Webroot - Any Good???

[Tony Cole]

Hi Everyone

I'm currently using KIS 2014, but keep reading excellent reviews on here about Webroot and wonder if you can tell me more/is it as good as Kaspersky? Can I run the web browser in a sandbox?

Thanks, Tony.

 

[Neno]

Don't swap. I have the one you are considering and I am not too happy with it. And their philosophy of malware removal is not what I consider a good one (taking about 1-5 gb's of hard disk space and more just as precaution- no thank you). Webroot does not even know what PUP's are. If you really want to change KIS (don't know why I suggest you try Norton 360 at least a trial (I hated Norton way back now it is my favorite IS suite).
Don't believe in everything you read. KIS is one of the best, Webroot is not even close.

 

[Petrovic]

Why Traditional Antivirus is failing -- Webroot Webinar




Here's 3 Great Video's with Webroot CEO, Dick Williams and Michael Malloy, Executive VP of Product and Strategy of Webroot Inc.

and read
how wsa works
http://malwaretips.com/threads/how-wsa-works.11871/

 

[Neno]

This read/watch material sound (rather) nice, I've done the information gathering on it and I used it (for some time). In practice it didn't served me as I wanted to. No mater what my experience is I always recommend that people try themselves and decide upon it.
My strong opinion is that there are a lot better products for the same or less amount of money.
(Everything I post is my own opinion)

 

[Tony Cole]

Neno thanks for the reply. I think I will stick with Kaspersky.

 

[Ink]

Webroot a good alternate to the "traditional Antivirus" software.

 

[yigido]

I liked the concept of work. I am using it right now. Lightest AV I have ever used.

 

[Tony Cole]

I just run a scan on my old laptop with Webroot as I have 5 PC's license's and it found a rootkit, but other scans have not????

 

[nsm0220]

the only weakness that webroot haves is zero day protection even though they had fix it up a bit and their low malware detention rate

 

[zeusc4]

I Uninstall it because it don't have exclude folder for Scans.

 

[Deleted member 178]

I Uninstall it because it don't have exclude folder for Scans.

because you don't have to with it.

 

[zeusc4]

because you don't have to with it.

sorry i don't understand

 

[Deleted member 178]

sorry i don't understand

now you will:

http://malwaretips.com/threads/how-wsa-works.11871/#post-92420

also

As a minor note, the developers and designers of the software explicitly did not include any function to exclude locations from scanning, as this kind of "feature" is similar to having a "front door key under your Welcome mat" feature. Sure, it's convenient, nifty to have, and for people who forget their keys all the time, it's priceless. But the cost to your home security is immense.

Excluded directories or locations are also a security hole, so were not included. We didn't want to allow people to easily and intentionally, but unknowingly create holes in their security.

 

[zeusc4]

now you will:

http://malwaretips.com/threads/how-wsa-works.11871/#post-92420

also

i'm using some pirate softwares with keygens. those keygens i'm sure they are clean. so i want to exclude from scans . WEBROOT detect those as a malwares.

 

[Deleted member 178]

i'm using some pirate softwares with keygens. those keygens i'm sure they are clean

so i want to exclude from scans . WEBROOT detect those as a malwares.

when they are first detected, and webroot ask for removal, untick the box next to the file flagged, click next , select "monitor" . you have to do it for every keygen/crack

 

[zeusc4]

when they are first detected, and webroot ask for removal, untick the box next to the file flagged, click next , select "monitor" . you have to do it for every keygen/crack

oh thanks,

I'll try again. but now i hav't a Key & their 6months promotion gone

 

[yigido]

People use crack/keygen soft and so they blame to AV for detecting those cracks..
What a pity!

 

[zeusc4]

webroot not good for low memory windows 8.1 computers
https://community.webroot.com/t5/We...using-up-to-300mb-RAM/td-p/60523#.UnGrRxClrfg

 

[reyes]

The Explorer.EXE using 300 MB RAM is only seen is Windows 8 or 8.1 64 bit PC's. Explorer is using paged memory and only when it is not being requested from other processes so it will have no system performance impact, even if you have Low RAM.

 

[FleischmannTV]

Actually this is happening to a lot of processes on Windows 8.1 x64. It has been confirmed for NVT ERP, Windows Firewall Control (both GUI and service), in my case Softperfect Ramdisk. I have a vague assumption that, aside from Explorer, mainly 64 bit third-party processes are affected. Since most programs still are 32 bit and other native 64 bit Windows processes are not affected (because they are not monitored by Webroot), it's easier for them to sweep this under the rug because it occurs in such a manner that it doesn't strike people right away.

Yet I wonder what happens once Google rolls out the stable releases of Chrome x64 in a couple of weeks. Imagine every single Chrome process consuming ten times the amount of RAM it usually does - or 64 bit high-end games.

Perhaps then it will be easier to determine if and how this really affects performance on a computer. Explorer using 300 MB of pagefile memory probably doesn't, so everyone can say it's harmless.