I am done with webroot

okay calm down brother...
 
 
what you can do is mark the file monitor or allow, then remove it from quarantine and run it again. that should work.
 
 
So to be clear. Run program and let it get blocked. then allow the entry or monitor the entry , then remove the entry from quarantine and then run the program again. That should work.

Hi tommy61157
 
Welcome to the Community Forums.
 
GW is correct in what he says and a possible approach around the issue. Unfortunately, the way that WSA works, i.e., whitelisting, does make it more secure than the more traditional blacklisting approach used by other AVs/ISs but the down side is that in the case of lesser well know software it can take time to get files whitelisted. But if it is your own software that you trust/know not malicious then the GW approach should deal with the issue...and then, when you get todefinitive versions of the files in question you can save a copy of the Scan Log, which should be highlighting the unknown files with [u] aahead of the path,  That can then be submitted to the Support Team, via a Support Ticket, with a request to have the files concerned whitelisted.
 
Hope that the suggestion from GW, and the above persuade you to give WSA another chance?
 
Regards, Baldrick

@ wrote:
Why does webroot not have ANYWHERE a straightforward way to tell webroot that a certain file isn't bad and to allow it instead of quarantining it? I modify lots of files because I want to start my own software side job, but webroot marks everything as bad, I'm going to uninstall webroot and never recommend it to anyone again unless they offer a way to get around this bull**bleep**. What a waste of money and time.

We're working on a feature for an exclusion list, so that you can designate a folder to not be scanned for the software you are working on.

Thanks, Nic
 
That is good to know.
 
Regards, Baldrick

@ wrote:

We're working on a feature for an exclusion list, so that you can designate a folder to not be scanned for the software you are working on.

I thought the option of excluding a folder had been strictly ruled out  for security reasons because of the danger of less computer-savvy users unwittingly opening up an avenue for malware to enter?

@ wrote:

@ wrote:

We're working on a feature for an exclusion list, so that you can designate a folder to not be scanned for the software you are working on.

I thought the option of excluding a folder had been strictly ruled out  for security reasons because of the danger of less computer-savvy users unwittingly opening up an avenue for malware to enter?

It was, but after continued requests for it, the dev team were persuaded.  Especially in a business environment, the option to exclude folders seems to be very important.  We'll make sure that sysadmins know the risks before they exclude something though.

HI Nic
 
That is great news...hopefully to make sure that nothing inadvertant is done something like or equivalent to a CAPTCH code entry system will be enforced...as a safety...if you get my drift...;)
 
Regards, Baldrick

@ wrote:

@ wrote:

@ wrote:

We're working on a feature for an exclusion list, so that you can designate a folder to not be scanned for the software you are working on.

I thought the option of excluding a folder had been strictly ruled out  for security reasons because of the danger of less computer-savvy users unwittingly opening up an avenue for malware to enter?

It was, but after continued requests for it, the dev team were persuaded.  Especially in a business environment, the option to exclude folders seems to be very important.  We'll make sure that sysadmins know the risks before they exclude something though.

So if I understand, this option will only be available for the Business Endpoint version?

Not sure yet, but it will probably start there first.