Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="roger_m" data-source="post: 856967" data-attributes="member: 31436">As I said again in my last post, I was talking about Webroot saying specifically that tests don&#039;t matter.&nbsp; Due to the way that Webroot works, its detection rate for new malware is not good.&nbsp; It is not good at detecting new threats, which is why it will usually perform very badly when tested.&nbsp; It monitors unknown files for suspicious behaviour.&nbsp; If it thinks a program is malicious, in theory it can rollback its actions, to restore the system to a clean state and also will add signatures for it.&nbsp; However, as tests in the Malware Hub show repeatedly,&nbsp; it is unable to rollback the actions of ransomware.&nbsp; As a result, they really do need to improve both their signatures and behavioural protection, in order to compete with the big name antiviruses.&nbsp; As I&#039;ve said previously, its web filter is very good and will block a lot of threats.&nbsp; But for the threats it misses, then Webroot will often let the malware run.It&#039;s important to note, that other antiviruses can also monitor for suspicious behaviour and then add signatures for unknown threats and Kaspersky even includes a rollback feature too (which reportedly works much better than Webroot&#039;s one does).&nbsp; But a big difference, is that they can detect a lot more threats.&nbsp; Rather than focusing on detecting threats after the system is infected, due to better signatures and behaviour blockers, they do a much better job of stopping the system getting infected in the first place.There&#039;s nothing remarkable about Webroot, but fanboys keep insisting there is.&nbsp; They don&#039;t even know what&#039;s so amazing about it, other than that it &quot;works for them.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="roger_m, post: 856967, member: 31436"] As I said again in my last post, I was talking about Webroot saying specifically that tests don't matter. Due to the way that Webroot works, its detection rate for new malware is not good. It is not good at detecting new threats, which is why it will usually perform very badly when tested. It monitors unknown files for suspicious behaviour. If it thinks a program is malicious, in theory it can rollback its actions, to restore the system to a clean state and also will add signatures for it. However, as tests in the Malware Hub show repeatedly, it is unable to rollback the actions of ransomware. As a result, they really do need to improve both their signatures and behavioural protection, in order to compete with the big name antiviruses. As I've said previously, its web filter is very good and will block a lot of threats. But for the threats it misses, then Webroot will often let the malware run. It's important to note, that other antiviruses can also monitor for suspicious behaviour and then add signatures for unknown threats and Kaspersky even includes a rollback feature too (which reportedly works much better than Webroot's one does). But a big difference, is that they can detect a lot more threats. Rather than focusing on detecting threats after the system is infected, due to better signatures and behaviour blockers, they do a much better job of stopping the system getting infected in the first place. There's nothing remarkable about Webroot, but fanboys keep insisting there is. They don't even know what's so amazing about it, other than that it "works for them." [/QUOTE]

Verification