Webroot SecureAnywhere 9.0.19.36

[Deleted Member 3a5v73x]

Why not just ignore the product?

Because they deserve that mocking for their actions.

Development is pretty slow? Forum full with fanboys when you can't normally ask a question? Developers act disrespectfuly stating that users just don't understand how their product works? After every failure public AV test suddenly test has been done incorrectly or WSA wasn't installed properly? etc.

 

[Nevi]

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.

View attachment 202591

Out of 18 capabilities tested, there were 3 BIG losers. MBAM, Webroot, and IOLO (whatever that is).

View attachment 202592

*** OH, YEAAHH! ***

I'm genuinely curious as to why people here get so obsessed, with a zeal that appears—at least from an outsider's point of view—to border on the frenzy of crusaders, about hammering Webroot as soon as any poster has the gall to say anything remotely positive about it.

If Webroot really is such a mediocre even useless product, what is the point of wasting so much energy repeating this fact again and again and again, and often with decidedly florid language? Why not just ignore the product?

And yet my post:

together with Nevi's, seems to have set this thread completely and utterly on fire.

The strange thing in all this is that no-one, apart from ForgottenSeer 58943, has even attempted to address the actual content of my post:

And to be honest, I am at a loss to know how to respond to such a statement.

However, I did think it worth asking about another of the links I provided:


That link (Link 3) consists of 143 reviews of Webroot by MSPs, many of whom serve hundreds even thousands of clients. 94% of the reviews are extremely positive and 4% are negative — this notwithstanding the incident of 24 April 2017.

No-one so far has taken me up on this.

But I would be genuinely interested in people's considered and dispassionate thoughts about this.

Exactly my words.

 

[artek]

It's indicative of the schizophrenia of this place that the official AV tests are lambasted with such furor only to have them dragged out of the trash heap when someone wants to criticize Webroot. By some of the same people that roast the official testing organizations nonetheless.

 

[ChoiceVoice]

i've used webroot for many many years. it is far lighter than anything out there (and i mean far lighter, like not even close lighter). it always is tops at pc mag testing. and it preforms very well in the banking trojan testing i saw .. (from some testing company in europe i believe). many banks even use it as their official AV. i don't know what someone was talking about concerning the community there, i had a couple questions that were promptly and politely answered. i've talked to customer support and haggled for a better price on a 3 year license, and they gave it to me. i'm very happy with them.

 

[bjm_]

i've used webroot for many many years. it is far lighter than anything out there (and i mean far lighter, like not even close lighter). it always is tops at pc mag testing. and it preforms very well in the banking trojan testing i saw .. (from some testing company in europe i believe). many banks even use it as their official AV. i don't know what someone was talking about concerning the community there, i had a couple questions that were promptly and politely answered. i've talked to customer support and haggled for a better price on a 3 year license, and they gave it to me. i'm very happy with them.

Please name banks that use Webroot SA as their official AV and please explain what you mean by "their official AV".
Thanks

 

[509322]

It's indicative of the schizophrenia of this place that the official AV tests are lambasted with such furor only to have them dragged out of the trash heap when someone wants to criticize Webroot. By some of the same people that roast the official testing organizations nonetheless.

Sorry, but Webroot just isn't a very good security solution because it allows systems to become infected by design, and then might or might not rollback the system.

Allowing a system to become infected by default is just a little bit more than crazy.

 

[Muddy7]

Please name banks that use Webroot SA as their official AV and please explain what you mean by "their official AV".
Thanks

Citibank
HSBC
Danskebank
American River Bank
Union Bank
Ally Bank
BB&T
etc. etc.

 

[artek]

Sorry, but Webroot just isn't a very good security solution because it allows systems to become infected by design, and then might or might not rollback the system.

Allowing a system to become infected by default is just a little bit more than crazy.

I keep hearing this bandied around, and it's inane. Webroot is not allowing you to become infected by default. You become infected when you run malware not because webroot is allowing you to. If webroot has seen the malware before, or it falls under-whatever criteria it will block it. It is not opening the door for the malware only to say, Ha! Gotcha. If the file is unknown to them it limits the malware's ability to capture data on the system, and testing by MRG indicates it does this very well, both with real-world malware, and simulated attacks. They've chose to strike towards convenience with regards to novice users who will manage one way or the other to get infected regardless of what they use. A novice user is not curating a malware sample list and running 50 of them in a row. They are limited in the amount of exposure they get. And if they do manage to get infected, Webroot’s remediation, again according to MRG, does a fairly good job at cleaning the system which saves them money as they do not have to go to a support tech to have the system cleaned and they do not have the technical sophistication to use other more complicated security solutions without help.

 

[509322]

I keep hearing this bandied around, and it's inane. Webroot is not allowing you to become infected by default. You become infected when you run malware, not because webroot is allowing you to. If webroot has seen the malware before, or it falls under-whatever criteria it will block it. It is not opening the door for the malware only to say, Ha! Gotcha. If the file is unknown to them it limits the malware's ability to capture data on the system, and testing by MRG indicates it does this very well, both with real-world malware, and simulated attacks. They've chose to strike towards convenience with regards to novice users who will manage one way or the other to get infected regardless of what they use. A novice user is not curating a malware sample list and running 50 of them in a row. They are limited in the amount of exposure they get. And if they do manage to get infected, Webroot’s remediation, again according to MRG, does a fairly good job at cleaning the system which saves them money as they do not have to go to a support tech to have the system cleaned and they do not have the technical sophistication to use other more complicated security solutions without help.

There are Webroot staff on the Webroot Community that openly stated, by design, WSA will allow undetected and post-exploit malware to run on the system. The intent is not to even try to stop it. If I recall it was Nick that said it along with someone from development.

Webroot will keep giving users green lips & tongue.

 

[Burrito]

...oh, and I just saw this test in a different thread.

Published day before yesterday by MRG.

Completely HAMMERED Again.

There were 6 different security tests and a performance test -- which Webroot did well in. But who cares if it's light if it doesn't do its primary job well.

Webroot results:

--4 finishes in 2nd to last place.
--1 finish in last place.
--1 finish in 7th place... in the bottom half.

This is the long-term norm for this product.

https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/MRG_Effitas-2018Q3-360.pdf

OH YEAHH! Glug glug glug...

 

[ChoiceVoice]

Please name banks that use Webroot SA as their official AV and please explain what you mean by "their official AV".
Thanks

it means they offer bank protection software for free, and they only offer one (just like your internet provider). most banks i know have these arrangements. many like to offer trusteer in this capacity. but webroot is marketed as banking protection and is used by many banks. ex. hsbc. for many years i've gotten my webroot free from those marvelous financial institutions.

and webroot doesn't detect the same as other antivirus companies, so most lab testing doesn't work with it (unless they redesign the tests). it uses a logging system, more like sandboxie and can undo infections after the fact. this different approach allows it to still run concurrently to another antivirus (which is normally frowned upon, but is okay with webroot). you'll have to venture over to pcmag, they've explained all this a couple times over the years when they named webroot as their recommended antivirus in the past.

 

[ChoiceVoice]

Webroot Wins MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Award

it's banking software. if you live in your parents basement and play video games it likely doesn't matter, but if you do a lot of online banking and investing, you need to harden your system with specific software to stop zeus from taking your wallet (i recommend you tell your parents to get it so your free lunch doesn't end, heheh). free antivirus is untrustworthy if your moving a lot of money around. and heaven forbid you use software developed in a communist country. everything on your system is sent there for analysis. this is likely how many lose their bitcoins (as well as corporate trade secrets)

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

The reality is - Webroot just isn't a serious contender any longer. Look at it in the hub, it's failed at all of the packs, right? (but the hub, in all fairness is absolutely brutal, but still, Webroot never managed to do anything in the hub) Almost nothing else has performed so poorly there. But the hub aside, Webroot just doesn't do the job and you'd be better off running virtually anything else. ANYTHING.

Let's not forget that Webroot's corporate offering trashed MILLIONS of corporate systems last year. A buddy of mine works at an MSP that 'used' Webroot, and guess what? It took them thousands upon thousands of man-hours to fix those systems and they lost significant numbers of clients.

Weboot can die off now. They'd be doing the world a favor.

 

[artek]

...oh, and I just saw this test in a different thread.

Published day before yesterday by MRG.

Completely HAMMERED Again.

There were 6 different security tests and a performance test -- which Webroot did well in. But who cares if it's light if it doesn't do its primary job well.

Webroot results:

--4 finishes in 2nd to last place.
--1 finish in last place.
--1 finish in 7th place... in the bottom half.

This is the long-term norm for this product.


View attachment 202655

https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/MRG_Effitas-2018Q3-360.pdf

OH YEAHH! Glug glug glug...

From the chart that YOU linked. Using MRG's OWN SCORING SYSTEM:

Webroot: O,30% Missed
Eset: 0,61% Missed
Mcafee: 1,52% missed

Do you even read your own links?

 

[509322]

From the chart that YOU linked:

Webroot: O,30% Missed
Eset: 0,61% Missed
Mcafee: 1,52% missed

Sorry buddy... blocked in 24hrs doesn't count. That's just ridiculous that MRG would even allow it in their testing. Either you block it or you don't. In 24hrs anything is possible... the damage can be immense or it can be nothing - however MRG shrewdly doesn't mention that fact that I saw - but hey, I'm not looking for it because it's all nonsense to begin with. However one thing that isn't nonsense, allowing an active infection to run for 24hrs is never acceptable. Period.

The absolute detection is...

Webroot 65 %

ESET 99 %

Which product are people going to choose ? No one wants active malware running on their system... and especially not for hours and days. That's just a bit more than crazy because over that period of time you could be wiped out. You cannot assume that Webroot will protect. You have to assume that there will be further compromise. Once a system is compromised, it's no good. Period. You have to assume it is tainted and treat it accordingly. That means a clean install if not more extensive cleanup.

 

[Burrito]

From the chart that YOU linked. Using MRG's OWN SCORING SYSTEM:

Webroot: O,30% Missed
Eset: 0,61% Missed
Mcafee: 1,52% missed

Do you even read your own links?

That's a whole lot of indignance for somebody who is a whole-lot-of-wrong. All you had to do was go to the link... You don't understand the methodology.

Webroot is abysmal. It's just the way it is. Don't take it personally.

Weboot can die off now. They'd be doing the world a favor.

Ouch..... laughing...

Chug Chug Chug....

OH Yeaahh!!!

 

[Deleted member 178]

From the chart that YOU linked. Using MRG's OWN SCORING SYSTEM:

Webroot: O,30% Missed
Eset: 0,61% Missed
Mcafee: 1,52% missed

Do you even read your own links?

LOL I love how fanboys cherrypick the element they want.

Auto - block is what matters, means immediate detection and block of malware whatever the knowledge of users.

- Webroot 65% looooool

The 24h is a miss that is remediated later but still a miss...

 

[artek]

LOL I love how fanboys cherrypick the element they want.

Auto - block is what matters, means immediate detection and block of malware whatever the knowledge of users.

- Webroot 65% looooool

The 24h is a miss that is remediated later but still a miss...

You're the one inventing your own scoring criteria. It's LITERALLY how they grade the test:

[QUOTE="Which product are people going to choose ? No one wants active malware running on their system... and especially not for hours and days. That's just a bit more than crazy because over that period of time you could be wiped out. You cannot assume that Webroot will protect. You have to assume that there will be further compromise. Once a system is compromised, it's no good. Period. You have to assume it is tainted and treat it accordingly. That means a clean install if not more extensive cleanup.[/QUOTE]

Well it depends what kind of an infection you're talking about. If it's ransomware yes you're absolutely correct. However, if it's an infostealer or a banking Trojan, different story.

Webroot does comparatively well in these tests. It has failed some, but some of these products use those abysmal "Safe Browsers" in order to achieve protection from these types of malware.

 

[Burrito]

You're the one inventing your own scoring criteria. It's LITERALLY how they grade the test:

View attachment 202660

Wow. You really don't get it.

The initial discussion that you started referenced one test. Umbra is correct about that test. You are incorrect. I'm sorry if you don't understand.. Lockdown, Umbra and I all tried to help you understand...

Maybe Webroot is perfect for you.

What you just posted is a cumulative score for all the tests combined.

And yes, Webroot is tied for last place in the overall scoring.

Well done.

 

[artek]

Wow. You really don't get it.

Maybe Webroot is perfect for you.

Well done.

I don't use Webroot.

Wow. You really don't get it.

What you just posted is a cumulative score for all the tests combined.

Well done.