Status
Not open for further replies.

Cortex

Level 21
Verified
You were OK with Webroot as long as you believed in Webroots roll back features. I had a bad time on their forum with the Canadian EX Welder & Baldrick who I think was from the UK. Any questions were always met with 'you just don't understand how it works'', they were very good at what they did but behaved like aggressive doormen at a nightclub.
The advise often given for huge monitoring files (often enormous) in PD was to reinstall thereby rendering all monitoring to that point lost. A huge marketing strategy was to explain that the Webroot installer would fit on one of the old floppy discs, I always did think the most bloated AV was never the size of the WRDATA files.

I never did understand how it was possible to roll back damage that malware had done if some of the damage done was outside the pc such as Trojans sending info out or banking info viewed, such things cannot be rolled back. I've read all the arguments but I'm not convinced. :)

In the end I just changed AV solutions, it was a good idea. I used to use a anti-malware program that was cloud based & originated not far from where I am in the UK & as I remember Webroot was based on this? I have no issue with Webroot, but would never consider using it again, ever.
 

Nevi

Level 5
Verified
I have never used the so called rool back function, but I know it's there. But if you dont believe WSA can protect you, you just use the brand you prefer.I admit their forum has been a little funny sometimes. I remember a guy called triplehelix. He had many crash and burn messages with customers. But they have always been extremely helpfull to me, especially in the start where I started using it.
 

Burrito

Level 23
1543504086765.png


The evidence indicates..... over and over and over again... that Webroot is an inferior product.

The company that has continually beat the drum that they are the 'most advanced' 'next gen' blah blah blah regularly gets HAMMERED in testing.

And every time Webfroot gets proven to be inferior once again... the excuses are rolled out. TripleHernia, Balddick and the Kool-Aid kiddies say ridiculous things... "Tests don't mean everything.." "They don't understand how WebFroot works.." "But we have a new module coming out.."

And the most common... "I've used Webroot since I was a 6 years old and I've never been infected." Yes, and on a remote part of Jamaica, they cast a spell and sprinkle some dirt and herbs on the computer to protect it from malware. And they've never been infected. Maybe you both are right :LOL: .

Some people think Superantispyware is still good too. Some people can't really be helped. It's just strange when they hang out at a place like this (MT) where data and facts actually matter.
 
5

509322

Actually, if one knows how to use Webroot, then they can get much better protection out of it than what the published AV lab test results would indicate.

The issue has always been the way that Triple Helix, Baldrick and the fanbois act on the forums as well as Webroot just blatantly ignoring the hard questions posed over the years.

I remember the two-year long fight that I waged to get Webroot to put the firewall notifications into their product for Windows 8+. They kept claiming in their marketing materials that it contained a fully functional firewall with alerts, but it actually didn't on Windows 8+. The claim was that Windows 8+ didn't expose what they needed to make alerts possible on those OSes. Funny... they eventually did it after I keep the pressure on them.
 

Azure

Level 26
Verified
Content Creator
I never did understand how it was possible to roll back damage that malware had done if some of the damage done was outside the pc such as Trojans sending info out or banking info viewed, such things cannot be rolled back. I've read all the arguments but I'm not convinced. :)
I would guess this would be covered by the Identity Shield. That feature is probably the best part of Webroot, at least based on how good it has done on MRG banking tests.
 

Slyguy

Level 43
Anti-Exploit and Script Shield 'eventually'? That was needed awhile back, not in the future. It seems like WSA has glacially slow, if not completely stalled development.

Zfactor is funny, I remember that guy. He always has hundreds upon hundreds of clients that magically appear when he wants to win an argument. Or has a huge IT company with magical things happening. Everyone that does serious IT knows you don't buy consumer versions of crap (violating licensing agreements) and then run around like a chicken with your head cut off to update or check them constantly or manually drive to Joe's Dentistry and whitelist junk.. You sell seats for a corporate grade product and manage them like a pro from the portals. Please don't take that dude seriously.
 

SumTingWong

Level 24
Verified
View attachment 202504

The evidence indicates..... over and over and over again... that Webroot is an inferior product.

The company that has continually beat the drum that they are the 'most advanced' 'next gen' blah blah blah regularly gets HAMMERED in testing.

And every time Webfroot gets proven to be inferior once again... the excuses are rolled out. TripleHernia, Balddick and the Kool-Aid kiddies say ridiculous things... "Tests don't mean everything.." "They don't understand how WebFroot works.." "But we have a new module coming out.."

And the most common... "I've used Webroot since I was a 6 years old and I've never been infected." Yes, and on a remote part of Jamaica, they cast a spell and sprinkle some dirt and herbs on the computer to protect it from malware. And they've never been infected. Maybe you both are right :LOL: .

Some people think Superantispyware is still good too. Some people can't really be helped. It's just strange when they hang out at a place like this (MT) where data and facts actually matter.
Dang, Webroot performs worse than Malwarebytes.
 

Burrito

Level 23
Dang, Webroot performs worse than Malwarebytes.
Uugghh. I've been slow to accept that MBAM is now lame... but the indicators certainly point that way.

I still use it on multiple computers as an 'adjunct capability' -- but the time may come, just like for SuperLameAntispyware, WinPatrol, Spybot.... that it's just time to toss it.

But I'm still hoping for an MBAM comeback....
 

Slyguy

Level 43
Time marches on.. MBAM was an epic, fine piece of software in the 1.75ish era.. 2.0 started the decline, culminating with 3.0. Webroot actually started off fairly well after buying PrevX and the talent involved there. Many of us remember a lot of good things gone bad.. Threatfire, Pest Patrol, GIANT Antispyware, Reliable Antivirus (RAV), F-Prot, Boclean, etc. Webroot, Zemana and Super Antispyware are surely on the list now I guess eh?

I suspect at some point Cylance will be there after Blackberry waters it down. I have almost no confidence in Blackberry to handle them correctly.

Other companies step up, and improve their offerings.. Kaspersky, Dr. Web, Norton, Trend and many other companies constantly evolve and improve and I respect that. At some point people need to step back and realize their pet project is dead and move on I guess, but it isn't always easy.. I ran Pest Patrol many years after it died. I used Geek Superhero long after development was abandoned. These days I am vastly more pessimistic (and wealthy) where I bolt at the first sign of trouble and have no issue paying what's needed for something better if the need arises.

PS: I got bad vibes about the Cylance deal. Sorry. :censored:
 

Burrito

Level 23
Time marches on.. MBAM was an epic, fine piece of software in the 1.75ish era..

Pest Patrol, GIANT Antispyware.. I ran Pest Patrol many years after it died.

PS: I got bad vibes about the Cylance deal. Sorry. :censored:

Yeah... 1.75 MBAM timeframe was when MBAM would test better than whole AV suites. They were kicking ass back then.

And Pest Patrol was great. I used that till the end.. till it was sold a couple of times and destroyed. I rode Ewido to the end too.

Too bad about Cylance... cause they do 'have something.' Their backward testing demonstrated pretty clearly that they developed a better algorithm.

But back on topic.... yeah, Webroots sucktitude is both dramatic, and frequent. Here's a test from AV-C before they ran away like crybabies... (much like MBAM did..).

1543548729377.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

artek

Level 5
I never did understand how it was possible to roll back damage that malware had done if some of the damage done was outside the pc such as Trojans sending info out or banking info viewed, such things cannot be rolled back. I've read all the arguments but I'm not convinced. :)
It's supposed to be good at preventing data leakage, at least from what the MRG tests indicate.
 

artek

Level 5
Speaking of the MRG tests..

View attachment 202518

A third-from last-place finish in the latest Wild 360 test.

The Yellow "Blocked in 24 Hours" color is a very nice way to say... "Missed for up to 24 hours." Which is pretty much like saying.... "Missed."
If you look at the online banking ones, I have seen very few where Webroot failed to block the simulated attack and block the exfiltration of data by the banking trojan. Good remittance, and the prevention of any kind of data exaltation is not a bad model to have to protect very novice users.
 

_CyberGhosT_

Level 53
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Time marches on.. MBAM was an epic, fine piece of software in the 1.75ish era.. 2.0 started the decline, culminating with 3.0. Webroot actually started off fairly well after buying PrevX and the talent involved there. Many of us remember a lot of good things gone bad.. Threatfire, Pest Patrol, GIANT Antispyware, Reliable Antivirus (RAV), F-Prot, Boclean, etc. Webroot, Zemana and Super Antispyware are surely on the list now I guess eh?

I suspect at some point Cylance will be there after Blackberry waters it down. I have almost no confidence in Blackberry to handle them correctly.

Other companies step up, and improve their offerings.. Kaspersky, Dr. Web, Norton, Trend and many other companies constantly evolve and improve and I respect that. At some point people need to step back and realize their pet project is dead and move on I guess, but it isn't always easy.. I ran Pest Patrol many years after it died. I used Geek Superhero long after development was abandoned. These days I am vastly more pessimistic (and wealthy) where I bolt at the first sign of trouble and have no issue paying what's needed for something better if the need arises.

PS: I got bad vibes about the Cylance deal. Sorry. :censored:
Cylance is creepy (imho), I won't bash just wanted you to know I can relate to that statement :p lol
I also agree that their protection model will end up on that list up there sooner rather than later.
 

Nevi

Level 5
Verified
You just can't measure Webroot the way other antiviruses are being measured. The way it function and deal with malware take a little longer sometimes, and it will be a miss in a test. The ones I know (and myself) that have tested it in VM, have had very strong results, also some places online. I dont believe so much in tests, but no matter what anyone say, WRSA is a great product. Those that have another opinion can just use another brand of antimalware.
 

Burrito

Level 23
If you are happy running Webroot, then by all means... that's what you should run.

But.... just to avoid any confusion for newbs or people just 'looking in' --- The evidence indicates conclusively and decisively that Webroot is inferior... not just a little, but a lot. And this is from multiple test labs. Test graphical results from MRG and SE Labs are also reflected on this thread.

As far as I know (and I didn't look very hard), this is the last test of Webroot by AV-C -- which I consider the be the best test organization.

1543679377380.png


Out of 18 capabilities tested, there were 3 BIG losers. MBAM, Webroot, and IOLO (whatever that is).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top