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.)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Hi there, can you build a way to set a retention period for WRDATA files? Be nice if we could have a way to get it to remove data older than x days / weeks etc.
It would also be nice oif there was a way to remove data from the folder without having to Uninstall / Reboot / Reinstall the application.
Thanks. Regards Peter.
i always sumitted the sample (http://snup.webrootcloudav.com/SkyStoreFileUploade
in this sites...
but there should be information sharing after checking the file by webroot expert to users whether it is detected or not.........
after submission i got only this
Your request has now been submitted to Webroot threat research.
Here is what we currently know about this file:
MD5 Determination: Determined on: File Size: First Seen: PC Count:
|July 18 2015, 10:28|
|July 18 2015, 9:02|
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!
I would like to put in an Idea Exchange suggestion for new PDF's User Guides. The most recent is this Webroot Management from June of 2013
And to push the bar here for a Mac PDF?
This would be a great asset for Webroot Consumers and for leading the OP's to a knowlegable way to print or copy information from these newer updated Webroot Manuals.
Can this be done from the Webroot staff of Editors?
These PDFs are on Goodle Search.
This will be a tremendous help to all of the Webroot users searching the Web.
Does anyone else have any thoughts to add to this? Which are greatly welcomed!
I know it's neither bright nor new, seen much older posts about it, but filtering mails in live mail, thunderbird outlook would be welcome. Much of the competition has it but it is usually innefficient or/and unavailable for live mail.
I'm new to Webroot Complete and for the most part really like what I am seeing so far which perhaps one exception. The idea of the 25gb backup cloud storage included is a great but the 1gb size restriction is limiting at best. If I'm not mistaken the idea is to help with sharing of file among friends or other devices to make life a bit easier.
Personally I wanted to use this location to save a computer image I created in a safe environment but ran into the size restriction. The only way around that is breaking up the image into much smaller pieces. Anyone who knows backup images will a test that anytime you mess around with a image you greatly risk the restoration of the image so this really is not much of an option.
My image is approx 19gb so it will fit nicely if only I could get it to the cloud. I would suspect others who want to backup Blue Ray movies would encounter the same issue. Even after compression a Blue Ray is gonna be between 4 and 18 gb. And if you break that into pieces you loose so much quality that it ends up being worthless.
So my suggestion is lifting the download limit. I honestly can't imagine the reason for it anyway.
The current firewall checks outgoing connections but it's not really clear for me what it's really doing.
Some form of dashboard or overview would be very nice.
Next we don't really have any real control over it. I'd like to be able to:
- Check outgoing bandwidth usage.
- Manually block outgoing existing connections.
- Be notified when new application tries to make a connection for the first time and be able to block it.
A good example/implementation of these features can be found in Glasswire. So please devs, give the Webroot firewall some love and attention
As I keep on using WSA, more and more programs gets added to the lists, namely Application Protection lists under Identity Protection. This feature often blocks programs like MailBird and Product key activation window of many programs and I have to manually allow these programs to copy text. While this feature makes it more secure and I have no issue manually configuring them, as time goes the list grows and it becomes a painful task to scroll down the tiny window and find the required entry. I am now talking about scrolling down through more than 100 entries. I am sure some many users have way more.
Idea: Make WSA UI window resizable or an option for fullscreen, so that the list expands and it will be easy for us to go though it. Also add a search option to search for the required entry.
PROBLEM: Additional, and likely unwanted extra software which appears (often pre-checked) during installations of various and even common softwares.
This extra software offered may appear at first glance as benign, and nothing to worry about, but the sad reality is that its main intention is to generate income for its developers and promoters, and in some instances may cause considerable problems for unwitting, innocent users.
Of course what we are referring to are known as PUAs (Potentially Unwanted Applications) aka PUPs, and there is a request and Idea posted here: https://community.webroot.com/t5/Ideas-Exchange/Bl
But it may be asking for something not quite possible, for different reasons.
So maybe a slightly different idea might be more feasible:
SUGGESTION: That WSA could have the added capability to allow users greater control of these "extra softwares" which arrive pre-checked, in that users could have a setting added to WSA to refuse these pre-checked, potential PUAs.
[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.
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:
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.
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.