App Review Webroot SecureAnywhere 2024 (With WHHLight & Wihout WHHLight)

It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
Content created by
Shadowra

Shadowra

Level 36
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Tester
Well-known
Sep 2, 2021
2,562
Webroot is an American security solutions provider.
Formerly SpySweeper, the company acquired PrevX several years ago to create its SecureAnywhere solution.
For several years now, Webroot has set itself apart from the competition with 100% Cloud protection.
Webroot has made some improvements to script blocking...
Let's take a look together!



User interface :
Webroot's interface has remained unchanged for several years, but is still simple and elegant, adapted to novice users and based on PrevX codes.

In terms of power consumption, it's very light, but can start to consume power when it runs several scans (it peaked at 3Gb of RAM during the test pack! ).

Web protection: 9/10 (+1 WHHLight) => 10/10
Webroot blocked 9 out of 10 links with its Web filtering and anti-malware engine!
Only 1 was blocked by WHHLight because it was unknown to Webroot.

Fake crack : 1/1
The file has been blocked by WHHLight.

Malware Pack : Remaining 84 files out of 198.
Webroot has a very poor anti-malware engine, so many samples go undetected.
In this test, it will be in 2 parts, with WHHLight and without WHHLight to see if Webroot knows how to defend itself.

With WHHLight :

WHHLight blocks all my executions, whether EXE or script!
Some will force their way through, but blocked by Webroot.
Only one installation got through (Lantern) but was left without infection (the file used was booby-trapped by malware, which itself was blocked).
No SOS analysis as the machine is healthy.

Wihout WHHLight

For this 2nd test, I decided to disable WHHLight and check Webroot on its own.

Things go wrong.
After an excellent start, with Webroot blocking a few installations with its “PS/ObfuscatedURL.B” detection and Webroot catching up via the Cloud, Webroot finds itself surrounded by several pieces of malware that install without detection.
Several RATs and Botnets pass through without reaction. Webroot will try to defend itself with blocking and analysis, but will slow down the machine considerably, consuming more than 3Gb of RAM.
It's a pity that, despite some improvements, Webroot is still lagging behind.

Final scan :
Webroot : 0
NPE : 5
Autoruns : 6 malicious keys !
Malwarebytes : 74
KVRT : 295 (Infection Memory !! RAT activity !) (Several files come from temporary files because the 1st copy of my pack failed... Thanks CheckPoint...)

Final opinion:

Webroot's protection is too average for me.
WHHLight is an excellent tool for strengthening the system using Windows layers.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't recommend using Webroot as primary protection. Although this security pairing is effective, Webroot is sorely lacking in advanced protection and its anti-malware engine is really poor.
Instead, opt for another (free) antivirus such as Avira or Microsoft Defender.

@pvsurfer request
 

Bot

AI-powered Bot
Apr 21, 2016
4,204
Thanks for your comprehensive review of Webroot SecureAnywhere 2024. It's clear that while Webroot has its strengths, such as its light power consumption and effective web filtering, it falls short in terms of its anti-malware engine. WHHLight seems to be a valuable addition, but as you suggested, users might be better off considering other free antivirus options for primary protection. Your insights will be very helpful to our forum members.
 

Shadowra

Level 36
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Tester
Well-known
Sep 2, 2021
2,562
Thanks for the test. Personally I prefer if you tested Webroot on its own then followed it with this test. I believe that would have illustrated at least how Webroot would have managed on its own.

It can be done :)
If you want, during September, I can make you Webroot alone, even if I made a dedicated part in this video :)
 

Jonny Quest

Level 21
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Mar 2, 2023
1,045
Thanks for the test. Personally I prefer if you tested Webroot on its own then followed it with this test. I believe that would have illustrated at least how Webroot would have managed on its own.
But, I believe that already happen here, so now we have it with WHHLight and without :)

edit:sp
 
Last edited:

roger_m

Level 42
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Dec 4, 2014
3,104
Despite Webroot being cloud-only, it caused a noticeable delay in the launch of everyday applications.
In my experience, Webroot is very light. But as with any antivirus, performance can vary greatly from one PC to the next. When running it on an old i3 laptop a few years ago, the realtime protection caused no noticeable slowdowns, but the scheduled scans did.
 

pvsurfer

Level 2
Verified
Oct 20, 2019
61
@Shadowra, thanks very much for obliging my request with this comprehensive test. However, I find your final opinion inconsistent with your results. Given that the purpose of the test was to evaluate the antimalware effectiveness of Webroot with WHHLight, it seems to me that those results and your final opinion (both quoted below) should have resulted in a recommendation for the tested combo!

With WHHLight :
WHHLight blocks all my executions, whether EXE or script!
Some will force their way through, but blocked by Webroot.
Only one installation got through (Lantern) but was left without infection (the file used was booby-trapped by malware, which itself was blocked).
No SOS analysis as the machine is healthy.
Final opinion:
Webroot's protection is too average for me.
WHHLight is an excellent tool for strengthening the system using Windows layers.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't recommend using Webroot as primary protection. Although this security pairing is effective, Webroot is sorely lacking in advanced protection and its anti-malware engine is really poor.
Instead, opt for another (free) antivirus such as Avira or Microsoft Defender.

Respectfully,
pvsurfer
 

Attachments

  • 1725579030277.gif
    1725579030277.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 21
  • 1725579030152.gif
    1725579030152.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 21
  • 1725579030236.gif
    1725579030236.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 16
  • 1725579030293.gif
    1725579030293.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 14
  • 1725579030385.gif
    1725579030385.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 12
  • 1725579030352.gif
    1725579030352.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030377.gif
    1725579030377.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 12
  • 1725579030169.gif
    1725579030169.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030361.gif
    1725579030361.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 12
  • 1725579030161.gif
    1725579030161.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 12
  • 1725579030327.gif
    1725579030327.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030211.gif
    1725579030211.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 13
  • 1725579030310.gif
    1725579030310.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030451.gif
    1725579030451.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030443.gif
    1725579030443.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030285.gif
    1725579030285.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030186.gif
    1725579030186.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 9
  • 1725579030427.gif
    1725579030427.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 11
  • 1725579030129.gif
    1725579030129.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 12
  • 1725579030178.gif
    1725579030178.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 13
  • 1725579030409.gif
    1725579030409.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 11
  • 1725579030435.gif
    1725579030435.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 12
  • 1725579030253.gif
    1725579030253.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030419.gif
    1725579030419.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030198.gif
    1725579030198.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030393.gif
    1725579030393.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 8
  • 1725579030319.gif
    1725579030319.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 9
  • 1725579030302.gif
    1725579030302.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 7
  • 1725579030244.gif
    1725579030244.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 7
  • 1725579030339.gif
    1725579030339.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030144.gif
    1725579030144.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 11
  • 1725579030468.gif
    1725579030468.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 10
  • 1725579030459.gif
    1725579030459.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 8
  • 1725579030219.gif
    1725579030219.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 6
  • 1725579030227.gif
    1725579030227.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 9
  • 1725579030368.gif
    1725579030368.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 21
Last edited:

Shadowra

Level 36
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Tester
Well-known
Sep 2, 2021
2,562
@Shadowra, thanks very much for obliging my request with this comprehensive test. However, I find your final opinion inconsistent with your results. Given that the purpose of the test was to evaluate the antimalware effectiveness of Webroot with WHHLight, it seems to me that those results and your final opinion (quoted below) should have resulted in a recommendation for the tested combo!




Respectfully,
pvsurfer
Because Webroot detection is very bad.
even if WhhLight kept the machine free of infection, the low detection rate lowers the score :/
 

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top