Which wingman for Webroot?

[amico81]

i have installed a trial of webroot. Awesome lightness of my system.

But i kow that webroot is weak. so i'm searching for a second protection layer.

I have good experiences with both programs in the poll.

I dont wanna use comodo firewall ( too much respect and no training)
or voodooshield ( tried, but just in englisch...that's pity).

 

[Deleted member 65228]

You must remember that the Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit component could in theory conflict with Webroot. To be clear, I am not stating that there is a conflict, I am just noting it so you keep an eye out.

You should try both Zemana Anti-Malware and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware at separate times and decide which one you trust and are more comfortable with. You will not know which one works better for you until you test them both because performance will differ between different environments depending on many factors and you will be able to grasp a feel of each product to determine which one is preferred.

You may also find that one behaves more conveniently than the other with Webroot, it's a game of trial and error. You won't know until you dive in and find out.

[Edit]:
I do not think that any issues will really arise however it's wise to use a system image backup before adding and removing different security software on your main environment, especially if they have real-time components. Forget about your gut-feeling or reviews regarding incompatibility, make sure you always have that backup say-on-case.

As a last comment to this post on my edit, it's also wise to test out both products on your host environment and not just in a virtual environment because the performance/stability may differ between both of those environment's as well. Many factors come into play regarding performance, it could even evolve around what software you run and how often and in what combinations at once and other general activities, and not just about your hardware specifications.

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

I agree, Webroot is relatively weak and sometimes problematic. However I would recommend Zemana over MBAM because MBAM could cause conflicts.

I'd actually consider Webroot+sysHardener+VoodooShield, but since you mention VS is only in English, then OSArmor. That SHOULD be sufficient, especially if you add an on-demand scanner as needed. IMO of course.

 

[mekelek]

slap Voodooshield next to it cause you're going to need something for signatures.
but then it kinda destroys the "light" idea tbh

 

[illumination]

If you are going for low system impact, and want something to supplement webroot, you could try Appguard. The two combined will be light as can be, and cover you well. The default policy of appguard "which is enough for most" would be enough to cover those deficiencies you fear webroot may have, or you can place many of windows vulnerable services in, and disable them and increase your security substantially.

 

[ForgottenSeer 69673]

I have been wondering about something for a while now. Both Windows 10 and the paid version of Malwarebytes have exploit protection. Is one better then the other and would they conflict if both used at same time?
I agree you could try Appguard although not free.

 

[Deleted member 65228]

Both Windows 10 and the paid version of Malwarebytes have exploit protection. Is one better then the other and would they conflict if both used at same time?

MBAE offers more than WDEG in terms of actual real-time AE.

MBAE actually monitors the protected programs, whereas WDEG sets policies for the protected programs.

For example, you can force ASLR and/or DEP with WDEG however if an attacker can work-around it, then the exploit will go ahead successfully - unlike with MBAE which may still be able to prevent it regardless because it actually monitors the protected program in real-time.

WDEG is useful though, I also use it.

 

[TheJokerz]

I use malwarebytes and webroot for sometime now. I have (knock on wood) not had any conflict issues. Hope this helps!

 

[Deleted member 178]

But i kow that webroot is weak.

so why use it in the first place?
Better directly use one that satisfy your security requirements...

 

[amico81]

I'm interested in different av's...webroot is the synonym for lightness...i wanted to try it out
it's just a trial version...dont believe to stay with him forever

 

[bribon77]

If lightness is sought, the best option would be Zemana. Malwarebytes consumes many resources for my liking.

 

[l0rdraiden]

Zemana is almost abandonware

 

[Deleted Member 3a5v73x]

When I was using Webroot I remember that I had it running along with Voodooshield. It was one of the easiest/effective combos back then, but now you can even simplify config to add OSArmor/SysHarden instead of Voodooshield, for less experienced users for example. I kept Zemana only as on-demand though, there was really no point to keep real-time protection enabled imo. I still kinda like Webroot.

 

[Windows Defender Shill]

Webroot is more than adequate for any user with a basic knowledge of how malware infects computers. If you're not confident about that, then Webroot probably isn't for you, use Kaspersky, EAM or Avast/AVG instead.

If you do know what you're doing than Webroot is a awesome solution for maintaining basic AV security with minimal resources and annoyance.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

there is a way to make your current AV use a lot less resource but in the exchange of slightly lower protection: Disable on-access scanning/enable scan on-execution
after that, your AV will have the performance similarly to Webroot, maybe a bit lower or higher or very close
if your AV doesn't have this option or force you to use on-access monitor, it's a shame

for the question from the OP, I don't think both ZAM or MB are enough for average users because there are many holes malwares can bypass. Webroot is poor by its nature. ZAM and MB are not really better but slightly better in terms of signatures (check MRG test). Amico is a good user, webroot, some web filters and sandboxie should be enough
if I'm a webroot user, I will be living fear because I don't really trust its protection

 

[Windows Defender Shill]

there is a way to make your current AV use a lot less resource but in the exchange of slightly lower protection: Disable on-access scanning/enable scan on-execution
after that, your AV will have the performance similarly to Webroot, maybe a bit lower or higher or very close
if your AV doesn't have this option or force you to use on-access monitor, it's a shame

for the question from the OP, I don't think both ZAM or MB are enough for average users because there are many holes malwares can bypass. Webroot is poor by its nature. ZAM and MB are not really better but slightly better in terms of signatures (check MRG test). Amico is a good user, webroot, some web filters and sandboxie should be enough
if I'm a webroot user, I will be living fear because I don't really trust its protection

Evjl Rain, I highly doubt you would be incapable of avoiding infection while using Webroot. And your state of mind should be dependent upon your backups and safe user habits, not your AV.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Evjl Rain, I highly doubt you would be incapable of avoiding infection while using Webroot. And your state of mind should be dependent upon your backups and safe user habits, not your AV.

safe habit is an important factor
but if we have a safe habit, we don't need a paid AV. A good free AV should be enough
more importantly, webroot is the paid AV which has a really low detection/protection rate compared to other products
we don't get what we pay for. A paid AV should have at least 95% of protection rate, when other free AVs can deliver it and we can disable on-access scanning to make them extremely light

 

[Windows Defender Shill]

safe habit is an important factor
but if we have a safe habit, we don't need a paid AV. A good free AV should be enough
more importantly, webroot is the paid AV which has a really low detection/protection rate compared to other products
we don't get what we pay for. A paid AV should have at least 95% of protection rate, when other free AVs can deliver it and we can disable on-access scanning to make them extremely light

I disagree on low protection, and detection testing does not account for the journal rollback mechanism in Webroot. That can be adjusted through heuristics or manually applied through Control Active Process. When all of this is taken into consideration I believe it meets a suitable level of protection.

- And I've not really seen an equal to Webroot in the resource consumption category. (Maybe modified Avast, or Panda).
- I will also point out the cost when purchased in a physical store is very cheap comparative to other paid solutions.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

I disagree on low protection, and detection testing does not account for the journal rollback mechanism in Webroot. That can be adjusted through heuristics or manually applied through Control Active Process. When all of this is taken into consideration I believe it meets a suitable level of protection.

- And I've not really seen an equal to Webroot in the resource consumption category. (Maybe modified Avast, or Panda).
- I will also point out the cost when purchased in a physical store is very cheap comparative to other paid solutions.

despite all tweaks, webroot still has many limitations where malwares can bypass
for example, when we get a fileless malwares or a password/banking stealer, if webroot can't protect us in the first place, we are finished
all the important information is stolen and this can't be rolled back, although the malware's actions can be rolled back. If users get a backdoor and the hacker takes over the machine, the first thing he does is stealing all the important data and may or may not uninstall the AV, this can't be rolled back too
furthermore, according to many tests I have seen, even after 24 hours, webroot still failed to rollback or protect against the malwares. If we get a ransomware and it locks our PC (wannacy for example), especially for businessmen, they can't wait 4-24 hrs for webroot to rollback because they need the machine to work immediately

regardless of the price, $7-8, I don't find it worth it for us if we are not advanced users
in the end, I think webroot is not worth the money for everything it has

about the lightness of other AVs, we have not tried to maximize the speed of them so we can't tell much
I'm using KFA now, and this is the first time I change the setting to scan on-execution. It's extremely light (except the memory usage). It's should be the same for avast

 

[mekelek]

I disagree on low protection, and detection testing does not account for the journal rollback mechanism in Webroot. That can be adjusted through heuristics or manually applied through Control Active Process. When all of this is taken into consideration I believe it meets a suitable level of protection.

- And I've not really seen an equal to Webroot in the resource consumption category. (Maybe modified Avast, or Panda).
- I will also point out the cost when purchased in a physical store is very cheap comparative to other paid solutions.

are we at a point where its acceptable for an AV to take hours to determine if something running in your memory is doing malicious things?
every decent top tier AV has a similar feature as "Control Active Process", that is reacting fast and not taking a century....