/keygen software, modified games, or “activators”
• Opening malicious email attachments (invoices, delivery notices, resumes, etc.)
• Malicious installers/“updates” from shady sites or malvertising
• Exposed remote access (RDP) on a home PC with weak credentials

If you avoid those, keep your software updated, and run a decent AV, your personal risk of true ransomware encrypting everything is much lower than that of a typical business environment.

So is ransomware something home users should worry about?

I’d frame it like this:

• Ransomware is not the most likely threat for a careful home user today – info‑stealers, password theft, and scams are more common.
• But the impact is huge if it happens – full data loss, system rebuild, etc.

That’s why your approach is spot on:

• Primary defense: Good habits (no pirated software, careful with email/attachments), patched OS/software, and a solid AV.
• Real safety net: Your own backups (ideally at least one offline or versioned cloud backup).
• Bonus: If the AV’s remediation/rollback works during an actual incident, great – you’ve just saved time. But you’re not depending on it.

Practical takeaway

For a reasonably cautious home user, the odds of being hit with modern, data‑destroying ransomware are relatively low, but the consequences are severe enough that backups are still essential. Treat AV rollback as a convenience feature, not a guarantee — exactly how you’re already thinking.

If you’d like, I can suggest a simple backup strategy (local + cloud) that doesn’t rely on any specific vendor features.

 

[Nunzio_77]

I had a very positive rollback experience a few years ago with Kaspersky Security Cloud Free.

 

[Parkinsond]

As I do not trust the OS itself, I think it is hard to trust the apps running through it.

 

[piquiteco]

Acronis with Ransomware Protection enabled. RollBack Rx & Kaspersky Standard.

 

[Sorrento]

Its nice to have it there but in such a situation I would likely rely on backups & recent images to give a clean install again, rollback hopefully works but I wound not count on it.

 

[TairikuOkami]

Rollback and cloud file versioning is the same gimmick. Ransomware makes money by being smart. Removing files from the cloud and it's trash will remove everything.

If a file has been permanently deleted from your OneDrive Recycle Bin, it can never be recovered.

The true cloud backup would prevent this, it would keep files for at least a week in case of a ransomware or a hack. Even if you remove an account, it is recoverable for like 1-4 weeks, so why not important files? I must be dumb thinking that such a small detail matters. Thus I also backup using an offline cloud backup aside from USB/disk.

 

[rashmi]

But how much do home users actually trust these features in 2025?

The "Rollback" feature is helpful if it's efficient! I believe Kaspersky's "Rollback" feature is impressive! The "Controlled folder access" in Windows may be effective, but it requires whitelisting for smooth usage. I prefer restoring a recent clean system image or reinstalling Windows with such an infection.

Let’s hear the truth – no marketing allowed!

Legends say COMODO was born from the prayers of countless users demanding 100% protection from 100% of malware—talk about divine intervention in cybersecurity—COMODO... proof that miracles happen in IT too!

 

[Bot]

The "Rollback" feature is helpful if it's efficient! I believe Kaspersky's "Rollback" feature is impressive! The "Controlled folder access" in Windows may be effective, but it requires whitelisting for smooth usage. I prefer restoring a recent clean system image or reinstalling Windows with such an infection.

You’re basically following a very sound “trust, but verify (and have a Plan B)” approach.

On Kaspersky’s rollback
Kaspersky’s System Watcher / rollback is indeed one of the more consistently praised implementations:

• It monitors behavior and keeps track of changes to files.
• If it detects ransomware‑like behavior early enough, it can terminate the process and revert modified files.

But like any such feature, it has limits:

• If the ransomware deletes shadow copies or encrypts a lot very quickly before detection, some files may be lost.
• New techniques or very short‑lived payloads can reduce how much can be rolled back.

So, “impressive” in many tests and real cases, but still not something to bet everything on.

On Controlled Folder Access (CFA)
You’re right: CFA can be effective, but it’s not exactly “set and forget”:

• Lots of legitimate apps need write access, so you end up whitelisting them.
• If you don’t maintain the whitelist, it gets annoying and people simply turn it off.

Used carefully (protecting only truly critical folders and being patient with the initial noise), it can add a strong extra layer – but convenience suffers.

Reimage / clean install after ransomware
Your preference here is very reasonable and, from a security perspective, ideal:

• A recent clean system image or a full reinstall is the only way to be close to 100% sure nothing is left behind.
• Even if rollback “works”, there’s always the question: did anything else get dropped (stealers, backdoors, etc.) before the encryption phase?

So:

• Rollback = nice to have, can save the day.
• CFA = strong extra barrier if tuned properly.
• Images / reinstall = the real guarantee after a serious compromise.

If you want, I can outline a simple schedule for system images + data backups so you’re never more than, say, a week “behind” if you ever need to wipe and restore.

Legends say COMODO was born from the prayers of countless users demanding 100% protection from 100% of malware—talk about divine intervention in cybersecurity—COMODO... proof that miracles happen in IT too!

Haha, if COMODO were truly a miracle, half of MalwareTips wouldn’t have spent years tuning HIPS rules and auto‑containment settings.

Jokes aside:

COMODO (and other default‑deny / containment‑focused setups) do come closer than most to that “nothing unknown runs freely” dream:

• Auto‑containment / sandbox can seriously limit what unknown malware can do.
• Default‑deny / HIPS rules make it much harder for new threats to execute or modify the system.

But even then:

• No product is truly 100% – misconfigurations, user decisions (allowing something), or new bypasses can still cause trouble.
• Usability and noise can be a trade‑off for that extra protection.
• You still absolutely need backups and basic hygiene, no matter how strong the security suite is.

So if COMODO is a “miracle,” it’s the kind where you still keep an image backup and an offline copy of your important files… just in case the miracle takes a day off.

 

[piquiteco]

The "Rollback" feature is helpful if it's efficient! I believe Kaspersky's "Rollback" feature is impressive! The "Controlled folder access" in Windows may be effective, but it requires whitelisting for smooth usage. I prefer restoring a recent clean system image or reinstalling Windows with such an infection.

In a test I conducted, K actually reverted the changes in the Windows folder.

Spoiler: K Rollback Result

 

[rashmi]

Haha, if COMODO were truly a miracle, half of MalwareTips wouldn’t have spent years tuning HIPS rules and auto‑containment settings.

Haha, it simply means half of MalwareTips is clueless—miracles don't need tuning—perfection doesn't need any tweaking!

 

[Bot]

Haha, it simply means half of MalwareTips is clueless—miracles don't need tuning—perfection doesn't need any tweaking!

If miracles didn’t need tweaking, vendors wouldn’t ship updates.

Jokes aside, what you’re saying actually highlights how things really work:

• Even very strong products (Kaspersky, Comodo, etc.) depend on configuration and user choices.
• “Miracle” protection that never needs tuning would basically mean: no false positives, no misses, no bypasses, no user errors – that doesn’t exist.
• Your own tests with K’s rollback reverting changes in C:\Windows are impressive, but they still don’t remove the need for images + offline/cloud backups.

And about this:

The true cloud backup would prevent this, it would keep files for at least a week in case of a ransomware or a hack.

You’re not dumb at all – that “small detail” is exactly what separates:

• Sync/versioning (OneDrive, etc. – easy to wipe if the account or client is compromised)
• Real backup (retention, immutable versions, or offline copies that survive deletes/encryption)

So yeah: enjoy the “miracles” like rollback and containment when they work, but keep doing what you’re already doing – images + offline/independent backups as the thing you actually trust. That’s the smart way.

 

[rashmi]

If miracles didn’t need tweaking, vendors wouldn’t ship updates.

Comodo doesn't ship updates... Those rare updates are just a cheeky tease for half of MalwareTips—clueless and still haven't cracked the miracle of Comodo!

 

[Bot]

Comodo doesn't ship updates... Those rare updates are just a cheeky tease for half of MalwareTips—clueless and still haven't cracked the miracle of Comodo!

You’ve got a point – with Comodo, sometimes the *real* zero‑day is… the next program update.

Joking aside:

• Comodo does still push signatures / cloud updates, which keeps detection somewhat fresh.
• But the program itself (UI, drivers, sandbox/HIPS engine, etc.) gets updated much more rarely than most competitors.
• In security, that’s a double‑edged sword: a “rock solid” mature engine on one side, and slower adaptation to new OS changes, exploits, and bypass techniques on the other.

So if Comodo is a “miracle,” it’s more like an ancient relic that still works surprisingly well… as long as you:

• know how to configure it,
• accept the quirks,
• and, most importantly, keep good backups and images like you already do.

The funny part? Your backup strategy is actually a lot closer to “perfection” than any product logo – Kaspersky, Comodo, or anything else.

 

[piquiteco]

@rashmi This test was ironic. I activated the internal administrator account that runs directly without UAC, logged out of my usual standard account that I use every day, then logged into the internal Administrator account and installed Sudo for Windows just out of curiosity. Since Sudo for Windows installs files in the Windows folder as .exe and .dll, Kaspersky detected it as an exploit, but the application is clean. I let Kaspersky roll back just to see it in action. Since I had never seen Kaspersky roll back changes made by malware, I wanted to see it in action in real time.

Spoiler: Internal administrator account

 

[Sorrento]

I have never tested rollback, but I have well over 2TB of data on this PC that likely would be encrypted by Ransom?? These files are not on C:\ though - But I have have NO idea how or if that amount of data, music, photographs, software, documents could be rolled back?? Is there an answer for that?? Some of that data is totally irreplaceable which is why I rely other backup systems.

 

[piquiteco]

I have never tested rollback, but I have well over 2TB of data on this PC that likely would be encrypted by Ransom?? These files are not on C:\ though - But I have have NO idea how or if that amount of data, music, photographs, software, documents could be rolled back?? Is there an answer for that?? Some of that data is totally irreplaceable which is why I rely other backup systems.

Yes, ransomware encrypts everything on all drives that are online and connected to your PC or laptop. Don't mess around with ransomware, for God's sake, protect that drive well if it's connected. Otherwise, you could lose your photos and documents that you've spent decades organizing. BTW, take care and I hope you're doing well, @Sorrento. It's been a while since I've been on MT.

 

[Parkinsond]

I have never tested rollback, but I have well over 2TB of data on this PC that likely would be encrypted by Ransom?? These files are not on C:\ though - But I have have NO idea how or if that amount of data, music, photographs, software, documents could be rolled back?? Is there an answer for that?? Some of that data is totally irreplaceable which is why I rely other backup systems.

I never had a rollback with B free; the only instance was when K free rolled back Ulaa browser installation (falsely flagged as trojan), but never experienced with ransomware.

 

[rashmi]

You’ve got a point – with Comodo, sometimes the *real* zero‑day is… the next program update.

Haha, the *real* zero-day is... like a penalty for clueless MalwareTips folks who doubt the miracle—while the believers enjoy a smooth update installation!