Just a quick question and nothing major.
Although when deleting Private Messages we are asked to confirm the deletion etc. when there are quite a few to delete it is very easy to acidentally delete one which you wanted especially if your housekeeping is not perfect.
Is there any way to protect certain ones from deletion as in locking them which we can do with text messages in mobiles phones.
I am sure I am not alone in accidentally deleting ones I wanted saved.
In the grreater scheme of things, this is really puny. But I DO have an idea! Is it possible to either change the color of read mail vs. unread mail or add an open envelope that indicates the message has been read and add a closed envelope to indicate that the message has not been read. As it is, my monitor shows the unreads as a slightly bolder font but the same color. I have a hard time determining which messages have not been read and I have missed a few.
i. lptemp language files in temp folders. Reference: https://community.webroot.com/t5/Webroot-SecureAny
ii. Renamed, over time redundant WRkrn.sys files in Drivers folder. Ref: https://community.webroot.com/t5/Webroot-SecureAny
Any other files or remnants etc. which may also be reasonably included. Suggestions and additions welcome.
I am not sure how I would envisage achieving this, but ideally it would be optional, perhaps as an addition to the Optimizer, but that would exclude users not running the appropriate version of WSA.
I was wondering if it would be possible to add a "Backup & Sync" line to the "Status Notification Screen" that appears over the system tray at startup (some users may have this disabled).
Then if Backup & Sync were ever turned off you would get a red "x" like you currently do when any shield or firewall is disabled.
Then possibly also change the GUI so that if the Backup & Sync feature is turned off for any reason, that the GUI turns red or brown like it currently does when any of the shields or firewall are disabled. (Also resulting in an exclamation point appearing on the Webroot icon in the system tray.)
Just a suggestion, considering the recent problem with B & S.
We see that even with the option disabled within the policy set in the online console that the end user can still see the options to "Change master password' & "Change application password" within the menu options on their devices. We do not feel these options should show here if disabled within the policy in our online console.
Whilst not a feature of the software itself, it cropped up in discussion (https://community.webroot.com/t5/Security-Industry
So a couple of us were wondering why this would be the case and would it not at last look better if the green padlock showed up immediately. I realise that as soon as you progress into the main site as far as inputting any data, then the padlock duly appears but the initial lack of a padlock may put some potential customers off.
There may well be a good reason for this but it would be nice to know what it is.
Let's say a thief steals your phone, as phone thiefs tend to do. One of the first things they will do is turn the device off to help keep the product from being tracked, just in case. Once they get home or whever they want to toy with the phone, they will have to turn it back on to try to unlock the device or factory reset it.
Therefore, I would like to see Webroot SecureAnyhere upload the location of the device to the users Webroot account whenever the device is turned on or off. That could potentially be the one difference in locating a stolen device.
I would love to see the Webroot Filtering Extension updated to include filtering on search engines like DuckDuckGo and Startpage. With Google and others being more dangerous in terms of privacy and DDG and SP becoming some of ones that people are using to avoid those privacy implications, it would make sense to build in support for these engines so that we can have safe and filtered results on these sites as well. Right now the extension only works on a couple of the big search engines. Could this support be included in a future update?
Thanks a lot for reading!
Please, oh please, allow us lowly users to delete(or at the very least, hide) old consoles/keycodes. As far as I know you have to submit a ticket to do this simple task. A Google search of "Webroot delete console" yields many others looking to do this same thing. Would free up your staff to tackle more pressing issues/bugs (like same Android phone showing in ALL consoles). Thanks for your time.
I reported a conflict and was asked to post this here so here is my original message: "I have been noticing a conflict between the webroot filtering extension and the ublock origin extension. I was experiencing extreme lag and slow load times until I disabled the ublock origin extension, which is unfortunate because I would prefer to use it instead of adblock or another adblocker. I mainly wanted you to be aware and hopefully something can be resolved with this."
This enhancement/suggestion is certainly not necessary but would be helpful in certain situations.
By adding a more simple method to filter the viewing of the Active Connections and Active Processes, it would simplify and speed up the process of viewing (ONLY) those in a blocked or monitored condition.
While the current screens provide the above-mentioned information it is a bit unwieldy when forced to scroll through many lines of information while looking for blocked or monitored conditions. Sometimes an active process or connection is temporary and if you don’t catch it quickly while it is being executed, you can miss out on valuable troubleshooting information.
This would be most helpful to the non-techie user who is probably overwhelmed by the amount of information on the screen when trying to troubleshoot if WSA is preventing their application or function from working properly.
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
Can we have two separate lists, Protect and Allow/Deny, to the Identity Shield as some have said that they would like to Protect an App but they also want to be able to Allow or Deny an App from seeing Protected Data. I can see the benefit of this option myself and other Advanced users.
I already posted this (or mis-posted this) elsewhere and the gentleman from Webroot suggested I post this here, so be advised that it's a copy and one user responded to my concerns with suggested alternatives which I thought were viable.
I'm in IT and use Complete for several customers, and I want to add more. It would be useful to me to assign a console to each of the customers with multiple users. You can do this but you can't move keycodes from one console to the next as you use licenses. My idea was to always keep a couple extra licenses and use them ad hoc. When I see a computer without an antivirus (or worse, some machine running McAfee or Norton), I'd install Webroot and then take the keycode out of one folder and stick it in another.
Only you can't do that. The admins at Webroot can do it and will but this destroys my idea's utility going forward. It would be great if they could build more flexibility into the console process.
Now, someone might ask why I'm not using a Business product if I'm using it for business customers. First of all, I am probably not familiar with all the differences but I don't know that the web management is different and the Complete seems to be a perfectly good product on the desktop side. I'm buying the 10 packs recently and it seems both cost-effective and easy to maintain.
While I'm shooting off my mouth, everything after the console list screen on the webroot account management site is dog slow, and I'm talking doggggg-slow. This is not time-sensitive or seemingly traffic-related. Did I mention how slow this is?
Oh yeah. speaking of needlessly intrusive login machinations, how come I need another login to log into this forum when it's part of the webroot site? At my age, do I need another memory test in the middle of the working day?
My issue is that post threads can get really big with hundreds of responses. After a while I keep on forgetting history but I can remember that somewhere in the history I had a posting that was relevant for me. So I thought I will just use the "Highlight" function I just found (see image below) to be able to identify that post as relevant in future when I am looking through the history. But this dose not work in a propper way to me. Here are my concerns:
As I am pretty new here just move this one somewhere else if this is the wrong place for requests on the community board.
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.
I now have 'plus' and 'complete' versions of SecureAnywhere in my console, however there is no information given as to how many (if any) of each type of licencing is available for use. (as distinct from how many licences are purchased)
The only solution (I have found) is to note the keycodes and quantities from the "Manage Keycodes" page, then check every protected PC individually from the "PC Security" page to see which keycode is applied, then by process of elimination calculate the remaining options available.
This could easily be made clear on the PC security page by adding one icon for each licence owned instead of the current one icon for each licence in-use and that single icon for "add a pc" and giving each icon a tag (STD, Plus, or Complete.)
I do a manual backup every Saturday. The Folders screen tells me when the backup is in progress, or done. The File Transfers screen tells me what files are being backed up, or if 100% complete. But when it says 100% complete, that does not mean it is really 100% complete, it could still be looking for new files to back up. So in order to see what is being backed up and to see if it is really done, I have to keep flipping back and forth between these two screens. Both pieces of infmration should be on the same screen.
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!