You're the one inventing your own scoring criteria. It's LITERALLY how they grade the test:
View attachment 202660
[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.
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.
View attachment 202663
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.
Unfortunately, Webroot's Privacy Shield only covers keystrokes. It isn't going to stop the offloading of files, malicious screenshots, etc. Scriptors, screenlocks, Zeus\Zbot, etc just runs right over WSA. I reported it so many times.
I do agree with one thing though... if a solution has to protect processes against already running malware, then it is too little, too late. The system is smashed. All bets are off and there is no guarantee of protection despite the lab test results. The mistake people make is to assume that the lab test results can be extrapolated and automatically applied to all malware in a class. It just doesn't work that way.
Anyhow, i can see how some would find Webroot appealing. The best thing that a user can do with the product is to set the heuristics to maximum, enable alerts, and pay attention.
It's difficult to find in WSA stuff that inspires the same level of confidence one gets from other products.