Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010
Webroot Internet Security Essentials falls short on new-threat detection
- Good system disinfection rates
- Light on features considering its price, low blocking rate of new threats
Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010 provides built-in backups, but it's light on features otherwise and has trouble detecting new threats.
Price$ 69.95 (AUD)
Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010 is in essence Webroot's SpySweeper antivirus/antispyware application packaged with a firewall, an antispam utility, backup software, and internet browsing protection thrown in.
While that may satisfy fans of SpySweeper, it may not be enough for everyone else. Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010 lacks the parental control features that are common in other internet suites, and it falls well short when detecting and disinfecting brand-new malware threats.
Although the Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010 interface is serviceable, it needs some improvement. Webroot uses a three-column layout, with navigation on the left, configuration options in the middle, and technical details on the far side. We found the interface to be cryptic and unintuitive at times.
Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010 detected and disabled all active malware infections on our test PC, and it removed all traces of 60 percent of the samples (which sounds low, but was actually above average among the suites we tested). Webroot detected 93 percent of inactive rootkits (stealth malware that is used to hide other malware infections) and all active rootkits, although it left some behind, removing only 87 percent of rootkit samples.
The Webroot suite struggles to stop brand-new malware outbreaks. Although it detected all samples in our behavioural-analysis tests (which involve detecting malware based solely on how it acts), Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010 blocked only 27 percent of the samples, and fell even further behind by completely removing a mere 13 percent of the samples.
This is an important test of how well a suite will be able to detect new, unknown malware outbreaks; Given how quickly malware advances, Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010's low scores in this test indicate it may not do a good job of protecting you from zero-day exploits.
That said, Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010 did reasonably well at detecting malware using traditional signature-based detection, finding 96.2 percent of samples. However, signature-based detection is not as important as it once was, with proactive detection measures becoming more vital.
Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010 generally had a low impact on system performance, although bootup time (48.4 seconds) was a little on the slow side compared with the average of all suites that we tested. However, on two performance tests (repeatedly copying a file and creating a file) Webroot took longer to complete the task than virtually any other suite in our roundup. Webroot's scan speeds were on the slow side too: it scanned 4.5GB of data in 5 minutes, 34 seconds in our on-access scan test that helps judge how well a product can scan files for malware when they are opened or saved to disk.
Join the PC World newsletter!
Gadgets & Things
Most Popular Reviews
- 1 Finally! LG OLED TV 2016 range review
- 2 Google Daydream View VR full, in-depth review
- 3 Google Pixel XL full, in-depth smartphone review: Phones just got smarter
- 4 Apple iPhone 7 Plus review: including Portrait Mode
- 5 MSI GS70 laptop review
Latest News Articles
- Intel, Microsoft going long distance with Cortana on Windows 10 PCs
- Obama orders review of election hacks as Trump doubts Russia's role
- Ransomware attacks against businesses increased threefold in 2016
- Attackers use hacked home routers to hit Russia's 5 largest banks
- US mulls rules for airlines that plan in-flight Wi-Fi voice calls
GGG Evaluation Team
First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.
For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.
The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.
The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.
My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.
- The top 10 best and worst tech gadgets and products of 2016
- TV of the year award 2016
- Best phone of the year 2016
- What's the difference between an Intel Core i3, i5 and i7?
- Laser vs. inkjet printers: which is better?
- FTAngular DeveloperSA
- CCJava API Developer - MediaVIC
- CCSenior Front End DeveloperNSW
- CCBusiness AnalystQLD
- TPDrupal Developer - Immediate startQLD
- FTSystems AdministratorVIC
- CCBusiness Analyst-Shared Service Contact Centre or Call CentreNSW
- FTProject Manager - ProcurementSA
- FTSenior Analyst ProgrammerNSW
- FTITIL Service ManagerVIC
- CCSAP PM/ MRS ConsultantVIC
- FTSecurity Sales SpecialistVIC
- FTJapanese Speaking Technical Support EngineerNSW
- CCSenior Software Engineer/ArchitectVIC
- FTSecurity EngineerVIC
- CCNetwork Support EngineerNSW
- CCUnix Developers - multipleACT
- CCBusiness Analyst - Reporting, Excel and AutoCAD experienceNSW
- CCOrganisational Change Manager - Wealth ManagementNSW
- CCCloud Solution Architect - Financial Services - Continuous IntegrationNSW
- CCOrganisational Change Manager - Financial ServicesNSW
- FTTechnical Writer - HealthcareVIC
- CCSupport OfficerSA
- CCProject Coordinator / Specialist / Analyst - Finance - Contract - Sydney CBDNSW