light bulb

Did You Know?

New Idea

Private Message status

Status: Under Consideration
by Community Guide tMc9072 on ‎11-04-2015 08:42 AM

Hi all,

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.



Status: Under Consideration

 I'll have to check and see if there any display options for this.



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.

Status: Under Consideration

We're actually already considering implementing something like this, so I'll let you guys know if it makes it into a future dev cycle.

0 Kudos

Expanding the Forums

Status: Under Consideration
by Frequent Voice on ‎07-09-2015 03:09 PM

I was wondering if there was any way we could expand the forums to gain a larger and more active forums. We could add like a computer build forum or a request forum. For example, if someone needed a new avatar for their account or something like that. I would like to see people stick around longer than just asking a question and never coming back.

Status: Under Consideration

I'm happy to expand the community, but my philosophy is to do it organically based on demand.  The risk of the "if you build it they will come" approach is that we build out forums and then they end up being empty and it makes the site look bad.


So if you'd be interested in talking about computer building you can do that in the Techie forum here:

and if there's enough people talking about it on a regular basis then we'll break it out into a separate forum.

Identity Shield Enhancements

Status: Under Consideration
by Gold VIP on ‎01-27-2015 08:16 AM

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.




Daniel Smiley Wink

Block All Bundled Software

Status: Under Consideration
by Silver VIP ‎10-07-2014 11:48 AM - edited ‎10-07-2014 11:55 AM

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.  Smiley Happy


Status: Under Consideration

I've had some conversations with folks internally about this, and it's a thorny issue.  Having a separate category for "technically legal but still unwanted" would require massive infrastructure changes, and categorizing them as bad would open up a legal can of worms.  I'm still pushing for the latter, and I'll update you guys when I have some news.



As I understand it, the Web Threat Shield blocks sites based on a reputation score, and sites that are believed to be new are automatically given a low reputation score -- so any new site is automatically blocked. The problem is that in the user interface, when a site is blocked, the user is not told whether it is blocked because there is actual evidence of real threats or simply because the site is believed to be new. The result is that users will be frightened away from any relatively new site, even if they have personal knowledge of its reputation (i.e., they might assume that evidence of an actual threat has been detected on the site). This problem is exaccerbated by the fact that Webroot apparently has no reliable way of determining the age of a site, so a site that has been around a long time but simply isn't yet in the Webroot database will be considered new and therefore a threat.

Instead, why not give users more information and let them decide? Rather than giving a new site a low reputation score and scaring users into thinking it is likely to contain threats, instead provide a message like the following:

Webroot does not have any information about the reputation of this website. It may be a relatively new website or an older website that is not popular enough for us to have encountered it before. You may be comfortable using this website if you have personal knowledge of its reputation, but otherwise we suggest you proceed with caution.

A message like that would provide a sufficient warning without misleading users into thinking an actual threat has been identified on a site with which they are already comfortable. If several users choose to unblock the site and proceed, you might then use that information to bump up the site's reputation and stop blocking the site altogether.

Note, this request is motivated by a recent negative Webroot experience with a site that I maintain. The site is for a small local church, so it is not widely popular and was therefore not known to Webroot. One of our church members recently reported that the site was blocked by Webroot and showed me the message indicating that the site was deemed to have a high likelihood of containing threats. Despite the fact that she knows the site and has been to it many times before, she assumed a real threat had been detected. And despite the fact that I am the creator and maintainer of the site, when I saw the warning message, I too thought perhaps some real threat had been detected. Upon further investigation, I learned that no specific threats had been detected, and that Webroot was blocking the site merely because it thought the site was new. The problem is that the site is not new -- it has been up for a full three years.

I believe Webroot is doing its customers a disservice by misleading them into thinking sites they already know and trust have been determined to have real threats, when in reality Webroot simply has zero information about the site. If you have no information about a site, simply tell the user that, and let the user decide what to do based on their personal knowledge of the site.

Status: Under Consideration

Good suggestion - we've entered into our database for dev's consideration.

[Using Google Chrome on Windows 7 and Windows 8]


When we use Google Chrome to visit an HTTPS website, Chrome shows us a padlock to the left of the URL.


Usually we see a Green Padlock, like on the websites for facebook, gmail, twitter, and this one (  The green padlock is a native part of Chrome.  You see that icon when you go to a website where every element on the webpage (images, javascript, etc) is local to the secured SSL server.


Sometimes, though we see a gray-padlock-with-yellow-triangle.  The gray-padlock-with-yellow-triangle is also a native part of Chrome.  You can see that icon when you go to a website that is SSL secure, but, say, embeds an image or banner or something from another server that isn't SSL secure.



The issue is that users never see any green padlocks when Webroot Filtering Extension is enabled.  The extension acts as "something on the page that's embedded from another server".  Thus, a user can never tell the difference between a 100% secured website and once that's only partially secure.  In other words, the extension reports a false-negative for every legit HTTPS website.



Since I own and run an insurance website, I would very much like users to see the green padlock on my site.  But if they have Webroot Filtering enabled, they'll only see the partially-secure gay-and-yellow icon... and it looks like it's my company's fault that we're not 100% secure.


I want to be clear about this, the issue is not how secure the extension really is... but how secure my website appears to Webroot users.  Right now, this extension makes my website appear untrustworthy.



What I'd like to see from Webroot:

- fix the problem, or...

- add a note to the gray padlock for safe sites (like mine) explaining that the website is actually safe, or...

- upon the extension being enabled (and whenever a browser is launched) make a splash page that educates the user about how they will never see green padlocks again and why (user can disable the splash page in preferences), or...

- take down the extension and do an update that force-disables the extension until it's repaired, or...

- remove the part of the extension that is causing the problem (perhaps put that part into a second, separate extension that can be optionally enabled)



If it cannot be fixed, Webroot at least needs to do something to educate its users about why they never see green padlocks anymore.



Some ideas on what to investigate in fixing this bug:

page 1

page 2





There is more on this issue on the forum here:


Also, I had previously filed a support ticket regarding this issue on Oct 25, 2013 18:04.



Kind regards,


Status: Under Consideration
I checked in with our support escalation team and they're looking into it.

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...Smiley Wink)


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...Smiley Very Happy


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!






Status: Under Consideration
Just heard back that this one is under consideration by the product management team. I'll update when they've made a determination.

Just wondering if it would be a useful option to provide the user who overrides a Web Treat Shield Notification, i.e., clicks 'Unblock page & continue', to have theoption to file a URL Reputation Change Request at that point by providing at least a link to the relevant web page at BrightCloud?


It could be made smarter/slicker if on taking the 'Unblock page & continue' the user was automatically presented with the option on a chose or leave basis before proceeding to the requested web page.


We get a lot of requests for advice on how to deal with what the user believes is an improper blcok and such fucntinality would allow them to place the request quickly/easily.


Again, just a thought re. the improved usability of the product.






Status: Under Consideration

I merged these 2 topics together.


This one is currently under consideration.


I think its a great idea though.


Nice work @Baldrick and @durantash!

Restore default tray icon

Status: Under Consideration
by Community Guide The_Seeker on ‎01-25-2014 12:14 PM

I propose that a setting be added allowing the user to restore his/her default tray icon from the altered one triggered by an imminent subscription expiration.

Mac forum needed

Status: Under Consideration
by New Voice bobbyinpa on ‎01-22-2014 03:31 PM

Webroot really needs a mac forum due to the differences in the product between windows and mac.  Reading about issues on WSAC running on a windows machine does not help those of us who use a mac.  Webroot could be a leader for other companies to follow.   I believe this could benefit Webroot in increased subscriptions and more satisfied customers.  This is my 2 cents worth.


I think it would be cool if we could get some of your bloggers and other employees to randomly post up threads asking for questions and providing answers about the security industry, life at Webroot, their background in tech, etc.

Status: Under Consideration
I think that is a great idea! I will bring it up with the team and see what they think. Thanks! Anna

Just thinking, especially in the wake of all the enquiries, etc., about the rollout of the new Web Threat Shield functionality, whether it would not be useful to indicate in the main GUI when an update has taken place.  I appreciate that one can see this by howevering over the sys tray icon but this can be missed.


I was thinking along the lines of a simple indicator advising of an update (with possibly a small amount of text information, i.e., 'Updated to v8.0.4. 27' or 'Web Threat Shield upgraded')  either just under 'Scan My Computer' in the main GUI, or if that is too distracting then changing the colour of the text 'My Account', to yellow or the like, to prompt the user to look at the details.  The indicator would only remain visible until after the first access of the main GUI, after the update activity.


And if wanting to go the whole hog here then a link to the appropriate web page holding the change log info cmight also be provided...all in the interests of keeping users updated.


Just a thought for the Communities consideration. Smiley Wink



I know that the new Web Threat Shield is under a slow rollout, and that not everything is 'set in stone' so to speak.  One thing that has been noticed by several users is a lack of usable User Interface with the new 2014 versions.  I am only human, so I make mistakes, we all do.  In the situation that a user clicks to Allow (WhiteList) a URL, and then realizes that was not the right decision, there is currently no way other than uninstalling/re-installing WSA to correct that.


Would it be possible to provide us with an interface on which locally WhiteListed URL's are shown and allow us to edit/remove listings in the event a wrong button is pushed?

Status: Under Consideration
It looks like there will be usability enhancements to the web filtering capabilities added and a UI for managing white lists is one of the enhancements we will be making, but there's not a timeframe for rolling it out yet. In the meantime, a manual editing of the whitelist.txt is the best workaround.

To the Webroot Software Engineer Team,


I would like to suggest that an option be added to the Advanced Options in order to use the System Optimizer on all or multiple user accounts on a home computer or business network.  Currently I am only able to clean my own personal user account and being the system administrator of my family pc I would like to have the option and ability to clean all other user account which are password protected on the pc without having to ask my  9 and 12 year old and my wife to log in to their accounts and bring up the Webroot program and go to System Optimizer to clean up their own data.  I also have another software in which it allows me to go to options and select various users to be able to clean which are:  Current user only,  All users and Selected users.  This option allows me to clean and optimize the whole family PC in one click of the button without having to go to each individual user.  Before I had the Pro version the software I had just the free version which only allowed me to clean whichever user I was logged into.  But that is not practical when each user account is password protected.  But when I found out the the Pro version gave me the ability to clean all or multiple users at once I purchased it.  I think adding this feature or option to the Webroot SecureAnywhere software under Advanced Setting it will give the system administrators more manageability over thier systems whether it is a family pc or business network.  I hope this suggestion and idea will help with the overall Webroot SecureAnywhere usability.  I look forward to hearing back from the Webroot Software Engineer Team after looking into the feasibility of this capability added to the software.  I really like the new Webroot interface and think this would be a great addition.



Status: Under Consideration
Thanks for the idea Anon, we will review this internally and see if this is something we can add. Thanks!
0 Kudos

Adding friend list in pm list

Status: Under Consideration
by Community Expert Advisor ams963 on ‎07-31-2013 08:55 AM



It would really be useful if a member's contacts or friend list that is present in the profile is added to private message list. The friend list would appear same as in profile, on the right hand side with little icons of links for sending private messages beside the contact names.



Status: Under Consideration
I like the idea Amit. We'll take a look at this and see what we can do to facilitate the request.

Search box for Private Messages

Status: Under Consideration
by Community Expert Advisor ams963 on ‎06-26-2013 03:03 AM



It would be great if I could serach my pms. A search box for Private Messages just like the one for Idea Exchange.


Best Wishes,


Status: Under Consideration
That's a good idea! We'll see what we can do within the confines of the forum platform.
0 Kudos



It would be great we had more badge themes than just the four ones. We can always upload a theme but that doesn't compensate the fact four themes is a small number.


Best Wishes,


Status: Under Consideration
We'll take a look at this and see what can be done. Smiley Happy
0 Kudos


In my scheduled scan settings I have "Hide the scan progress window during scheduled scans" unchecked and "Only notify me if an infection is found during a scheduled scan" checked. The behaviour with these settings is that when a scheduled scan starts, the progress window pops up and show the progress but doesn't automatically close after the scan. Shouldn't it close automatically because I have "Only notity when infection is found.. " still checked?
I found this in the help file:


Hide the scan progress window during scheduled scans

Runs scans silently in the background. If this option is disabled, a window opens and shows the scan progress.  

Only notify me if an infection is found during a scheduled scan

Opens an alert only if it finds a threat. If this option is disabled, a small status window opens when the scan completes, whether a threat was found or not.


So if only the first is unchecked it should show only the progress and then close automatically and if only the second is unchecked it should give a pop-up when the scan is completed.

Status: Under Consideration
This is behaving properly. The scan window is not hidden per Box A, so when the scan completes, it shows the results of the scan. Box B indicates it will "open" an alert only if it finds a threat. However, the alert is already open because of Box A being unchecked. What we can do however is consider adding a third option to "close" the scan screen if no threat is found.

I'd like to propose the option to either let me log in once in to my password manager, or have it as a per windows session, and not browser session log in.


It's annoying to have to keep logging in to my password vault in Firefox every time I close and re-open the browser. If the option is already in Webroot, please tell me where it is, I can't find it and I was surprised something like this wasn't already in it.


No one else uses this PC but myself.


Status: Under Consideration
We've set this to Under Consideration so we can investigate standardizing the behavior across browsers. While we may not be able to implement a full auto-sign-in, for the reasons specified before, we do want to maintain a consistent experience across different browsers.