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 Good Gear Guide newsletter!
Most Popular Reviews
- 1 Fetch TV Mighty review: Better than Foxtel
- 2 Fetch TV Mini review: Make your TV a smart TV
- 3 Parrot Mambo Drone review
- 4 Evapolar USB air conditioner review
- 5 Hisense Series 7 ULED 4K UHD TV review
Latest News Articles
- Netgear tweaks its home security camera line by introducing the Arlo Pro
- Microsoft fleshes out seismic change to Windows patching
- Largest DDoS attack ever delivered by botnet of hijacked IoT devices
- Hackers have a treasure trove of data with the Yahoo breach
- FBI faces lawsuit because it's stayed mum on iPhone 5c hack
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.
- Google Pixel XL full, in-depth smartphone review: The new best Android phone
- TV buying guide: What to look for when buying a TV in 2016
- Best iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus plans: Optus vs Telstra vs Vodafone vs Virgin
- Which flagship TV is best? Sony 4K HDR Bravia 2016 versus LG 4K HDR OLED 2016
- 10 Blu-ray movies / Best looking Blu-ray movies
- FTSenior UX DesignerAsia
- CCDemand ManagerNSW
- FTBiomedical Project ManagerSA
- CCContract IT Assistant (PC LAN Support) 161114/ITA/411Asia
- CCSAP Finance Business AnalystNSW
- CCProject SchedulerVIC
- FTDevOps EngineerVIC
- FTMobile Delivery Manager / Studio LeadNSW
- CCDigital Solutions ManagerNSW
- FTFront End DeveloperSA
- CCData Centre EngineerNSW
- FTSOE ConsultantACT
- CCStrategy AnalystVIC
- FTIntegration SpecialistSA
- FTProduct ManagerVIC
- CCPHP DeveloperNSW
- FTAgile Front End Developer- HTML5 & CSS3NSW
- CCResident Engineer - Nexus 2K, 5K, 7K & 9KNSW
- FTSenior .Net Software EngineerVIC
- FTRelease CoordinatorACT
- FTSenior Application SupportSA
- CCFront End Developer - Mid LevelNSW
- CCSenior Systems Engineer - Canberra roleNSW
- CCContract Analyst Programmer (Oracle/PL/SQL) 160930/AP/vtdAsia
- FTSalesforce Subject Matter ExpertNSW