📊 2023 OpenText Cybersecurity Threat Report
Best answer by Kit 7 May 2012, 16:16
I know. Which means the person who provided the files never actually scanned them with Webroot.
Kit, or anybody else,
can someone again explain me in simple terms what the main difference is between WebRoot and others Antivirus Applications?
Why is WebRoot using substantially less Resources than others?
Does that mean that WebRoot needs to have Internet connection in order to identify viruses or malicious code?
From: Symantec FP Incident Response <email@example.com>Subject: [No Reply] False Positive Submission Date: July 15, 2013 11:26:46 GMT+02:00To: sndbbbl
In relation to submission .
Upon further analysis and investigation we have determined that the file(s) in question meet the necessary criteria to be detected by our products and as such, the detection cannot be revoked.
As there is no information on what files they are saying this to, nor on what their criteria for detection are, there is nothing that can be said regarding it other than: There is nothing that can be said regarding it.
Transparency is important. For example, as Roy said, we don't mark things that are legitimate software in many cases, such as toolbars. So without knowing specifically what the file in question is and what specific Norton criteria it meets, the information is not useful to anybody to make an educated decision on anything.
My Norton subscription is running out, so I'm checking back in here to see if Webroot has come to their senses. Alas, still being stubborn it seems, even though a business user submitted a long list of good reasons to allow folder exclusion:
Looks like Norton can count me in for another year.
I got a mail sayin that this TOPIC has been solved... I did not yet get a solution to my problem with running iMonitor. I am still waiting for tech support feedback.
Please don't ask us if we can make the majority want this etc. I from my point of view have a correct application which hinders me from using WebRoot.
I only got a reply saying: we look into it, but cannot tell what the outcome is. And I wait several months now without any feedback.
Fact is that on several hundred PC's in our office, we cannot use WebRoot now. On my private one neither - for the same reason.
At this point, I really don't foresee Webroot changing their stance on this and reducing the protection of millions of people just to satisfy a few for no actually-good reasons. Give a legitimate case where folder exclusion is the best and only solution for a majority of customers and it might be revised.
Even people who are quite technical I have seen get themselves infected by allowing files that they think are good or ignoring our warnings.
Our job is to protect our customers first of all and sometimes it means we have to take a tough stance on certain issues.
Imagine the chaos that could happen if somebody excluded there entire c:, may seem crazy but I have seen people do it with other products!
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
© 2004 -
We have recently updated our Privacy Policies. We encourage you to read the full terms here.