Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="roger_m" data-source="post: 856703" data-attributes="member: 31436">Test results don&#039;t mean too much for products that get top scores, as if the testing was done with more recent malware, then you wouldn&#039;t see just about every product getting very high scores, with little difference between one product to the next.&nbsp; However, test results are meaningful for products that constantly score badly.&nbsp; Or as is the case for Webroot, they often refuse to participate in testing for that reason.&nbsp; They claim that tests don&#039;t matter.&nbsp; But they do in some cases, as I just explained.&nbsp; The sad thing is that many die hard Webroot users, just blindly believe that tests really don&#039;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&#039;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.&nbsp; You only need to look at the Malware Hub here to see how badly it does at detecting new malware.&nbsp; It says a lot about the performance of Webroot, when every big name antivirus tested, almost always detects more malware than it does.&nbsp; What is particularly troubling is that the tests show that that not only are the signatures bad, but the behaviour blocking is terrible too.&nbsp; 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&#039;t matter and bizarrely believe that Webroot is somehow better than antivirus that detect more malware in these tests. In real world usage, Webroot&#039;s excellent web filtering will block a lot of threats.&nbsp; But for threats it misses, the poor detection rate is a big issue.I just don&#039;t get why anyone would get so attached to any security software.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="roger_m, post: 856703, member: 31436"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification