I have just discovered that the UK is the only country where you are charged to contact Support (0870 141 7070) — and charged quite steeply at that.
This can't be right !!??!!???
It was the following post that drew my attention to this:
.....My issue was dealt with while I waited, it took an hour or two all told, but AFAIK the call was free (it had better be).
Are Webroot actively trying to lose UK customers??? When @squarehead666 sees his phone bill at the end of the month, I imagine he will be an extremely unhappy customer to see that he is being charged (and very steeply at that if I am not mistaken) for the privilege of having Webroot correct problems being caused on his machine by Webroot's software !!! What is more, being in contact through games forums with other Battlefront games customers using Webroot and encountering the same problem, I can well imagine that this will have ripple effects.
C'mon Webroot!! Why should Webroot customers from the UK, the country from whence hails the cybersecurity firm Webroot can thank for the entire architecture of its antimalware products, have to pay to get technical support by phone? Step up your game, and offer UK customers a free phone number like all the other countries you offer a Support phoneline to: https://www.webroot.com/us/en/support/contact !
How about rewarding loyal customers by making auto-renewals cheaper, or at least the same price, as new purchases?
Existing customers are effectively charged a "lazy tax" if they auto-renew, especially SecureAnywhere Plus and Complete customers, who cannot purchase cheaper subscriptions without being forced to jump through hoops to retain their passwords/backups.
I know 3rd party offers can be even cheaper again, but surely auto-renewals could at least match Webroot's own discounted prices?
WRSA's System Optimizer includes an advanced option to clean the Internet Explorer "index.dat" web cache file used by Windows versions prior to Windows 10. However, under Windows 10 the Internet Explorer and Edge browsers use a web cache file named "WebCacheV01.dat" which is not cleaned by WRSA's system optimizer. I would like for WRSA to have the function of cleaning WebCacheV01.dat. Thank you.
Webroot Filtering Extension button at Firefox address bar similiar to Webroor button at Chrome address bar.
Most of the cases the root problem of a successful 0-day infectino is that the very first piece of malicious code (most likely a downloader trojan) can successfully communicate to it CC (command and control centre).
Webroot today has a default allow action if user does not block via this popup window:
First of all: surely, admins never like the idea of giving such control to the user. User will never know the exact risks of clicking the Allow button here. When he clicks, it is already late to save the network from harm. Please refer to many many Cryptolocker cases around the Globe.
Secondly, the countdown counter here gives you 120 sec to decide. Who among the users can get proper help on what to click here in just 120 sec??? Who is that admin among us who could properly check this unknown process out it at the endpoint and advice in just 120 sec? (Anyone yes - I would employ you tomorrow and we will make big money... )
(please also read this idea - it might work in some cases:
Thirdly, actually, I have never seen any firewall (perimeter or personal) that has a "default allow" implementation. Eversince we have communicating systems we all learnt quite well: for any unknown process the only safe action is to block its communication, isnt' it? (Please note, blocking unknown processes' communication will not have any effect on known good processes.)
Sure, Webroot, you might say that implementing this could result in blocking too many legitim processes, but hey, this is your constant job to classify new processes and as quickly as you can and we purchase a WSA licence it means we do trust you can do this mandatory job for us, for our safety.
Also, even without your expert job (and cloud database updates), local admins could easily deal with those untrusted processes whose communications were blocked via the Admin Console, so they could easily classify any unknown process as "Good" if need be.
Dealing with some bloked communications is (to my opinion) still much better staff then dealing with tons of encrypted files... and neverending ransomware infcetions are just about to teach it for us all.
So why nort let us stay on the safer side?
WSA 6500+ endpoints inatalled and maintained daily, 12+ years Webroot sales & support, 2 yr Webroot MSP
With so many users questioning the results of System Analyzer over the years I would like to make a suggestion to remove it from all products and use the link to download and install the standalone version if a users wants to use it. I'm sorry but I find System Analyzer a useless tool and gives users a false sense of performance of there systems.
Please and Thank You.
Very simple request, Update the Mac User Guide Overview. This User Guide is in bad need for an update. Pics don't match what's on the Mac and what the User Guide shows, settings shown are not default settings. User Guide needs to be updated.
At the moment when you login to your Mac, Webroot opens up in your dock AND menu bar.
So it's open twice. In the menu bar should be open and left open. But the application in the dock should be hided.
At the moment you have to click the dock icon than click the red cross to close it down.
See here for the discussion:
It would be great if Webroot could have an option at installation (or some other point) whether to be the main Antivirus to replace Windows Defender 10, or alternatively, for it to be an extra layer of protection to run on top of Windows Defender 10.
For example, and I am not alone in this, I need an active antivirus that quickly or even immediately through heuristics recognises zero-day malware such as Trojan downloaders hidden as macro viruses in MS Office documents and then for the AV to immediately remove the threat from the local machine. This approach is different to Webroot, but I / we still want to be able to benefit from using Webroot for its other excellent capablities. This is feasible in Windows 10 where Webroot works well with Microsoft Security essentials in Windows 7.
Thank you for your consideration.
Microsoft is heavily investing in windows 10 mobile now which is something it has never done. They are heavily focusing on enterprise customers but there is no virus protection offered by Webroot. Is there any plans for adding support to windows mobile.
The Webroot File Submission site (http://snup.webrootcloudav.com/SkyStoreFileUploade
To allow better access to it I would like to suggest that a link to the site is added to the WSA local client; either as a button under the 'Support/Community' tab or the 'Utilities' tab, so that in much the same way as the 'Support' button takes the user to the site directly to open a support ticket, so this would take the user to the File submission site and give them immediate access to:
1. File submission
2. MD5 Hash lookups
3. URL Reputation lookups
As such it should not add very much in terms of additional code to the installer and would provide further useful tools for the user to readily use.
Have noticed in the Fora that there have been a number of users reporting dissatisfaction at the way that the Personalised Security Report is notified and the control that they have over how it interacts with their systems/themselves, etc.
As a result I am starting a feature request to try to capture this centrally as this is really the place for such views to reside if change is to have a chance of being achieved IMHO.
So common issues that users feel that they need rectified are:
1. Seeing the notification message on every login.
Suggested that that the frequency should be much more limited (maybe only show the message once per month and that the prompt should disappear by itself if not interacted with by the user after so many seconds. As it is, the prompt only goes away if you click on "Learn More" (which opens the web page with the stats) or the "X" in the upper right (which closes the window).
So extrapolating from this the conclusion to draw here is the provision of user definable parameters for (i) number of prompts to be shown & interval (in secs) before stopping & (ii) time after which prompt/notification will auto disappear if not responded too.
2. Ability to turn off notification
User defined setting that allows the user to decide whether they are interested in even receiving sucha report, and therefore associated notification (not that I can understand why one would not want too...)
3. Control to be provided via My Account/Web Console
And one of my own, given the above:
Provision of the above above suggested settings to be handled as another option in the Web Console, very much in the same way as control of the Advanced Settings can be handled that way. Believe that as the deployment of the report "is controlled by the backend rather than the agent" to quote JoeJ, it makes sense for any new user settings that may be provided to also effectively reside at the backend rather than the client.
Well, I hope that provides a suitable starter for further comments by those who want to make them so that we can see if the feature (which I personally like) can be enhanced.
So please post & comment away, folks...
EDIT: To add point 4. (from David's comments below)
Provision of the ability to be able to view the latest/last Report published "On Demand". Suggestion is the addition of a permanent tool or option, to access this, under the Utilities, Reports tab. Thanks, David...a very good one!
When you launch unknown applications: display a pop-up message
This will increase the security, so the user will be notified in advance
It will be more convenient, the user will know that in system is running suspicious process
At the moment the user doesn't receive notification of monitoring active process
We get a lot of questions/issues/complaints around PUA's. They are one of the most irritating things. WSA blocks many of them, but for a variety of reasons not all. Specifically PUA's that are bundled with other software, are not hidden, have an opt out ability, are not currently blocked by Webroot.
Would it be possible to add a feature that the end user can choose when installing new software to block ALL bundled software? That would:
1) Be an active choice by the user to block the bundles
2) Reduce vastly the number of PUA issues that we see
3) Keep things quite legal.
4) Help keep Webroot above and beyone the competition.