Site of promotion
https://www.comss.ru/list.php?c=club
Event
  1. Extended Trial
Instructions
1. Download the application from the link below:


2. Install the program. The license is automatically activated.
It typically is very light, but it not a very good antivirus (although not terrible). There are other antiviruses that are just as light and provide much better protection.
depends what you mean by "protection" and what your expectations are: whether you want quick detection, or longterm security. i can use bitdefender (for ex), which has top tier detection, but if something gets through, and it always will when the stars align properly, then you will have a rouge program running on your system undetected until the boys at bitdefender find it and make a sig for it (perhaps months later). at that point, it is a very messy cleanup, and if it's a rootkit, you need to reformat to be sure. but with webroot, that undetected is untrusted, and everything it does is limited and journaled, so when webroot finally makes that detection (perhaps a month later than bitdefender) it can undo everything that was done to your system, everything, perfectly, so that it brought back to the exact state as before you were infected. that is impossible with other AVs (except maybe comodo, which has a sandbox that has a similar feature). with other AVs, if there isn't a sig, an infection is free to exploit your system and it's impossible to know everything it messed with. but with webroot, i can be sure it's cleaned perfectly. this is why i run webroot complementary with another AV that has better sigs than webroot - i don't use webroot for the sigs. so sure, other AVs detect earlier. but longterm, webroot keeps your system cleaner. some like to use a cumbersome virtual machine or something like shadow defender to stay clean. webroot is easier and less intrusive.

and now for the webroot hater's heads to explode, lol.
 

roger_m

Level 30
Verified
Content Creator
depends what you mean by "protection" and what your expectations are: whether you want quick detection, or longterm security. i can use bitdefender (for ex), which has top tier detection, but if something gets through, and it always will when the stars align properly, then you will have a rouge program running on your system undetected until the boys at bitdefender find it and make a sig for it (perhaps months later). at that point, it is a very messy cleanup, and if it's a rootkit, you need to reformat to be sure. but with webroot, that undetected is untrusted, and everything it does is limited and journaled, so when webroot finally makes that detection (perhaps a month later than bitdefender) it can undo everything that was done to your system, everything, perfectly, so that it brought back to the exact state as before you were infected. that is impossible with other AVs (except maybe comodo, which has a sandbox that has a similar feature). with other AVs, if there isn't a sig, an infection is free to exploit your system and it's impossible to know everything it messed with.
Actually some other antiviruses such as Kaspersky have a rollback feature too. It is not unique to Webroot. Webroot's rollback feature is useless against ransomware, which is why it's good to have decent signatures and behaviour blocking, rather than relying on a fairly limited rollback feature.

This isn't an issue for you, as you are realise that its signatures are not the best and use it alongside another antivirus. In my opinion, using it alongside another AV is the only good usage scenario for Webroot. I prefer to stick with a a single antivirus and very occasional scans with second opinion scanners, because in my case, I feel anything more than that would be overkill.
 
Actually some other antiviruses such as Kaspersky have a rollback feature too. It is not unique to Webroot. Webroot's rollback feature is useless against ransomware, which is why it's good to have decent signatures and behaviour blocking, rather than relying on a fairly limited rollback feature.

This isn't an issue for you, as you are realise that its signatures are not the best and use it alongside another antivirus. In my opinion, using it alongside another AV is the only good usage scenario for Webroot. I prefer to stick with a a single antivirus and very occasional scans with second opinion scanners, because in my case, I feel anything more than that would be overkill.

i think much of what webroot was doing 10 years ago others are now trying to emulate. webroot and panda were the first cloud AVs i can think of, and now everyone is rushing to copy that model (keep it light and compute in the cloud - yes, i'm looking at you kasp cloud free :) ). just like how everyone is trying to replicate comodo's sandboxing (kasp, avast, etc). i remember when comodo and returnall were the only ones using sandboxing as part of their AV strategy. now that i think about it, webroot and trendmicro are the first ones i can think of that used the window's firewall and elected to reinforce it instead of creating an entirely different one. give it another 5 years and maybe kaspersky will use the windows firewall too with reinforcements :) . imitation means you were doing something right before they were :)

true enough that ransomeware is a potential weakness for journaling. but webroot does have online backup for your data so you don't lose anything important. and they actually have a webroot tech that will personally repair your system for free from the journaling if something unfortunate did encrypt your system. but honestly, that can only happen depending on if you have webroot set to its low-security level. when you crank it up to max, no ransomware could likely run. but most don't do that (and it can occasionally stop a windows update!).

and yes, sigs are not the most important thing. to me, the most important thing is to ensure that my bank numbers are not lifted from my system and sent to a hacker. with webroot, any untrusted program is limited, so it can't access much of my system, and it can't access the internet, and it can't see my clipdata or what i'm doing in my browser, etc. or put basically, it can't steal my bank numbers. it does everything spyshelter does and more (and i love spyshelter). furthermore, many use a dedicated bank browser now (like esets or avast etc), but webroot secures `your' browser. so you don't have to muck around with a new unfamiliar browser to bank. it's simply easier and your browser is always protected from some program spying on what you're doing. end game is stopping my bank numbers from leaving my system.

i use complimentary for a couple of reasons. i like having different companies that develop independent sigs. if one misses something, the other might not. but moreso, and this is my grievance with the testing labs. i wish someone would test this product properly, to test the effectiveness of what it claims to do. a proper test would set up a server and write a new test trojan (so it has no sigs) and purposefully infect the system. then let the test hacker muck about and see what mischief he can do. and most importantly, the test would have someone sign into a bank, and see if it can lift your bank numbers and send them out to their server. i had seen some banking trojan tests from europe with zeus and others, and webroot did very well in them. it outperformed zemena and trusteer rapport (and a couple others i can't recall). but this type of testing is a rarety. most are obsessed with sig detection. a secured system is more important than sig detection. and if there was more proper testing, i wouldn't likely need to run webroot complimentary, i could just run it by itself or abandon it. anyway, i'm rambling so i'll stop, lol, peace brother.
 

Nevi

Level 6
Verified
No Webroot is "not good" when you compare it to so many other AV's. It was not developed to take 500-1000 malign files at once. But in a real world situation it actually is doing pretty good.
I have used it now over 10 years, and in that time it has shown red flag 6 or 7 times. So it's not because I have a really safe way to surf.
I do know it fails in many of the tests that has being made, also here on MT. But in the real world it actually works.
I know it has stopped , at least 2 ransom attemps on my computer, but I dont know so much about the roll-back function. I have never needed it.
But I think it will be that way with Webroot ,at least a long time yet. I understand people new to the security game, wrinkle on the nose when they see a test like The Security Channel, where it fails with several things.
But IRL, Webroot actually is capable of holding it's own. The way it work, is so different to other antiviruses. Yes it can let a "bad" file go through. But it will keep an eye on that file, and eventually it will be deleted. I understand many dont like that thought, that a malign file is on your computer. But it will not be able to "phone home" with info about your keyboard strokes or anything else.
But there are so many antiviruses, so luckily there are one that suit all persons one way or the other. Webroot has been a good antivirus for me. Tests or not.:)
 
I do not mean to run on the Webroot hate bandwagon, but it is shown consistency by real world tests and by Youtuber reviews that this antivirus absolutely sucks. Webroot is not a cloud av that uses real signatures. It actually uses a system that determines if a virus is a threat based on the code the virus emulates and by its age and origin. And by how poorly it does on tests, you can see why it is nice if a "cloud" av also used signatures as well instead of a poor man's virus total. Sites like Pc Mag only rate it good because it is the lightest av ever ooh so good. I rather have an antivirus use 100mb more of ram than have it perform so poorly that it isn't even worth installing it.
 
You can read how Webroot uses its cloud av here and how they detect threats, they purposely use this system in order to remove constant signature updates therefore reducing bandwith and such https://www-cdn.webroot.com/7414/5453/4413/wsab_endpointprotection_ebook_us.pdf

1596296841689.png
 

Solarlynx

Level 14
I've just installed this promo, added to my current setup (Comodo FW + Panda free). WR doesn't seem to give additional load to my rather hefty rig. The lic shows 869 day. Though no current virus tests in AV-Test or AV-Comparatives. I'll remove it soon.
 

artek

Level 5
I do not mean to run on the Webroot hate bandwagon, but it is shown consistency by real world tests and by Youtuber reviews that this antivirus absolutely sucks. Webroot is not a cloud av that uses real signatures. It actually uses a system that determines if a virus is a threat based on the code the virus emulates and by its age and origin. And by how poorly it does on tests, you can see why it is nice if a "cloud" av also used signatures as well instead of a poor man's virus total. Sites like Pc Mag only rate it good because it is the lightest av ever ooh so good. I rather have an antivirus use 100mb more of ram than have it perform so poorly that it isn't even worth installing it.

That's a bunk test. He whitelisted the script he was using to execute malware within Webroot (because Webroot would kill the script otherwise). Despite that only two of the files were active in memory. The rest of those files you see resting on disk do not look active (meaning Webroot terminated them).

And if you have a system that is watching and journaling malware/encryption changes, and you rapidly execute several ransomware samples in a row, what are you really testing here? It's not a realistic attack scenario (unless your users are launching scripts that run hundreds of files or dozens of ransomware samples), and any journaling technique is going to be overloaded by all of those disc writes.
 
That's a bunk test. He whitelisted the script he was using to execute malware within Webroot (because Webroot would kill the script otherwise). Despite that only two of the files were active in memory. The rest of those files you see resting on disk do not look active (meaning Webroot terminated them).

And if you have a system that is watching and journaling malware/encryption changes, and you rapidly execute several ransomware samples in a row, what are you really testing here? It's not a realistic attack scenario (unless your users are launching scripts that run hundreds of files or dozens of ransomware samples), and any journaling technique is going to be overloaded by all of those disc writes.
Webroot has not had a good reputation on testing sites and I know testing sites like Avtest.org aren't always 100% accurate with their results as well. Yes it has gotten good reviews by PC Mags, Tech Radar, and has gotten a good user score and is one of the highest rated antiviruses in the world by users and is reconmended and partnered with Geeksquad as well. I just think an antivirus that relies just on it's engine and nothing else can easily be exploited and let's not forget Webroot has alot of false positives as well which makes it annoying to use too. I would not use Webroot by itself is all I am saying, it must be used with another av in my opinion as since Webroot literally uses no signatures and just uses it's own engine. For more information see the post I made earlier on how it works. It can be used with any antivirus with no interference even Windows Defender as that is what Webroot even recommends you do as well if you are concerned about security. By bad I do not mean awful like Iobit awful( I am an Iobit Malware Fighter hater). Webroot is a nice av to use since I am a gamer I would say that an antivirus that uses less than 100mb of ram even when testing is perfect. The user interface and it's engine are what makes me wary of using it by itself. If I wanted better protection with using Fsecure which I have loved, I would use Webroot since Webroot's engine is actually pretty decent, but a pretty decent engine that relies on math rather than signatures to detect viruses could become a weakness to certain viruses that can exploit the math code Webroot uses on it's own. By saying it sucks, I am saying it sucks as a stand alone av. Malwarebytes is one of the best if not the best antimalware scan tool, but even I would say that it would suck as a standalone av even though Malwarebytes is trying to brand their antimalware scanner as an antivirus. I poorly worded my post and I am sorry about how it sounded.
1596964841051.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cortex
Webroot has not had a good reputation on testing sites and I know testing sites like Avtest.org aren't always 100% accurate with their results as well. Yes it has gotten good reviews by PC Mags, Tech Radar, and has gotten a good user score and is one of the highest rated antiviruses in the world by users and is reconmended and partnered with Geeksquad as well. I just think an antivirus that relies just on it's engine and nothing else can easily be exploited and let's not forget Webroot has alot of false positives as well which makes it annoying to use too. I would not use Webroot by itself is all I am saying, it must be used with another av in my opinion as since Webroot literally uses no signatures and just uses it's own engine. For more information see the post I made earlier on how it works. It can be used with any antivirus with no interference even Windows Defender as that is what Webroot even recommends you do as well if you are concerned about security. By bad I do not mean awful like Iobit awful( I am an Iobit Malware Fighter hater). Webroot is a nice av to use since I am a gamer I would say that an antivirus that uses less than 100mb of ram even when testing is perfect. The user interface and it's engine are what makes me wary of using it by itself. If I wanted better protection with using Fsecure which I have loved, I would use Webroot since Webroot's engine is actually pretty decent, but a pretty decent engine that relies on math rather than signatures to detect viruses could become a weakness to certain viruses that can exploit the math code Webroot uses on it's own. By saying it sucks, I am saying it sucks as a stand alone av. Malwarebytes is one of the best if not the best antimalware scan tool, but even I would say that it would suck as a standalone av even though Malwarebytes is trying to brand their antimalware scanner as an antivirus. I poorly worded my post and I am sorry about how it sounded.
View attachment 245100
Malwarebytes changed their website wording so they no longer acknowledge Malwarebytes as an antivirus and still have it listed as an antimalware. Malwarebytes for Windows - PC Antivirus Replacement | Malwarebytes
 

TairikuOkami

Level 28
Verified
Content Creator
Malwarebytes changed their website wording so they no longer acknowledge Malwarebytes as an antivirus and still have it listed as an antimalware.
Because even according to their own words, antimalware is more than just antivirus. So they are still on a high horse.
Go beyond antivirus and stop worrying about online threats.
 
Top