App Review Webroot Internet Security Plus 12.21.19

[bribon77]

Being an AV fan is not being smart,
They have a business, and we are only $$$ for them.
As for Wreboot, he had his moment of glory,
but if it is observed, in the tests AV does not work well in any.

 

[CMLew]

indeed, because of them i proclaimed myself as "Fanboy Persecutor" which really seems to annoy one of them. LOL.
There is 2 vendors having "very passionate and emotional" forum users who despise me , guess why? hahahahaha
It is so funny to bait them so easily and see them go through the roof .

Let me guess? One of them have a letter "V"? lol

Oh well, I have been using MSE for years and on and off I got infections. Am I a fanboy?
WIth that being said the only two softwares that I really fancied was the Binisoft WFC and Appguard. It was the best at that time to me back when I just join in MT.
Appguard + NVTERP + WFC = the ultimate lockdown (FYI, it was also popularized by @Umbra too) Haha

 

[omidomi]

Nevi is a good dude.

Just a little confused about The Green Kool-Aid... that's all.




This.

It is the illogical last-resort argument of those who have nothing of substance.

-I don't need to wear a motorcycle helmet -- as nothing has happened yet..
-I don't need health insurance or home insurance as nothing has ever happened...
-I can use a proven inferior and ineffective AV as I've never been infected before... This is a muddy-brain argument of no logic or substance.

Search results for query: Webroot

malwaretips.com

For anybody with any doubt, our own @omidomi tested Webrot extensively. The results are there and very clear. Thanks Omidomi.

No one know whats Webroot work

 

[Venustus]

It'a a riddle wrapped inside an enigma...The developers don't even know how it works....it just does!!

 

[omidomi]

It'a a riddle wrapped inside an enigma...The developers don't even know how it works....it just does!!

if any one know how Webroot work I will prize (him,her) 10000000 $

 

[artek]

The most amazing thing to me about Webroot is that it has this ability to suddenly make everyone love the accuracy of testing organizations. I think the only time I've seen anyone talk about av-test or av-comparatives as accurate measures of protection ability is when they use it to judge Webroot.

That and a positive review video, where the product doesn't let a single active infection slip past, goes almost completely unmentioned in a thread where almost every user is bashing the product.

 

[roger_m]

The most amazing thing to me about Webroot is that it has this ability to suddenly make everyone love the accuracy of testing organizations. I think the only time I've seen anyone talk about av-test or av-comparatives as accurate measures of protection ability is when they use it to judge Webroot.

That and a positive review video, where the product doesn't let a single active infection slip past, goes almost completely unmentioned in a thread where almost every user is bashing the product.

Test results don't mean too much for products that get top scores, as if the testing was done with more recent malware, then you wouldn't see just about every product getting very high scores, with little difference between one product to the next. However, test results are meaningful for products that constantly score badly. Or as is the case for Webroot, they often refuse to participate in testing for that reason. They claim that tests don't matter. But they do in some cases, as I just explained. The sad thing is that many die hard Webroot users, just blindly believe that tests really don't matter (because Webroot said so, so it must be true lol) and think that anyone says otherwise is a hater, rather than actually caring about Webroot's poor performance and listening to people who raise legitimate concerns about its performance and not just bashing it for the sake of it.

A single positive video (not many) where Webroot does well, does not say too much. You only need to look at the Malware Hub here to see how badly it does at detecting new malware. It says a lot about the performance of Webroot, when every big name antivirus tested, almost always detects more malware than it does. What is particularly troubling is that the tests show that that not only are the signatures bad, but the behaviour blocking is terrible too. As a result, if Webroot does not yet have signatures for a threat, most likely it will let it run.

But of course the Webroot fans will still claim that tests don't matter and bizarrely believe that Webroot is somehow better than antivirus that detect more malware in these tests.

In real world usage, Webroot's excellent web filtering will block a lot of threats. But for threats it misses, the poor detection rate is a big issue.

I just don't get why anyone would get so attached to any security software.

 

[artek]

Test results don't mean too much for products that get top scores, as if the testing was done with more recent malware, then you wouldn't see just about every product getting very high scores, with little difference between one product to the next. However, test results are meaningful for products that constantly score badly. Or as is the case for Webroot, they often refuse to participate in testing for that reason. They claim that tests don't matter. But they do in some cases, as I just explained. The sad thing is that many die hard Webroot users, just blindly believe that tests really don't matter (because Webroot said so, so it must be true lol) and think that anyone says otherwise is a hater, rather than actually caring about Webroot's poor performance and listening to people who raise legitimate concerns about its performance and not just bashing it for the sake of it.

A single positive video (not many) where Webroot does well, does not say too much. You only need to look at the Malware Hub here to see how badly it does at detecting new malware. It says a lot about the performance of Webroot, when every big name antivirus tested, almost always detects more malware than it does. What is particularly troubling is that the tests show that that not only are the signatures bad, but the behaviour blocking is terrible too. As a result, if Webroot does not yet have signatures for a threat, most likely it will let it run.

But of course the Webroot fans will still claim that tests don't matter and bizarrely believe that Webroot is somehow better than antivirus that detect more malware in these tests.

In real world usage, Webroot's excellent web filtering will block a lot of threats. But for threats it misses, the poor detection rate is a big issue.

I just don't get why anyone would get so attached to any security software.

There's a rather large difference. For example: ESET in the latest AV-comparatives only got a 98.4%. In the previous one it got about the same at 98.3%. In fact, if you look at most of the scoring with AV-comparatives there's almost no reason to use another vendor other than Microsoft because they are both one of the best, and one of the cheapest.

With ESET, the community at large is generally disregarding this poor performance relative to the other vendors - mostly because people like ESET. Now I'm not saying that Webroot is a better anti-virus than ESET. What I am saying, is that whenever any positive performance is brought up in a Webroot test or video, these tests we disregard when they show bad performance for vendors we like, like ESET and Emsisoft (who also no longer participate in AV-comparatives after a spate of bad results), are now suddenly treated as though they are relevant and reflective of real-world performance when analyzing Webroot's performance. I have noticed that this schizophrenic test like/dislike is almost exclusively directed at Webroot. Otherwise the tests are generally derided as not being reflective of real-world performance.

What Webroot does very well, and this has be reflected in tests done by MRG-Effitas, is prevent the exfiltration of user data and the capture of login credentials. They also handle remediation very well. Almost none of tests that are done on the Malware hub deal with the consequences of a failure when a banking trojan captures a user's banking login and password. For widespread threats, which is what a novice user is typically going to seen in the wild, the tests indicate that Webroot handles these fairly well.

 

[roger_m]

For example: ESET in the latest AV-comparatives only got a 98.4%. In the previous one it got about the same at 98.3%. In fact, if you look at most of the scoring with AV-comparatives there's almost no reason to use another vendor other than Microsoft because they are both one of the best, and one of the cheapest.

A score of 98% is very good and nothing to be concerned about. It's products that score well under 100% that are a cause for concern.

The main issue that a lot of people have with WD, is that is causes slowdowns. It's a good choice if it doesn't slow down your system.

 

[artek]

A score of 98% is very good and nothing to be concerned about. It's products that score well under 100% that are a cause for concern.

The main issue that a lot of people have with WD, is that is causes slowdowns. It's a good choice it doesn't slow down your system.

98% is the lowest score out of every single other vendor.

 

[ForgottenSeer 823865]

if any one know how Webroot work I will prize (him,her) 10000000 $

I do ! webroot beta tester since day one ! gimme the money !

1-The most amazing thing to me about Webroot is that it has this ability to suddenly make everyone love the accuracy of testing organizations. I think the only time I've seen anyone talk about av-test or av-comparatives as accurate measures of protection ability is when they use it to judge Webroot.
2- That and a positive review video, where the product doesn't let a single active infection slip past, goes almost completely unmentioned in a thread where almost every user is bashing the product.

1- I do bash Test Labs without distinction, but i'm amused that Webroot always score bad and don't tell me because it is not tested properly, it is tested like the others, just that Webroot is all about is "rollback" feature which restrict the file access until "the lab" decide if it is malicious or legit. Hence a signature is released and the file is quarantined if malicious or the file is deemed legit and free to run unrestricted.
Which mean Webroot will never really stop an unknown file (unless the BB is really tightened, and even, i saw files slipped through it) but just restrict it to some extent, and with the modern and sophisticated malware we have now (scriptors, fileless malware, etc..), this approach becomes particularly weak.
Why do you think suddenly Webroot decided (after a decade) to implement script blocking and tried to implement anti-exploit mechanism (but still not done for this one yet)? because the cases i just mentioned.

2- one or two good score means nothing, we talk about consistency, it is not because i succeed only at one exam during my whole scholarship years than i suddenly become a very good student, no , im still weak overall.
In the same way, it is not because Kaspersky or ESET fail one or two test , that suddenly they lose their top position and become bad AVs.
Webroot fans often find some loops to promote Webroot, like "i use it since decade, never got infected" , sure, if you never cross serious malware, then it is quite expected... i also never get infected while using my security solutions, means they are awesome and better than others? No, it just mean i have safe habits and they never had to block anything.

The main reason i (still) like Webroot despite its very average detection is its excellent Webfilter, better responsiveness, and some options it has in the BB.
However, i really dislike the WRdata folder ridiculous grows issue, this could be solved ages ago just by implementing one option, but still not, which clearly shows the disdain the devs have to their customers, many complained about it. Not saying, when some professionals i know, reported a vulnerability or a bug, they get ignored...

I just don't get why anyone would get so attached to any security software.

Kid-like attitude very common in security forums or fields where there is a competition, like Windows vs Mac vs Linux vs Chrome OS or Android vs Iphone...etc...etc...

 

[roger_m]

98% is the lowest score out of every single other vendor.

While that's true, it does not matter. Particularly not for a single test. A score of 98% is a very good score and it's not far behind the others.

If ESET scored very badly across a number of tests, it would indicate it is a bad antivirus. But that's not the case.

 

[oldschool]

it is not because i succeed only at one exam during my whole scholarship years than i suddenly become a very good student, no , im still weak overall.

No you're not, if your degree is from Trump University!

Kid-like attitude very common in security forums or fields where there is a competition, like Windows vs Mac vs Linux vs Chrome OS or Android vs Iphone...etc...etc...

The MT record for most threads like "Is WD any good?", "Is WD enough?", "Why didn't WD stop this malware when 5 or 7 others did?". Not even Webroot has this many threads!

 

[artek]

While that's true, it does not matter. Particularly not for a single test. A score of 98% is a very good score and it's not far behind the others.

If ESET scored very badly across a number of tests, it would indicate it is a bad antivirus. But that's not the case.

It's been consistently bad for the whole year, maybe even the last two years. I'm too lazy to go back that far.

I do ! webroot beta tester since day one ! gimme the money !




1- I do bash Test Labs without distinction, but i'm amused that Webroot always score bad and don't tell me because it is not tested properly, it is tested like the others, just that Webroot is all about is "rollback" feature which restrict the file access until "the lab" decide if it is malicious or legit. Hence a signature is released and the file is quarantined if malicious or the file is deemed legit and free to run unrestricted.
Which mean Webroot will never really stop an unknown file (unless the BB is really tightened, and even, i saw files slipped through it) but just restrict it to some extent, and with the modern and sophisticated malware we have now (scriptors, fileless malware, etc..), this approach becomes particularly weak.
Why do you think suddenly Webroot decided (after a decade) to implement script blocking and tried to implement anti-exploit mechanism (but still not done for this one yet)? because the cases i just mentioned.

2- one or two good score means nothing, we talk about consistency, it is not because i succeed only at one exam during my whole scholarship years than i suddenly become a very good student, no , im still weak overall.
In the same way, it is not because Kaspersky or ESET fail one or two test , that suddenly they lose their top position and become bad AVs.
Webroot fans often find some loops to promote Webroot, like "i use it since decade, never got infected" , sure, if you never cross serious malware, then it is quite expected... i also never get infected while using my security solutions, means they are awesome and better than others? No, it just mean i have safe habits and they never had to block anything.

The main reason i (still) like Webroot despite its bad detection is its excellent Webfilter, better responsiveness, and some options it has in the BB.
However, i really dislike the WRdata folder ridiculous grows issue, this could be solved ages ago just by implementing one option, but still not, which clearly shows the disdain the devs have to their customers, many complained about it. Not saying, when some professionals i know, reported a vulnerability or a bug, they get ignored...


Kid-like attitude very common in security forums or fields where there is a competition, like Windows vs Mac vs Linux vs Chrome OS or Android vs Iphone...etc...etc...

Those are the reasons I like the product as well, particularly because if I give it to my mom, I can be relatively certain that if she does get some kind of banking Trojan, it won't let it capture her passwords. It's very lightweight, there's no bloat, and it's not adding HTTPS certs like ESET or Kaspersky do. And if you're not a novice user you can set it to prompt you when an uncommon file tries to run or connect to the internet.

It's not a coincidence that Webroot is so popular with sysadmins. Webroot detects widespread malware well enough, and it stays out of the users way.

 

[ForgottenSeer 823865]

It's not a coincidence that Webroot is so popular with sysadmins. Webroot detects widespread malware well enough, and it stays out of the users way.

I will tell you honestly, Webroot was very popular, i knew many sysadmins and MSPs who loved Webroot (especially its managing interface) but then comes the major issues with bad updates which at best just locked out the users (for hours) or at worst screw the whole network.
Since then, those same admins/MSPs have a good (justified) hatred about Webroot, they wasted enormous time restoring their network then shifted to other more "careful" vendors. It happened twice if i remember well, but when you deal with corporations, once is already more than too much.
I believe it is one of the reasons Webroot was sold, major loss of incomes.

 

[roger_m]

It's been consistently bad for the whole year, maybe even the last two years. I'm too lazy to go back that far.

It hasn't been. I just had a look at all of the tests done by AV Comparatives last year and the lowest ESET scored was 98.3%. That's not even anywhere close to being bad. Also bear in mind, that ESET can be tweaked to provide even better protection.

 

[omidomi]

I do ! webroot beta tester since day one ! gimme the money !

come on

I will tell you honestly, Webroot was very popular, i knew many sysadmins and MSPs who loved Webroot (especially its managing interface) but then comes the major issues with bad updates which at best just locked out the users (for hours) or at worst screw the whole network.
Since then, those same admins/MSPs have a good (justified) hatred about Webroot, they wasted enormous time restoring their network then shifted to other more "careful" vendors. It happened twice if i remember well, but when you deal with corporations, once is already more than too much.
I believe it is one of the reasons Webroot was sold, major loss of incomes.

I tests their software in MH (you may see) their rollback not work in my tests , Ransomware Encrypted all files easily

 

[artek]

It hasn't been. I just had a look at all of the tests done by AV Comparatives last year and the lowest ESET scored was 98.3%. That's not even anywhere close to being bad. Also bear in mind, that ESET can be tweaked to provide even better protection.

98.3% was the lowest score of all the tested vendors from the jul-aug test. And it scored 98.4, which was the second worst score of all the vendors, on the February-May. The last test for the 2018 period, again Feb-may, it came in 4th last. Consistently in the bottom 4 for the real-world protection list is not what I would categorize as a "not bad" result.

If last, second last, and fourth last, aren't bad results to you. I don't know what would be bad. And this is illustrative of my point. You're completely ignoring Eset's bad testing scores, while at the same time referencing Webroot's bad results. You said this in your above post:

"The sad thing is that many die hard Webroot users, just blindly believe that tests really don't matter (because Webroot said so, so it must be true lol) and think that anyone says otherwise is a hater, rather than actually caring about Webroot's poor performance and listening to people who raise legitimate concerns about its performance and not just bashing it for the sake of it."

Considering Eset's consistently bad test results on av-comparatives, and the fact that everyone on this forum seems to ignore this, I could just as easily say this:

The sad thing is that many die hard Eset users, just blindly believe that tests really don't matter (because ESET said so, so it must be true lol) and think that anyone says otherwise is a hater, rather than actually caring about Esets's poor performance and listening to people who raise legitimate concerns about its performance and not just bashing it for the sake of it.

 

[roger_m]

98.3% was the lowest score of all the tested vendors from the jul-aug test. And it scored 98.4, which was the second worst score of all the vendors, on the February-May. The last test for the 2018 period, again Feb-may, it came in 4th last. Consistently in the bottom 4 for the real-world protection list is not what I would categorize as a "not bad" result.

If last, second last, and fourth last, aren't bad results to you. I don't know what would be bad. And this is illustrative of my point. You're completely ignoring Eset's bad testing scores, while at the same time referencing Webroot's bad results. You said this in your above post:

You are missing the point. Any antivirus which is scoring close to 100% is doing very well in the tests. If ESET was last in some tests, it just means that every antivirus tested did very well.

With Webroot, I was referring to actual bad results and once again scoring very close to the highest scoring antiviruses is not a bad result.

The sad thing is that many die hard Eset users, just blindly believe that tests really don't matter (because ESET said so, so it must be true lol) and think that anyone says otherwise is a hater, rather than actually caring about Esets's poor performance and listening to people who raise legitimate concerns about its performance and not just bashing it for the sake of it.

Once again, I was referring to actual bad results and once again you are missing the point. There's only one antivirus vendor I can think of which has said that test results don't matter and that's Webroot. ESET have certainly never said that. Unlike Webroot, other big name vendors usually do participate in testing. Webroot generally refuse to do so, because they know it will most likely score badly. I mean actually scoring badly, not getting 98% of so, but much less. You know, an actual bad result. Rather than working to improve their product, so it does better at detecting malware, they just claim that tests don't matter. Sadly, quite a few users just blindly believe that, rather than wanting Webroot to actually improve their product. Webroot "works" for them, so therefore it doesn't need to improve and anyone who says otherwise is a hater.

For the record, I have never used ESET as my main antivirus other than using trial versions a few times over the years and probably never will.

 

[ForgottenSeer 823865]

come on

I tests their software in MH (you may see) their rollback not work in my tests , Ransomware Encrypted all files easily

Rollback was good for threats 10 years ago. Those that just do minor changes to the system.
Ransomware are way above rollback capabilites, since it would requires it to do a whole copy of all files...which is impossible for it.
I don't see any videos showing it rollbacking any ransomware effects, and that those fanboys seems to never mention it...