I've been a dedicated Webroot user for 3 years... until now. I downloaded the SecureAnywhere update a few weeks ago, and since then the service has basically stopped working. SecureAnywhere never found any viruses, spyware, or malware, despite repeated and regular scans. This would be great if I didn't know for a fact that my computer was infected. In the last few days it has gotten to the point that every other time I click on a search result from Google, I am taken to a completely unrelated website.
Since my subscription ends in a couple days, I decided to download the free trail for AVG Internet Security and see if it would help. As soon as I started the program, it detected and removed a trojan, which Webroot hadn't detected during the scan a few hours ago. I hadn't even run a scan yet! As soon as AVG removed the trojan, the problem stopped.
I was a huge fan of Spy Sweeper, but SecureAnywhere turned out to be a waste of my time (and money). I used to be a huge Webroot fan and recommended it to many others who had issues, but now I'll be recommending for everyone using it to switch.
Solved
WSA missed a trojan
Best answer by gpb500
Well after all that, it turns out the _isdel.exe file was a false positive. MBAM fixed the FP on their end and now it looks like the inf files that were being flagged are also FPs. I did submit one file for review via the WSA client software. Not sure how this exercise fixed my buddy's problem but it seems to have nothing to do with that file...and now restored. Thanks for all the help...it was an interesting effort...and the remaining mystery apparently won't be solved. Cheers!
+62Thank you ? for your input. It's always a pleasure to hear from you!
Hope you are doing well?:D
Hope you are doing well?:D
:( I unknowing click on a Malicious website, Webroot did not block, however Malwarebytes blocked the malicious website. No softeware is perfect so it would be wise to have both Malwarebytes and Superanti Spyware on a computer.
Thanks Kit , I like this forum.
Thanks Kit , I like this forum.
You are correct, nothing is 100%. Though a curious question is whether you had the Webroot web filter extension active in the browser at the time. Also, the definition of "Malicious" varies. For example, "Tries to install malware" is consistently malicious. "Pops under an annoying video advertisement"? Annoying, but not technically malicious, but something might block it anyway. "Had a virus six months ago and now it doesn't"? Not-malicious, but still might be on some things.
Webroot itself is specifically made to be able to coexist with other security software. I cannot speak for SAS and MBAM at the same time however, though I can say that unless one of them explicitly indicates it can, I wouldn't. Blocking contentions can do horrible things.
@ I still exist. Move pretty far. All the usual. ^.^
Webroot itself is specifically made to be able to coexist with other security software. I cannot speak for SAS and MBAM at the same time however, though I can say that unless one of them explicitly indicates it can, I wouldn't. Blocking contentions can do horrible things.
+56? hey buddy long time no hear I hope your doing well, and nice to see drop in once in a while also say hi to ? for me!
Thanks,
Daniel 😉
Thanks,
Daniel 😉
:D Thanks kit for your response. Yes the webroot web filter extension is active in the browser. I will check to see if SAS and MBAM coexist with other antispyware software. How do one know if the website is annoying and not malicious? I never had a virus on this computer.
Honestly tough to tell without a full evaluation. For example, the website could actually be "ineptly malicious", such as having a bug that will only be able to infect people who use Windows 2000. Technically, yes, it's malicious, but completely incapable of actually infecting anybody who uses the protection software, so not-blocked.
As this thread originally said, "OMG, Webroot missed this!" and that turned into "Never mind... the thing that caught it was lying. Sorry." So honestly it's really hard to say without knowing what you're looking at whether something is malicious or being lied about or mis-caught or just genuinely annoying.
As this thread originally said, "OMG, Webroot missed this!" and that turned into "Never mind... the thing that caught it was lying. Sorry." So honestly it's really hard to say without knowing what you're looking at whether something is malicious or being lied about or mis-caught or just genuinely annoying.
:D I check SAS and MBAM is compatible with webroot. I had these programs for a number of years never had a problem with conflicting with any antivirus software. Webroot may detects viruses that SAS miss, same with the MBAM detect malware that Webroot and SAS do not catch.
Everything is compatible with Webroot no matter how hard they sometimes try to claim otherwise and break that compatibility. Webroot ensures that.
The question more becomes whether SAS and MBAM will work happily with each other. That is one I cannot answer. As a general rule, if they both perform on-demand scanning, they are not likely to be unless at least one of them say they are.
The question more becomes whether SAS and MBAM will work happily with each other. That is one I cannot answer. As a general rule, if they both perform on-demand scanning, they are not likely to be unless at least one of them say they are.
Hi Kit,
I never had any problem with either one, they both are compatible and compliment WebRoot.
Thanks for your reply
I never had any problem with either one, they both are compatible and compliment WebRoot.
Thanks for your reply
Even BitDefender?? I'd heard from several internet forum sources of problems with BitDefender co-existing with Webroot. It's the only AV I've heard about where this was supposedly the case.@ wrote:
Everything is compatible with Webroot
Hi Muddy
You are absolutely correct in that BitDefender & WSA to not sit well together...and if I understand it correctly it is BitDefender that is at fault or at least that is what a WSA fan would say, eh? ;)
Regards, Baldrick
You are absolutely correct in that BitDefender & WSA to not sit well together...and if I understand it correctly it is BitDefender that is at fault or at least that is what a WSA fan would say, eh? ;)
Regards, Baldrick
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.