Today, the most recent AV-Comparatives File Detection report was released. While the results were disappointing to see on paper, they were not surprising to those of us on the Webroot team.
To help clear up any confusion, we’d like to again share our thoughts on why our approach is difficult to compare in reports like this.
The latest AV-Comparatives report is an on-demand detection test of a specific set of files that evaluates whether or not a particular security solution has a signature for those files. Signature-based detection is not the only measure of a solution’s efficacy in protecting a user from threats, however.
While Webroot’s SecureAnywhere solution does leverage signature files in the cloud as part of its detection capabilities, those are not the primary security capabilities that the solution uses to protect users, particularly from unknown threats. While this test demonstrated that Webroot did not at test time have the most current sample set as part of its cloud-based database, it did not test the efficacy of the Webroot solution in protecting users from these threats outside of signature-based detection.
Webroot’s solutions work differently than traditional security solutions by focusing on the behavior of files that try to execute on a system regardless of whether or not we have seen that file previously and have a signature for it. Any unknown file is monitored and its behavior journaled as it tries to execute. Once it is deemed malicious, any actions the file may have taken are automatically rolled back to return the system to the last known good state, reversing only the changes that the suspicious file made. While the file is being monitored, SecureAnywhere has a collection of shields – including a Behavior Shield, a Web Threat Shield, an Identity Shield, an Offline Shield, and a Zero-Day Shield – that provide real time protection that prevent any untrusted file from executing behaviors that put the user or their information at risk.
Webroot has updated its signature database to reflect the sample set used in this test and has improved its overall sample sharing process to ensure we are continuously updating that database. However, users can be confident that the regardless of the state of signatures, they are protected from any current, new or unknown threats that they may encounter as a result of Webroot’s unique approach to protection.
Solved
AV-Comparatives and Our Unique Approach
+4Best answer by RetiredTripleHelix
AV-C has a great report: Whole Product Dynamic "Real World" Protection Test Results Graph Bar for November Great Job Webroot teams! ;)
TH
View originalTH
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New to the Community? Here's tips for getting started.
Show first post
+56AV-C has a great report: Whole Product Dynamic "Real World" Protection Test Results Graph Bar for November Great Job Webroot teams! ;)
TH
TH
+26[] what about the other "user dependant" ones???
+56As a user I can compare the 2 as I tested Panda Cloud and it does download a large definition file locally they are not the same it's still like comparing apples to oranges and the link I posted above shows that Panda doesn't use any user intervention (No Yellow portion of the Graph) and that's all I can go by. Also as this is the Webroot Community Support Forum I don't see a Webroot Staff member replying and putting down the competition as that would be unprofessional IMHO.
TH
TH
1 person likes this
+56Since you change your Question from Panda to this the "user dependent" pop-ups are default Block with Allow once & Allow and the users that I know and myself have not even seen this pop-up window and the last I heard but don't quote me will be improved in future builds with less "user dependent" pop-ups. ;)@ wrote:
[] what about the other "user dependant" ones???
TH
1 person likes this
+26great. thank you!!!!!
I read the whole thread. Still puzzled. I understand that a lower test detection rate does not imply that a product offers low protection on the case of Webroot.
What I don't understand is why Webroot does not infect (they are not detected at first, right? ) a test PC with ALL missed ones in a test, one by one, and report how many of those infection were detected at what time and what damage could be repaired.
I saw the interesting screen shot movie if Webroot missess a virus That certainly points in the right (convincing) direction, and gives a great insight. I would be more convinced though, by seeing, just for once, a report on the follow up/run time detection of the 20% 'missed' at first..
What I don't understand is why Webroot does not infect (they are not detected at first, right? ) a test PC with ALL missed ones in a test, one by one, and report how many of those infection were detected at what time and what damage could be repaired.
I saw the interesting screen shot movie if Webroot missess a virus That certainly points in the right (convincing) direction, and gives a great insight. I would be more convinced though, by seeing, just for once, a report on the follow up/run time detection of the 20% 'missed' at first..
The 20% being referenced is from a zoo test - a kind of test that dumps a bunch of malware into a directory, which is then scanned. Old definitions-based software is good at these kind of scans because that was the primary method by which that kind of software worked - a big, long scan. That kind of test is different than running any of those files individually as a real-world test, which is what WSA is best at. Detection routines mirror the imprint of a real infection and what it does. For this reason, Webroot did very well on the real-world portion of the test.
When testing samples are brought to our attention, those files are classified within minutes. The question you may be getting at though is "How long does it take for a missed file to be rolled back?" That would be an interesting thing for a third party tester to monitor in order to test efficacy and reactiveness.
It can vary, but generally speaking, it's very quick. Our threat researchers have many ways to seek out and classify malware. Worst case scenario, if a WSA user was to be infected and contacts support, we would then have the threat right in front of us. Our threat researchers can then deal with that threat globally on every WSA-protected system on which it is present, and trigger the rollback. Historically, this happens very, very fast.
When testing samples are brought to our attention, those files are classified within minutes. The question you may be getting at though is "How long does it take for a missed file to be rolled back?" That would be an interesting thing for a third party tester to monitor in order to test efficacy and reactiveness.
It can vary, but generally speaking, it's very quick. Our threat researchers have many ways to seek out and classify malware. Worst case scenario, if a WSA user was to be infected and contacts support, we would then have the threat right in front of us. Our threat researchers can then deal with that threat globally on every WSA-protected system on which it is present, and trigger the rollback. Historically, this happens very, very fast.
/// JimM /// /// Former Community Manager - Now Humble Internet Citizen/// /// Also Formerly a Technical Support Escalations Engineer ///
One other plea for proving by testing the different appoach at the user level.
Once WR's different approach discovers malware, apparently it can roll back the possible damage. I hope that after that discovery the malware is identified and added to a DB.
So some of the advantages/differences are a) the way of discovery and b) the rollback. However, one of the similarities is that DB. If that DB scores lower in tests, is it because it is somewhat lagging behind?
About a week ago many commented on the Impreva study. What surprised me most is that the 'Old definitions-based software' industry responded very similar to WR's different approach. Somewhat like: definitions are fine, but we do much more, and that 'more' has not been tested by Impreva.
So protection by discovery seems to be changing over there too. And roughly, isn't rollback then remaining as the main difference? If so, I'd still like more proof about the rollback. And perhaps I will test that on an old PC now my new subscription is valid for 5 licenses. Great!
Once WR's different approach discovers malware, apparently it can roll back the possible damage. I hope that after that discovery the malware is identified and added to a DB.
So some of the advantages/differences are a) the way of discovery and b) the rollback. However, one of the similarities is that DB. If that DB scores lower in tests, is it because it is somewhat lagging behind?
About a week ago many commented on the Impreva study. What surprised me most is that the 'Old definitions-based software' industry responded very similar to WR's different approach. Somewhat like: definitions are fine, but we do much more, and that 'more' has not been tested by Impreva.
So protection by discovery seems to be changing over there too. And roughly, isn't rollback then remaining as the main difference? If so, I'd still like more proof about the rollback. And perhaps I will test that on an old PC now my new subscription is valid for 5 licenses. Great!
Unless the discovery was due to by purely local heuristics, the cloud database would already have the malware entry prior to the rollback. The rollback is triggered by the classification in the database once that occurs.@ wrote:
Once WR's different approach discovers malware, apparently it can roll back the possible damage. I hope that after that discovery the malware is identified and added to a DB.
About a week ago many commented on the Impreva study. What surprised me most is that the 'Old definitions-based software' industry responded very similar to WR's different approach. Somewhat like: definitions are fine, but we do much more, and that 'more' has not been tested by Impreva.
And perhaps I will test that on an old PC now my new subscription is valid for 5 licenses. Great!
The study in this case looks like it utilized VirusTotal exclusively. I'd say the complaints are justly made, because testing in that manner only tests part of the software instead of the whole thing. As the article notes, VirusTotal themselves say their service should not be used to perform antivirus comparative analyses. If standard testing has a long ways to go before it accurately mirrors the real world, testing purely through VirusTotal is like turning around and running the other direction.
Regarding the mention of private end-user testing, please see the Community Guidelines section "No Private Testing Discussions."
The whole point of antivirus software is to not get infected, and unfortunately when somebody sets a bad example, there will always be others who are influenced into following the same path. It's not something we want to allow to be encouraged.
/// JimM /// /// Former Community Manager - Now Humble Internet Citizen/// /// Also Formerly a Technical Support Escalations Engineer ///
1 person likes this
Reply
Rich Text Editor, editor1
Editor toolbars
Press ALT 0 for help
Login to the community
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.