I (or rather my wife) recently had the issue described in this post. Basically, she changed her SIM card while abroad and the SIM card lock kicked in. when she tried to unlock, no keyboard would appear. I then learned that it's because the phone needs a data connection before unlocking is possible. There was no explanation of this from the phone itself, and I had to ask the community here to get an explanation.
My suggestion is to include a text message in the lock screen in such a case, saying something along the lines of 'It isn't possible to unlock this device at this time because no network signal is available.'
It would be usefull to me if WSA was able to generate events in the windows event log. It would make it easier to create scheduled tasks or incorporate data into a SEIM.
'Windows allows applications to report their own security events to the security log by registering through Authorization Manager with LSA as a security event source using the AuthzRegisterSecurityEventSource function. "
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."
Just a little idea I had looking at my keycodes as you do.
I am sure some of you have a lot of keycodes in your consoles. I for one dont have too many but I have a few, and somtimes I cannot quite remember which one goes to which so I end up going back and forth to try and locate and place each one.
My idea is to have another colum in the Manage Keycodes page to add a identifyer which the user or admin could change to help them remember which code belongs to which device. Such as "Gaming PC" "Laptop" "Tabet" "Phone" or whatever, you get the idea
What do you guys think?
When one clicks links in the GUI, for example the Submit Sample button or Get Customer Support, a lot of important info is inside the URL. I haven't been able to determine exactly all that is being sent, but I do see the persons email address and some kind of license ID.
Apart from the fact that this information can be intercepted easily, people may also post their links publicly, unaware of the fact that it may contain sensitive information.
i know is one will proberly not kick off. but i think it will be a good idea if there is a live chat aswell as messages so that you can reply back right away. bit like the chat on facebook. i not sure if you all will agree and if its a stuipd idea.
let me know what you all think.
Hi there. Our guys frequently need to turn off WebRoot when patching Exchange Servers and the like.
We dont have that feature enabled on our Servers Policy.
We would like to ]make the following susggestion.
That to turn off WebRoot using the right click on the icon will require entering your or the Site WebRoot GSM credentials and not just a captcha.
Thanks, regards Peter.
There should be a setting so that if you know that a website isn't reputable but it's marked as reputable, you can change it. Although you can do this on this website, sometimes the reputation change requests aren't accepted, even if they're reasonable. You should be able to change it just for you so that you can remember not to go to a site if it's dangerous.
Also, unrelated, check out the Youtube channel, Ben Hertzman, and subscribe. Thanks!
On the GSM Sites list the filter resets to show everything each time the page loads.
It would be great if we could set a default filter or have it remember the last used filter.
Then we could do things like hide suspended sites by default to reduce clutter.
I am an MSP and wouid like to have Webroot automatically remove endpoints from the console when they havent checked in for a predetermined time eg 30 or 60 days. If I am charging on a monthly basis and a endpoint has been retired or crashed or is no longer in use, it is currently very difficult to check every site to remove these endpoints from being billed.
On github there is an experimental project "Beamgun" which adds a defense layer to the Windows USB driver subsystem to block all new USB device attachments, for devices which haven't already been recognized and approved, even when the new device would not normally require a driver installation or any user interaction, e.g. devices which (claim to be) "Network adapter" or "Keyboard (HID device)", etc.
These "Evil Maid" or "Rubber Ducky" USB attacks have been demonstrated where, if a person has physical access to a computer, and the computer is on, the USB device acts like a keyboard or a network adapter or some other USB device types, which allows it to start locally trying to exploit vulnerabilities. Locked screens don't help because the device is talking directly "on the local network" or as an additional keyboard or mouse, etc. Full Disk Encryption doesn't help because the computer is already running and if the USB attack can gain any kind of access (underneath the lock screen) then the files are already accessible decrypted. (File based encryption would help, unless the attack gives the attacker a foothold which then sits and watchs and waits until the legitimate user unlocks the encrypted files).
I would like to see this "beamgun" defense added to endpoint security solutions, especially non-signature based ones like Webroot SecureAnywhere.
There is no way to remove deactivated sites in GSM. This, despite the warning that deactivation is permanent.
We need a way to do two things:
1) Hide a deactivated site from the GSM site listing (if we still need information about its settings)
2) Remove a deactivated site from the GSM if it is no longer needed.
It is distracting to go through multiple sites when some have been deactivated, and I'd like to clean the clutter.
Respectfully, may I request a Padlock re-think.
Webroot Community & Webroot Support have assured me that I'm protected with Padlock & I'm protected without Padlock.
Respectfully, why Padlock.
Why distract from my Webroot experience with a toggling Padlock.
At this moment Padlock is Off presumably because I made an extraneous mouse click.
For me, toggling Padlock for every extraneous mouse click is a distraction.
Padlock remains Off at this moment. Presumably as before if I make a trigger mouse click, Padlock will resume On.
Yes, I clicked on my active browser taskbar shortcut triggering, Padlock to resume On.
Click on taskbar lose Padlock.
Click on browser shortcut gain Padlock.
Respectfully, why Padlock.
Respectfully, why toggling Padlock.
Support advises that W means I'm protected.
Respectfully, how & why does a Padlock, albeit a Padlock that likes to toggle enhance my Webroot experience.
Please re-think Padlock.