Expired Webroot SecureAnywhere Special 90-Day Antivirus Offer

[Tutman]

Eset is very light in AV industry and good protection also

Yes forgot that one!

 

[blackice]

Eset is very light in AV industry and good protection also

They have even blocked malware on execution in the Hub recently when their excellent signatures have a miss. A great light solution, really a great solution regardless of whether lightness is necessary.

 

[LDogg]

Facts:
- Poor protection and detection
- Doesn't tell you it has a separate folder within your system that takes up GIGs of your data in a folder called WTRoot
- It's lightweight

The cons really do outweigh the pros and this is not a program that should be on any system if you deem yourself to be "tech savvy".

~LDogg

 

[ChoiceVoice]

Facts:
- Poor protection and detection
- Doesn't tell you it has a separate folder within your system that takes up GIGs of your data in a folder called WTRoot
- It's lightweight

The cons really do outweigh the pros and this is not a program that should be on any system if you deem yourself to be "tech savvy".

~LDogg

I'm not sure you understand everything it does (webroot should do better at marketing). while it is true it isn't as good on definitions as top lab AVs, any program that is suspect is flagged and monitored (and limited). they journal everything the suspect program does which is why you have that large mysterious folder. when a program is found to later, be malicious, webroot will roll back all changes it has made. it is like an AI sandbox. besides that, it has very strong non-signature behavioural detection, which I like. and it can still be used as a complimentary AV, so I run it with another that has better signatures. when a company that relies completely on sig detection and reactionary clean-ups gets infected, it is messy and you are never really sure if it's all gone. but webroot can undo everything they did perfectly - it's what it does (like emptying your sandbox in sandboxie). it might take webroot a bit of time to officially label it as bad, but it will, and it will still protect your system even if infected because it doesn't trust unverified programs. even if an unknown trojan had been secretly downloading tons of bugs on your system, they will all be gone and all system changes reversed. and this isn't even getting into the program isolation it does to deter keystroke and other capture techniques. this is one of the problems i have noted when people do testing on it here and in some labs ... it ain't like other AVs, so they structure their tests improperly. their tests are like putting a porsche carrera in a speed boat contest, and wondering why it sank.

 

[roger_m]

it might take webroot a bit of time to officially label it as bad, but it will

Sometimes it will. It's definitely not something you can rely on. I've had some malware running at startup on my test computer for months and it is still not detected. Webroot's firewall stopped a keylogger from establishing an internet connection, but it did not stop it and other malware from running.

 

[Behold Eck]

Sometimes it will. It's definitely not something you can rely on. I've had some malware running at startup on my test computer for months and it is still not detected. Webroot's firewall stopped a keylogger from establishing an internet connection, but it did not stop it and other malware from running.

Yes, I noticed the same problem with malware running for days without being monitored.

Regards Eck

 

[Exterminator]

Personally if I was looking for something reliable I would stay away from this and take advantage of this Антивирус на 90 дней бесплатно — ESET NOD32

 

[Divine_Barakah]

Some screenshots of the system optimisation of the "Gamers' edition"

 

[DSD27]

Some screenshots of the system optimisation of the "Gamers' edition"

View attachment 238023View attachment 238025

CCleaner is free, does the same and more.

If you want something reliable and light, get Kaspersky Security Cloud Free, it's the best, you don't need to spend money.

 

[ichito]

I'm not sure you understand everything it does (webroot should do better at marketing). while it is true it isn't as good on definitions as top lab AVs, any program that is suspect is flagged and monitored (and limited). they journal everything the suspect program does which is why you have that large mysterious folder. when a program is found to later, be malicious, webroot will roll back all changes it has made. it is like an AI sandbox. besides that, it has very strong non-signature behavioural detection, which I like. and it can still be used as a complimentary AV, so I run it with another that has better signatures. when a company that relies completely on sig detection and reactionary clean-ups gets infected, it is messy and you are never really sure if it's all gone. but webroot can undo everything they did perfectly - it's what it does (like emptying your sandbox in sandboxie). it might take webroot a bit of time to officially label it as bad, but it will, and it will still protect your system even if infected because it doesn't trust unverified programs. even if an unknown trojan had been secretly downloading tons of bugs on your system, they will all be gone and all system changes reversed. and this isn't even getting into the program isolation it does to deter keystroke and other capture techniques. this is one of the problems i have noted when people do testing on it here and in some labs ... it ain't like other AVs, so they structure their tests improperly. their tests are like putting a porsche carrera in a speed boat contest, and wondering why it sank.

You are right...methodologies used by AV-tests labs are only designed by specific way scenarios of malware behaviour and tested apps reactions....nothing more. Some of tests made by organisation/labs are sponsored in clear official way but sometime sponsoring is hidden but in quite easy way to uncover. Who still remeber Matousec.com and their "proactive challange" in which Comodo allways have the best score?...who remember that they've tested proactive protection in classic firewall like Look'n'Stop and firewall features in ThrestFire?...who remember that it was quite easy to prepare firewall software to have better score what was proven by Symantec when they realised new version of PCTools FW only for matousec tests?...who remember that they disqualified Online Armor and removed its all archived results? Next example is MRG Effitas which methodology disqualified all soft based on user decision - e.g. Online Armor++ and SpyShelter failed their test...OA already doesn't exist but SS for sure but from years you can't see it in MRG tests due to lack of agreement about such simulator.
Uncommon apps it's hard to qualify to the certain categories and hard to prepare wise technology to test its specific features.

 

[mlnevese]

I never used Webroot but I'm curious by the way it works. Does it block unknown malware from transmitting your data while it's being observed?

 

[ChoiceVoice]

Sometimes it will. It's definitely not something you can rely on. I've had some malware running at startup on my test computer for months and it is still not detected. Webroot's firewall stopped a keylogger from establishing an internet connection, but it did not stop it and other malware from running.

again, you're trying to understand it like traditional AVS, it doesn't need to stop it. it needs to protect your bank numbers or credit card number from leaving your computer. which it has by rendering it inert, the malware is not trusted and is limited until it is verified as clean or malware, until then it is stopped from accessing your financial information. and again, when it identifies it as malicious, it can completely remove it and any system changes it did. if I had a traditional AV like Kaspersky (which I love) that one day detected a new rootkit that had been sitting on my system for weeks, who knows all the crap it could have done with my system. with rootkits, you need to reinstall windows to be safe. but not necessarily true with webroot. it is gone. and it did no damage, I mean real damage, the type that drains your bank.

I never used Webroot but I'm curious by the way it works. Does it block unknown malware from transmitting your data while it's being observed?

yes.

Webroot AntiVirus Review

Though it no longer offers remote configuration and its ransomware protection is imperfect, Webroot AntiVirus scans quickly and uses just a trickle of system resources.

www.pcmag.com

Test Library - MRG Effitas

View the latest tests and the test archive from MRG Effitas, a leading global IT security and antimalware testing firm.

www.mrg-effitas.com

 

[DSD27]

again, you're trying to understand it like traditional AVS, it doesn't need to stop it. it needs to protect your bank numbers or credit card number from leaving your computer. which it has by rendering it inert, the malware is not trusted and is limited until it is verified as clean or malware, until then it is stopped from accessing your financial information. and again, when it identifies it as malicious, it can completely remove it and any system changes it did. if I had a traditional AV like Kaspersky (which I love) that one day detected a new rootkit that had been sitting on my system for weeks, who knows all the crap it could have done with my system. with rootkits, you need to reinstall windows to be safe. but not necessarily true with webroot. it is gone. and it did no damage, I mean real damage, the type that drains your bank.

yes.

Webroot AntiVirus Review

Though it no longer offers remote configuration and its ransomware protection is imperfect, Webroot AntiVirus scans quickly and uses just a trickle of system resources.

www.pcmag.com

Test Library - MRG Effitas

View the latest tests and the test archive from MRG Effitas, a leading global IT security and antimalware testing firm.

www.mrg-effitas.com

You're basically saying that Webroot is the best antivirus.

 

[roger_m]

again, you're trying to understand it like traditional AVS, it doesn't need to stop it, it needs to protect your bank numbers or credit card number from leaving your computer. which it has by rendering it inert, the malware is not trusted and is limited until it is verified as clean or malware, until then it is stopped from accessing your financial information. and again, when it identifies it as malicious, it can completely remove it and any system changes it did. if I had a traditional AV like Kaspersky (which I love) that one day detected a new rootkit that had been sitting on my system for weeks, who knows all the crap it could have done with my system. with rootkits, you need to reinstall windows to be safe. but not necessarily true with webroot. it is gone. and it did no damage, I mean real damage, the type that drains your bank.

In the age of ransomware, it is very important to be able to stop threats before they cause any damage. That's why it's important to have very good signatures and behaviour blockers. If you look at tests at the Malware Hub here, you will see that Webroot consistently fails at both. Not only that, but pretty much all of the time, every big name antivirus does better than Webroot at detecting malware. Usually, much better. If you take a look at the hub yourself, you will see that this is true and I'm not bashing Webroot for the sake of it. To be fair, it does have a very good web filter, which should block a lot of threats. While this is good, the evidence shows that it doesn't do so well for threats which the web filter misses.

Webroot's rollback feature does not work if a large amount of data get encrypted and from what I've read it doesn't always work, even if a smaller amount of data is encrypted. Kaspersky and Bitdefender, also both have a rollback feature. I believe there are some antiviruses that do too. So having a rollback feature does not make Webroot unique. Not only that, but for example, Bitdefender can take action as soon as files start getting encrypted. It can terminate the malicious process and rollback the files, right away. This is a much better approach than letting all the files get encrypted and then having the possibility that some time later, Webroot will be able to reverse the damage.

The bottom line is that there are antiviruses which have much better signatures and behaviour blockers than Webroot does and also include a rollback feature, which most likely works better than Webroot's one. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about Webroot these days and that will most certainly never change, while they insist that there product is still good, rather than taking steps to improve it.

In my case, I do find it concerning that Webroot has let malware that has very high detection rates at VirusTotal, run undetected at startup on my test computer for months.

 

[LDogg]

I believe the facts I stated will remain true, I do not have the misunderstanding @ChoiceVoice. You're over-exaggerating it's capabilities and glossing over the fact the company doesn't even tell you about the folder called "VTRoot" taking up gigabytes of your data w/o realising. I only found out Webroot did this is the fact I check my data usage everyday and noticed a few gigs being taken off week in week out.

The protection has always been poor and PCMag is a biased magazine, with sponsored content from the AVs themselves.

~LDogg

 

[DSD27]

To be fair, it' wasn't just PCMag that made a good review on Webroot.

 

[silversurfer]

@Petrovic used to regularly post malware samples here that defeated Webroot and it could not rollback the changes. It was reported numerous times to Webroot and they stated they couldn't fix it.

Please tell me, how do you know about this time in the past where malware-samples posted by Petrovic here, unfortunately that's very longtime ago, so you must be a former user at MT otherwise you won't knowing such stories like that...

 

[Ink]

You're basically saying that Webroot is the best antivirus.

But does it really matter..?
Webroot may be the best at being an alt.-to traditional AV software, but it's up to the end user to decide what they use.

You also make recommendations based on the situation.

If you want something reliable and light, get Kaspersky Security Cloud Free, it's the best, you don't need to spend money.

The comparison is simple, KSCF does not have Hardened Mode or an equal setting, therefore Avast free is the best option.

Personally, 90 days is not a good enough reason to use Paid software, unless you're extending it to 12 months or more. Otherwise WDA on W10 is good enough for the average PC user, who uses their phone 90% of the time.

 

[Tutman]

CCleaner is free, does the same and more.

If you want something reliable and light, get Kaspersky Security Cloud Free, it's the best, you don't need to spend money.

I have a question about that, if it is cloud based why is it constantly downloading many times a day with signatures? I am thinking about going back to it but that
part puzzles me and I don't like that it yells at you to use their password manager! (Sort of intrusive on my privacy!)

 

[SeriousHoax]

I have a question about that, if it is cloud based why is it constantly downloading many times a day with signatures? I am thinking about going back to it but that
part puzzles me and I don't like that it yells at you to use their password manager! (Sort of intrusive on my privacy!)

It's not cloud based actually. It's the same as other regular AVs. It gives you the option to not install the password manager during installation. Maybe that will save you from the annoyance.