Webroot, the only small AV left.

[amico81]

nothing to find @ ebay germany. and i'm not sure if other resellers from UK or USA have any
"region lock" in their keys

 

[mekelek]

nothing to find @ ebay germany. and i'm not sure if other resellers from UK or USA have any
"region lock" in their keys

try here: G2A

 

[Alexhousek]

ForgottenSeer 58943, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I have been using Webroot for over 3 years and in that 3 years I have never been infected by a virus of any kind. It is by far the lightest AV I've ever used. It just does it's thing and hardly ever bothers me. I know of dozens of users who have had the same experience with Webroot. It's a great AV in my opinion. Besides, their headquarters are in Colorado which is also my home....

 

[Deleted member 65228]

I know of dozens of users who have had the same experience with Webroot.

I can't even name one let alone many. Fair enough though.

 

[Dave Russo]

Ever since the Fall Creators update my pedestrian machine has been using considerably more resources. The culprit is primarily Cortana and our good friend Anti Malware Service Executable (Windows Defender).

I tried to adjust to this cruel demand of resources, (seeing how my name is Windows Defender Shill) but it was a hopeless cause. My el cheapo desktop was using almost half my available RAM without a active application running. Before the Fall Update of despair I liked to keep that idle number in the low 30s.

So this is why I have turned back to Webroot despite the fact I have a active Avast Internet Security subscription (I got for free, because Avast customer support is really nice). Avast IS would not have been a major improvement over WD, because they now use a lot more resources than you think. In addition Avast GUI is buggy and extremely slow to load on my machine.

View attachment 174822

As you can see above there is no other Anti Virus that can compete in terms of system impact. Which is now my primary concern. Avast Free is probably the second smallest but the pop ups are a disqualifier for me.

The criticism of Webroot will be aimed at it's so called "poor protection". Which is either voiced by anti malware extremist or by people who are just ignorant about the default protection process or the advanced pro active options Webroot offers. Webroot is beyond adequate security for a knowledgeable user. *It must also be pointed out Webroot can always be purchased at a very reasonable price.

I understand that the rapid advance in affordable high spec computers is a legitimate excuse for many AVs not to worry about system resources usage. But many of us still have pedestrian machines that can benefit massively from a small AV like Webroot.

 

[ForgottenSeer 69673]

I can't even name one let alone many. Fair enough though.

Umbra?

 

[Deleted member 65228]

Umbra?

I don't know Umbra though, so I can't name him as someone I know who has liked Webroot.

 

[ForgottenSeer 69673]

I don't know Umbra though, so I can't name him as someone I know who has liked Webroot.

He posts here all the time. I don't think know always means physically.

 

[Dave Russo]

Ever since the Fall Creators update my pedestrian machine has been using considerably more resources. The culprit is primarily Cortana and our good friend Anti Malware Service Executable (Windows Defender).

I tried to adjust to this cruel demand of resources, (seeing how my name is Windows Defender Shill) but it was a hopeless cause. My el cheapo desktop was using almost half my available RAM without a active application running. Before the Fall Update of despair I liked to keep that idle number in the low 30s.

So this is why I have turned back to Webroot despite the fact I have a active Avast Internet Security subscription (I got for free, because Avast customer support is really nice). Avast IS would not have been a major improvement over WD, because they now use a lot more resources than you think. In addition Avast GUI is buggy and extremely slow to load on my machine.

View attachment 174822

As you can see above there is no other Anti Virus that can compete in terms of system impact. Which is now my primary concern. Avast Free is probably the second smallest but the pop ups are a disqualifier for me.

The criticism of Webroot will be aimed at it's so called "poor protection". Which is either voiced by anti malware extremist or by people who are just ignorant about the default protection process or the advanced pro active options Webroot offers. Webroot is beyond adequate security for a knowledgeable user. *It must also be pointed out Webroot can always be purchased at a very reasonable price.

I understand that the rapid advance in affordable high spec computers is a legitimate excuse for many AVs not to worry about system resources usage. But many of us still have pedestrian machines that can benefit massively from a small AV like Webroot.

Free program "WINAERO" allows you to disable Cortana and Windows Defender, I have done both,and yes my ram use is way less,It has many other tweaks,well worth a look GL

 

[Deleted member 65228]

He posts here all the time. I don't think know always means physically.

I didn't mean it like that.

[Edit]
I see I made a mistake myself when reading the post I quoted in the first place, the person I quoted said know of, not know. I do know of Umbra, but I still didn't know that he liked Webroot so it's a 50%-50% dilemma.

 

[amico81]

@Opcode when i looked at your profil info, I had to laugh waiting for your new avatar with a little panda bear

 

[amico81]

one serious question: does webroot have own signatures and a behavior blocker?

 

[509322]

ForgottenSeer 58943, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I have been using Webroot for over 3 years and in that 3 years I have never been infected by a virus of any kind. It is by far the lightest AV I've ever used. It just does it's thing and hardly ever bothers me. I know of dozens of users who have had the same experience with Webroot. It's a great AV in my opinion. Besides, their headquarters are in Colorado which is also my home....

That is hardly a validation.

There are a lot of people who have never been infected. Never being infected over X number of years does not validate the protection quality of the installed security software if the system was never exposed to a threat in the first place. Not being infected over a period of years can have everything to do with probability and low-risk exposure. It is like saying a PC that is turned on with security software XYZ installed, is perpetually used only to connect to MalwareTips, is never infected and attributing the fact that it was never infected over all that time to the "superior protection capability of XYZ" when, in reality, the system was never exposed to a single threat and security software XYZ did nothing to protect the system.

 

[509322]

I don't know Umbra though, so I can't name him as someone I know who has liked Webroot.

He doesn't "like" any AV. He just "tolerates" Webroot or EAM. Ask @Umbra yourself. He'll tell you, Webroot and EAM are the only ones that he'll put on one of his systems, and even then, it is a big IF he'll keep them there for any period of time.

 

[Windows Defender Shill]

one serious question: does webroot have own signatures and a behavior blocker?

I've not seen anything suggesting they utilize 3rd party signatures.
Behavior blocker for Webroot is a complex subject. From my understanding, their method of heuristics is a increasing level of distrust for unknown programs and actions. If a unknown program doesn't trigger any red flags then it's changes are simply journaled until confirmed non malicious. if a unknown program starts demonstrating certain bad behavior the user is warned and the action is blocked by default until the program can be determined malicious. If the program is determined malicious at anytime it is quarantined and the changes it made to the system are reversed. *This can also be done manually at any time via control active processes/ stop untrusted processes and rescan the machine.

This is not a perfect system but I would say it is highly effective. Webroot does however offer varying degrees of protection to the point of white list only programs are allowed to run.

 

[Windows Defender Shill]

That is hardly a validation.

There are a lot of people who have never been infected. Never being infected over X number of years does not validate the protection quality of the installed security software if the system was never exposed to a threat in the first place. Not being infected over a period of years can have everything to do with probability and low-risk exposure. It is like saying a PC that is turned on with security software XYZ installed, is perpetually used only to connect to MalwareTips, is never infected and attributing the fact that it was never infected over all that time to the "superior protection capability of XYZ" when, in reality, the system was never exposed to a single threat and security software XYZ did nothing to protect the system.

I have quarantine list in Webroot demonstrating it protecting me from real threats, before I had a chance of checking it against VT. As everyone should do before running a program.

 

[509322]

I have quarantine list in Webroot demonstrating it protecting me from real threats, before I had a chance of checking it against VT. As everyone should do before running a program.

So ? - please read my reply carefully. I've run Windows Defender for decades and never been infected because my system was not exposed to threats in the first place - which is my whole point. According to that guy's post logic, not being infected over decades using Windows Defender makes Windows Defender better than Webroot. And that just ain't true for a number of reasons. It's a "populist" measure, but the amount of time a system goes uninfected is not a validation of a security soft's protection quality - again for a number of reasons.

Take a poll, most people who run an AV or internet security suite never have anything quarantined over a long period of time - sometimes many years. That's not because the installed security soft has such awesome protection, but much more likely due to the fact that their system has not been exposed to any attacks, malware has not been introduced to the system, etc. What is really protecting their system is probability and low-risk exposure. In other words, the system has managed to dodge bullets.

 

[Windows Defender Shill]

So ? - please read my reply carefully. I've run Windows Defender for decades and never been infected because my system was not exposed to threats in the first place - which is my whole point. According to that guy's post logic, not being infected over decades using Windows Defender makes Windows Defender better than Webroot. And that just ain't true for a number of reasons. It's a "populist" measure, but the amount of time a system goes uninfected is not a validation of a security soft's protection quality - again for a number of reasons.

Take a poll, most people who run an AV or internet security suite never have anything quarantined over a long period of time - sometimes many years. That's not because the installed security soft has such awesome protection, but much more likely due to the fact that their system has not been exposed to any attacks, malware has not been introduced to the system, etc. What is really protecting their system is probability and low-risk exposure. In other words, the system has managed to dodge bullets.

And I'm simply pointing my system was exposed to threats and was protected.

 

[bribon77]

headquarters are in Colorado which is also my home....

It's an advantage the day you get infected that you go there and complain.

Seriously..Good for a normal person I think Weboot is enough. Not enough for a tester Av.

 

[509322]

And I'm simply pointing my system was exposed to threats and was protected.

And I get that too. It depends upon what those threats were. That is another "populist" measure - "my AV blocked stuff, therefore it is awesome AV." Stuff can be thrown at AVs that they cannot defend against. All you have to do is look at AV test lab results, which throws run-of-the-mill stuff at them, to see AVs miss stuff. And Webroot does just OK in some areas and poorly against script-based malware. Webroot foolishly whitelists everything Microsoft. Despite all the hype and promises the journaling & rollback algorithms are powerless against a lot of infections, such as screenlock ransomware. It does not protect Windows Firewall and Windows' built-in security settings. It's own journaling registry keys are unprotected. It's not like these areas for improvement haven't been brought to Webroot's attention again-and-again.

Mark my words, someone will say I'm bashing Webroot when in fact I am the one who made the repeated efforts to test this stuff out on Webroot's behalf and jump through Webroot's hoops to report for them.

The bottom line is this... AV, like all security softs, are just an insurance policy, nothing more, nothing less. On the vast majority of systems, it is probability and exposure to low-risk that is protecting the system.