Did You Know?



Reply
New Voice
ljs199
Posts: 11
Registered: ‎05-05-2012
Accepted Solution

Exclude folders from scanning?

Is it possible to exclude certain folders from scanning?

 

Thank!

Please use plain text.
Retired Webrooter
GeorgeH
Posts: 52
Registered: ‎02-15-2012

Re: Exclude folders from scanning?

Hi ljs199!

 

Welcome to the Webroot Community!

 

It is not possible to exclude specific folders from being scanned, but it is possible to run a custom scan.

 

To run a custom scan, open Webroot and select PC security from the menu on the left.

Under the "scan" tab, select the "cutom scan" link.

This will bring you to a screen where you can choose a quick, full, deep, or custom scan.

You can choose "custom" and it will only scan the files that you select.

 

I hope this information helps!

 

Thanks! =)

Please use plain text.
New Voice
ljs199
Posts: 11
Registered: ‎05-05-2012

Re: Exclude folders from scanning?

Hi georgeh,

 

I know how to run a custom scan, but I would rather not have to tick all boxes for the folders to scan. Ticking a couple of boxes for the folders I don't want to scan would be much more convenient.

 

I'm very disappointed in the program features.

 

ljs199

Please use plain text.
Retired Webrooter
GeorgeH
Posts: 52
Registered: ‎02-15-2012

Re: Exclude folders from scanning?

Hi!

 

That makes sense, it would be very convenient to be able to do that. That would be a great idea to post in the ideas exchange! Who knows, maybe they'll consider making that feature available if you suggest that idea.

 

here's a link to the ideas exchange:

 

http://community.webroot.com/t5/Ideas-Exchange/idb-p/Ideas

 

Thanks!

 

 

Please use plain text.
Retired Webrooter
Retired Webrooter
Kit
Posts: 359
Registered: ‎01-19-2012

Re: Exclude folders from scanning?

As a minor note, the developers and designers of the software explicitly did not include any function to exclude locations from scanning, as this kind of "feature" is similar to having a "front door key under your Welcome mat" feature.  Sure, it's convenient, nifty to have, and for people who forget their keys all the time, it's priceless.  But the cost to your home security is immense. 

 

Excluded directories or locations are also a security hole, so were not included.  We didn't want to allow people to easily and intentionally, but unknowingly create holes in their security.

 

Your voice will be added to the group who have requested this.  After all, letting your requests be known is the only way to have change, right?


Kit - Prior Webroot Quality Assurance / Prior Webroot Escalation Engineer

Please use plain text.
ProTruckDriver
Posts: 973
Registered: ‎02-03-2012

Re: Exclude folders from scanning?


Kit wrote: 

Excluded directories or locations are also a security hole, so were not included.  We didn't want to allow people to easily and intentionally, but unknowingly create holes in their security.


This is one of the reasons I love running Webroot SecureAnywhere my "Blanket of Security" for my computer. It scans fast and there is no need to exclude any files from a scan. SecureAnywhere runs with other security software without problems and no need to exclude files. Excellent point that Kit wrote above. :smileyhappy:

WEBROOT SecureAnywhere Complete. Beta Tester.

No Wait For Security Updates ~ It's Done In The "Cloud"

 

Expert Advisor


Please use plain text.
New Voice
ljs199
Posts: 11
Registered: ‎05-05-2012

Re: Exclude folders from scanning?

As an averagely intelligent adult I'm not overly impressed by the "it's for your own safety"-argument.

Please use plain text.
Retired Webrooter
Retired Webrooter
Kit
Posts: 359
Registered: ‎01-19-2012

Re: Exclude folders from scanning?

[ Edited ]

ljs199 wrote:

As an averagely intelligent adult I'm not overly impressed by the "it's for your own safety"-argument.



What is the reason you believe the feature is necessary for this specific program? 

 

Please keep in mind that this software does not work in the same manner as other security software, so "everybody else has it" or "Security software should have it" is generally not the best answer in this case.  We're not doing things like Other Security Software because honestly, the other security software is losing the fight for security and annoying its customers quite effectively. 

 

In this case, given the way the software works, we have yet to discover any reason that opening the huge security hole of excluded locations is warranted.  We are well aware that there are people who either don't like us and never will, or feel that they absolutely need to have things their way, and we won't be able to make these people happy.  No program is ever perfect for everybody, that is naught but a fact.  After all, for example, we already know that many people who write malware really don't like the fact that we don't allow people to exclude locations from being scanned.  We don't expect them to be happy with us anyway. :smileywink:

 

That being said, again, we do welcome your input into why you would like excluded locations as a feature and why you feel that it would benefit the program and its users.  Either it will be a good reason that we will take into consideration, or it will be an opportunity to explain for you why it won't help or how the way we work is different, or we will simply have to agree to disagree on the issue and you will need to decide about the software based on your own feelings and decisions.

 

Edit: Late night spell-checking.


Kit - Prior Webroot Quality Assurance / Prior Webroot Escalation Engineer

Please use plain text.
New Voice
ljs199
Posts: 11
Registered: ‎05-05-2012

Re: Exclude folders from scanning?

For one, I have huge archives, ebook collections and other stuff that doesn't need to be scanned over and over again. I also have some password recovery programs that are always mistaken for a virus and then sometimes simply deleted (especially by Bitdefender).

 

Also, one of the reasons why I will never buy a Mac, an iPhone or an iPad is that Apple will happily sell you one, but they will not let you own it. The same goes for software. I run a tight ship on my PC. It's my livelyhood, so I don't take chances with it. If my computer breaks down or gets infected by a doomsday virus, I'm back were it left off in 10 minutes with a clean, healthy system. I know how it works and I like to be in charge and take decisions. I don't like software telling me what I can and what I can't do. But maybe that's just me :smileywink:

 

But never mind, my mistake. I should have read the documention more thoroughly before buying. I reinstalled Norton.

Please use plain text.
Retired Webrooter
Retired Webrooter
Kit
Posts: 359
Registered: ‎01-19-2012

Re: Exclude folders from scanning?

[ Edited ]

There we go. Having the reasoning makes it easier to address your concerns. Keep in mind, you're not talking to a Corporate Stooge/Tier 1 tech here.  You're talking to a real person with 17 years in the security industry who works here because it's the best solution out there.   Yes, I frequent /. and Wilders and various others too.  You'll also find a lot of Wilders users on here.

 

For one, I have huge archives, ebook collections and other stuff that doesn't need to be scanned over and over again.

 

Not a concern.  We don't operate that way anyway, unless you're doing something silly like Full Scans regularly as opposed to the default deep scans.  Remember, we're not the Other Security Software.  We already know the eBooks can't contain threats, and we don't care about the archives.  There's a reason we've been consistently the lightest and fastest since we came out.  Simply put, the agent knows what can run, what is likely to run, and what will run.  It doesn't worry about data files that cannot contain machine code, and in the event of things such as buffer overflow remote code execution, it uses a realtime system at that time rather than trying to determine which files could possibly cause an issue.

 

Trust me, my wife used to have to set to exclude her art directories (yay for monolithic high-resolution PSDs), and she doesn't anymore because even she recognizes that the agent doesn't even bother to glance at them.

 

I also have some password recovery programs that are always mistaken for a virus and then sometimes simply deleted (especially by Bitdefender).

 

This is a trickier one.  No matter what else you use, you're stuck in a situation where "Ignore this file proactively" is a need in those cases.  Norton requires you to ignore the file too.  That being said, we -never- "simply delete".  Will we detect things as "Hacking Tools" if they can be used for nefarious purposes?  Yes.  However unless you're uninstalling and reinstalling the agent frequently, this is a non-issue.  A one-time "Put that back and ignore it" solves that issue without leaving the figurative key beneath your doormat. 

 

Unfortunately, despite my own opinions and everybody else's, we really do have to do what's best for "The majority", so your much-derided "Because it's what's good for you" actions are necessary.  While you may be able to recover from a severe infection in minutes, the majority of people can't and it's a catastrophic event.

 

I know how it works and I like to be in charge and take decisions. I don't like software telling me what I can and what I can't do.

 

Been there.  Still there.  Honestly, I get much greater granularity of control from WSA.  Even Norton has limitations.  Try telling it to use under 6MB of RAM while idle. Try telling it to "ignore the low level utilities in this directory, but please do catch any actual threat that goes in there"...  The former is done by an exclude, but the second half of the latter is not-done due to the exclude.

 

It kind of sounds like you've been doing full scans.  Don't.  That's not an order, mind you.  That's a recommendation.  Don't waste your time making the WSA agent pretend to be a slow, old, bloated security client.  It's just not necessary, nor does it really help anything.  Plus it'll cause you to have more desire for exclusions. Under normal operation with deep scans, it works faster, more efficiently, and there is no need for exclusions.

 

Anyway, it's all up to you.  Every software package will have its own upsides and downsides.  On the firewall side, I use the Windows firewall to pre-emptively block software from accessing the internet. Others use the firewall of their choice. The SecureAnywhere firewall is specifically intended to be an anti-threat firewall, not a firewall made for user control decisions.  That's why it can run along with any other firewall. 

 

I answered this because even if you went back to Norton, you probably wouldn't have responded if you weren't looking for an answer.  Oh, and if you truly decide that ditching the software is the way to go, we give a 70-day Money Back guarantee if you got it through an authorized source.

 

That being said, if you have low-level questions, please do feel free to continue to ask.  I do have answers.

 

Edit: Spell-Checking again (The original was posted from home with no time to finish completely.  *Oops*).  Anyway, one of the things I would ask you to keep in mind is that while you can see your desires and actions, we have to take into account the needs and actions of millions of users.  I think that when you said "semi-intelligent adult", you grossly underestimated your skill level.  We used to see all the people who were infected because they followed instructions on web pages that explained precisely how to exclude a directory from scanning, followed by the saving "this program you want" to that directory and running it.  If ever "This is why we can't have nice things" applies, this is an example.  And that's just one of the ways exclusions caused problems.  So we really are working hard to make all of the classic and other possible reasons for wanting an exclusion function obsolete so that a blanket exclusion is not necessary.


Kit - Prior Webroot Quality Assurance / Prior Webroot Escalation Engineer

Please use plain text.