AVIRA Premium

[mllopes]

Ok going to put it in another way then and i am sorry
Does avira classic or premium use a local proxy like NOD32 V3?
Thank you

Mário

[cupez80]

avira classic & premium 7 dont have web scanner component yet... :D dont know about version 8

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "avira classic & premium 7 dont have web scanner component yet... :D dont know about version 8" }-I believe the suite has it. But I'm not 100% sure so correct me if I'm wrong.

[Thug21]

Yes, the suite has it. :)

[bellgamin]

Yes, web scanning (a.k.a. "http scanning") is available in Avira suite.

If you run a HIPS such as Threatfire (http://www.threatfire.com/) alongside Avira-Free or Avira-premium, then you do NOT need web scanning. This fact was affirmed by Stefan Krutzhals of Avira's staff at HERE (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1072686&postcount=7).

-{ Quote: " HTTP scanning is the only way to catch and block (!) exploit files like JPG, WMF, ANI or HTML/JS before the browser parses them (and executes the exploit if the system is unpatched). If you are only using on-access scanning, the exploit will be detected - after the exploit was executed and able to download/execute more malware - if that malware is undetected by the AV scanner aswell.

Now, if you are using a good HIPS I would say you don't need HTTP scanning. A good HIPS will block the installation/activation attempt of the shellcode. HTTP scanning always slows down surfing, no matter how fast the AV product is." }-

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Yes, web scanning (a.k.a. "http scanning") is available in Avira suite.

If you run a HIPS such as Threatfire (http://www.threatfire.com/) alongside Avira-Free or Avira-premium, then you do NOT need web scanning. This fact was affirmed by Stefan Krutzhals of Avira's staff at HERE (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1072686&postcount=7)." }-

I don't think you need http scanning at all.

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "I don't think you need http scanning at all." }-
It does have its uses. I, for one, am always grateful for Kaspersky's HTTP scanner whenever I'm working with ASCII-encoded shellcode exploits. It's always nice to catch the exploit BEFORE it's rendered by IE6, which would cause my pagefile to grow to gigabyte-sized proportions and bring everything to an agonizingly harddrive-crunching halt.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "It does have its uses. I, for one, am always grateful for Kaspersky's HTTP scanner whenever I'm working with ASCII-encoded shellcode exploits. It's always nice to catch the exploit BEFORE it's rendered by IE6, which would cause my pagefile to grow to gigabyte-sized proportions and bring everything to an agonizingly harddrive-crunching halt." }-

I use Firefox, Avira Premium, and have never had malware ever on my many boxes. If some "exploit" should slip by, I will simply restore a non-infected Acronis image if necessary. Would not use Kaspersky under any circumstances.

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "Would not use Kaspersky under any circumstances." }-
Funny, I could say the same for Avira. But I believe this is just as relevant as your comment, aka not at all.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Funny, I could say the same for Avira. But I believe this is just as relevant as your comment, aka not at all." }-

Of course you deem yourself the "judge" of what is relevant. I don't think you are qualified to judge anything as evidenced by your largely inane comments and forum chief kibitzer. :thumbd:

[Carver]

-{ Quote: "Funny, I could say the same for Avira. But I believe this is just as relevant as your comment, aka not at all." }-
I have a more open mind, I may use Kaspersky in the future. Just not at the moment. ;D

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "Of course you deem yourself the "judge" of what is relevant." }-
Just a little bit of common sense, my good man. Just a little bit of common sense.

Of course, it'd help your attacks as well if you didn't turn into a hypocrite right at the very next sentence.

[xandros]

some times i use kaspersky internet security
&
some times i use avira premium

but i dont like avira security suite coz its make my computer very slow

[BlueZannetti]

To all:

As I've said repeatedly, focus on the posts, not the posters. Invariably, you defeat your objectives when the posts turn personal. It's neither needed nor productive for anyone.

Blue

[berng]

Boring. I'm using this and would never use the other, but he's using that and so forth.

Is this going to turn into another compare thread?:thumbd:

[n8chavez]

What is really important here is: Does an http scanner make you feel more secure? If it does, and you are content with using Avira, then grab a copy of the version 8 suite when it is available. That being said, I really see no need for an http scanner if your on-access scanner are configured properly. I personally use Sandboxie, and I love it. But there are other great HIPS apps, or virtualizations apps, out there that will protect you too. Just use whatever makes you comfortable which, despite our squabbling, in exactly what most of us here at Wilders have done.

[Dieselman]

-{ Quote: "I have a more open mind, I may use Kaspersky in the future. Just not at the moment. ;D" }-
KAV and Comodo don't get along. Keep that in mind. Avira and Comodo work extremely well together.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "To all:

As I've said repeatedly, focus on the posts, not the posters. Invariably, you defeat your objectives when the posts turn personal. It's neither needed nor productive for anyone.

Blue" }-


You allow solcroft more leeway than anyone else to attack on a largely "personal" basis. My retorts have usually been after his attack, and he is virtually the only one that I have had this problem with at Wilder's. Unless solcroft is an alias for a Wilder's principal, why not disallow his attacks against other members?

[n8chavez]

-{ Quote: "You allow solcroft more leeway than anyone else to attack on a largely "personal" basis. My retorts have usually been after his attack, and he is virtually the only one that I have had this problem with at Wilder's. Unless solcroft is an alias for a Wilder's principal, why not disallow his attacks against other members?" }-

Does it matter? Geez a loo....Just knock if off!! Play nice now, else you both will have to go to timeout. :-*

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "Boring. I'm using this and would never use the other, but he's using that and so forth.

Is this going to turn into another compare thread?" }-I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours. ;)

In any event, I have always felt that B is superior to A -- I love B's shapely curves, whereas A looks like a silly old sawhorse, wot). :wacko:

But seriously folks, read again my quote of Stefan back at post #5. According to him, there are certain threats that an HTTP scanner protects against better than does an AV. Since I use a HIPS, I don't need an HTTP scanner (thus says the *egg-spurt*).

I have spoken.:lurking:

[LowWaterMark]

-{ Quote: "You allow solcroft more leeway than anyone else to attack on a largely "personal" basis. My retorts have usually been after his attack, and he is virtually the only one that I have had this problem with at Wilder's. Unless solcroft is an alias for a Wilder's principal, why not disallow his attacks against other members?" }-The "To all:" at the top of Blue's post meant just that, everyone who was posting personally directed comments. That includes solcroft as well as you or anyone else. Now let's get back to the actual thread topic.

[Mele20]

-{ Quote: "What is really important here is: Does an http scanner make you feel more secure? " }-

I think that comment should be: What is really important here is: Does an http scanner make you more secure?

Ditch the "feel". Feeling secure but not being so is not helpful. If it actually makes you more secure and you don't mind the browsing slowdown and the ruining of your speed tests then use it! But don't go by subjective "feelings"....geez.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Ditch the "feel". Feeling secure but not being so is not helpful." }-It may not be that simple....

Although rather long, have a read of The Psychology of Security (http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html) by Bruce Schneier, with one of the closing statements being:-{ Quote: "In the past, I've criticized palliative security measures that only make people feel more secure as "security theater." But used correctly, they can be a way of raising our feeling of security to more closely match the reality of security...." }-
Blue

[Diver]

I might as well put a rubber duckie on my computer. There are so many potential threats that it is impossible to say what works and what does not. Not to mention over the top security utilities that have so many pop ups that you never know if anything is safe or bad. Honest to god, I haven't a clue if a web scanner really helps. Perhaps it does with IE. What about Firefox or Opera?

[subset]

Hi,

let's get down to business.
I'm sorry to say that the local (Germany, Austria...) online shop conrad.de offers
AntiVir Premium (3 PC) for 7,95 EURO (~12 USD) and
Premium Security Suite (3 PC) for 9,95 EURO (~15 USD)
Full version incl. upgrade. :-*

How to find: just go to w*w.conrad.de and under "Schnellsuche" on the left side, type "avira" and hit enter. Hope this is allowed to post.

And because of KAV and Antivir etc.
I actually use KIS and NOD32, why not give Avira a try?
I mean it's a solid AV and it's value for money :)

Cheers

[Mele20]

-{ Quote: "It may not be that simple....

Although rather long, have a read of The Psychology of Security (http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html) by Bruce Schneier, with one of the closing statements being:
Blue" }-

I don't think like he claims folks think. And I think it very dangerous to believe that article is anything other than crap. He had it right in the past regarding criticizing palliative security measures. Stupid, stupid very irritating crap like so called tamper proof packaging for OTC items could not possibly be worth the hell it puts you through to get the damn thing open! And there is NO SUCH THING AS TAMPER PROOF. Geez..crap like that makes my blood boil. And the USA fools who are so terrified of terrorism....geez...what is wrong with their minds? If they live in New York City or Washington, DC then maybe there is more reason for concern but, gee, I grew up in the town where all chemical, germ, and biological warfare was developed while I was growing up. I wasn't constantly terrified of being killed by one of the chemicals, etc. getting loose. And I certainly would not have been terrified if I lived ten states away. Or those who think airplanes are more dangerous than autos? His only point is that the majority of humans can't think straight. Yeah...so? What about the minority that can think straight? He doesn't explain those folks. I can think straight and I do...as every one of those examples in that article proved. I don't fit the mold at all. I guess that is why I know that using an http scanner is stupid. ;)

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "Hi,

let's get down to business.
I'm sorry to say that the local (Germany, Austria...) online shop conrad.de offers
AntiVir Premium (3 PC) for 7,95 EURO (~12 USD) and
Premium Security Suite (3 PC) for 9,95 EURO (~15 USD)
Full version incl. upgrade. :-*

How to find: just go to w*w.conrad.de and under "Schnellsuche" on the left side, type "avira" and hit enter. Hope this is allowed to post." }-
Thanks for sharing, subset :)
No download version available though, they say will charge shipping costs separately (private courier) for orders outside Germany :-\

[Graystoke]

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never had a problem with an http scanner slowing down my computer. The only http scanners I've had experience with, is in KIS 7, Bitdefender IS 2008, and Avira IS. I've even set the http scanner to high in KIS 7, and it didn't affect my speeds. With Avira IS, and with the http scanner enabled, I get the fastest download speeds results, at speakeasy.com, compared to those other two. I just thought it would be nice to put in a good word for http scanners. ;) :)

I have Comcast high speed cable internet service.

[JimGoo]

Hello,

I've had to "downgrade" to AVIRA Premium from the IS version because the IS firewall causes temporary bottlenecks in throughput on my systems (Vista Ultimate 2G/dual-core). Employing a site such as Speedtest for discovery purposes displays download speed with IS to be 0 for almost 25% of the download before the needle jumps to 11M. Using just the Premium version my needle jumps to 14.5M almost immediately and stays there (Road Runner Turbo).

This apparent "bottleneck" occurs no matter which download/upload site I choose on Speedtest, domestic (USA) or foreign. Final speed results, however, vary considerably from domestic/international site to site.

Anyone else having such initial "bottleneck" results using IS?

Thanks for your input.

Regards,
Jim

[Leo2005]

-{ Quote: "
Anyone else having such initial "bottleneck" results using IS?" }-this behavior is normal due to the webguard, which downloads all to internal proxy and scans it before the files are forwarded to your browser.
but it should be nearly the same download speed as without the webguard.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "I think that comment should be: What is really important here is: Does an http scanner make you more secure?

Ditch the "feel". Feeling secure but not being so is not helpful. If it actually makes you more secure and you don't mind the browsing slowdown and the ruining of your speed tests then use it! But don't go by subjective "feelings"....geez." }-

Yes, you are right as you are much of the time. Http does slow down browsing and speed, that is an objective fact. So if you or I argue that http scanning is not worth it (value added prevention versus speed), then all of a sudden it is subjective and it is our "feelings." In point of fact, http scanning slows down browsing. And, I too am a beta tester for the new Avira Security Suite, and it slows down pages loading, and in some cases, they only load partially. I have a very fast connection, so any slowdown is noticeable. Dr. Web does not do this, nor does Avira PE Premium- which do not have http scanning.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "In point of fact, http scanning slows down browsing." }-Actually, it depends on where your personal bandwidth bottleneck resides, whether it's on the machine or the connection.

With a slow machine and very fast connection, yes, you'll see an impact. With a fast machine and very slow connection, no, you won't notice it. For the rest of us, which is where most of us sit, it's somewhere in the middle, but the outcome very dependent on the local situation.

Blue

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "His only point is that the majority of humans can't think straight." }-Trying to assign a disconnect between perception and reality as purely a result of "not thinking straight" misses the bulk of the issues.

First of all, thinking straight is for naught if the required information and/or context are absent. If you don't have the proper information, thinking straight will not fill the void. If you don't understand the contextual interrelationships, thinking straight will not reveal the underlying background connections.

I will grant you that there are some people who can possess all the required information and context and still move in a completely wrongheaded direction.

One of Schneier's points is that people don't have a complete dossier of information to work with, but they still have to deal with everyday life. That necessity means that the missing cold hard facts will be replaced by more casually based perceptions of reality. Unless one is omniscient, one will do this in all aspects of everyday life as well.

-{ Quote: "And I think it very dangerous to believe that article is anything other than crap." }-Obviously, I disagree, but that's probably because I see his main points played out on a daily and continuing basis. It also provides a framework in which to understand some of the discussions and behavior exhibited in this and other security focused forums.

Blue

PS - yes, the absolute need for webscanners are overrated IMHO :)

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Actually, it depends on where your personal bandwidth bottleneck resides, whether it's on the machine or the connection.

With a slow machine and very fast connection, yes, you'll see an impact. With a fast machine and very slow connection, no, you won't notice it. For the rest of us, which is where most of us sit, it's somewhere in the middle, but the outcome very dependent on the local situation.

Blue" }-

I have a fast machine and a fast connection, and I do notice it-enough to not use an http scanner.

[JimGoo]

-{ Quote: "this behavior is normal due to the webguard, which downloads all to internal proxy and scans it before the files are forwarded to your browser.
but it should be nearly the same download speed as without the webguard." }-

Thanks, Leo2005. I only experience this "bottleneck" with IS, not with Premium. Is it correct to say that Premium has no webguard, while IS does (although the feature in IS may be disabled by the user)?

Regards,
Jim

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "I have a fast machine and a fast connection, and I do notice it-enough to not use an http scanner." }-I have a similar situation and agree on course. I'm simply outlining why we all don't observe the same end result - which is tied to the specific bottlenecks suffered by each of us.

Blue

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "I have a similar situation and agree on course. I'm simply outlining why we all don't observe the same end result - which is tied to the specific bottlenecks suffered by each of us.

Blue" }-

I will agree that a "bottleneck" is a variable in the equation, and that individual experience can (and will) vary. Rational men should not disagree on the same issue- right? :D

Dr. G

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Thanks, Leo2005. I only experience this "bottleneck" with IS, not with Premium. Is it correct to say that Premium has no webguard, while IS does (although the feature in IS may be disabled by the user)?

Regards,
Jim" }-

That is correct. You do a custom install and uncheck Webguard with the security suite. You can also do this after installation by going to the add/remove programs and modifying the original Avira installation.

[JimGoo]

Thanks, Bunkhouse Buck.

Regards,
Jim

[Stijnson]

-{ Quote: "Ok going to put it in another way then and i am sorry
Does avira classic or premium use a local proxy like NOD32 V3?
Thank you

Mário" }-

Doesn't NOD32 v2.7 also have this (the IMON module)?
If Avira Premium doesn't have a web scanner component then how does it check the files that come across your pc while browsing?

I thought Avira had Webguard. Isn't this the same? I was thinking about switching to Avira, but now I'm a bit confused.
How DOES Avira monitor internet traffic?

[Mele20]

Avira Premium Security Suite has Webguard. Avira Personal Premium and Avira free do not have Webguard. And I am glad they don't! I am beta testing version 8 of the Suite and I can't use Webguard. If you want Webguard you will need to get the Suite. In Personal Premium and Free versions, Guard and Lukefilewalker protect you. Webguard is an additional layer of protection but not really needed unless you believe that Guard will not catch a nasty when it goes to execute.

[Stijnson]

-{ Quote: "Avira Premium Security Suite has Webguard. Avira Personal Premium and Avira free do not have Webguard. And I am glad they don't! I am beta testing version 8 of the Suite and I can't use Webguard. If you want Webguard you will need to get the Suite. In Personal Premium and Free versions, Guard and Lukefilewalker protect you. Webguard is an additional layer of protection but not really needed unless you believe that Guard will not catch a nasty when it goes to execute." }-

Thanks for your reply Mele20. What exactly do Guard and Lukefilewalker (is this a component of Avira Premium) do?

[Mele20]

-{ Quote: "Thanks for your reply Mele20. What exactly do Guard and Lukefilewalker (is this a component of Avira Premium) do?" }-

Guard is the realtime scanner and Lukefilewalker is the on demand scanner. They are the major components of all Avira versions free, Premium and Suite. The webguard will catch the baddie before it gets to your PC. If you don't have webguard then Guard (the real time scanner) will catch the baddie when it lands in a temp file and tries to execute. So, webguard catches the baddie EARLIER and BEFORE Guard has a chance to act. But Guard will stop it from executing (assuming there is detection for the baddie either by signature or heuristics and webguard will also catch it only if there is detection for it by signature or heuristics). If webguard doesn't slow your computer a lot and doesn't mess with speed tests then it is a nice extra layer of protection. But it doesn't really protect you MORE ...it just protects earlier before the baddie touches your computer. What many average users don't understand is that having a baddie on your computer doesn't mean you are infected. It is only when the baddie executes that you get infected. Guard stops the baddie at the moment it tries to execute.

Until NOD32 came out with their IMON "webguard" all AV's protected you via a realtime scanner and an on demand scanner that you use to perform a full scan or to right click scan a file you just downloaded.

[trjam]

I find that web scanning with the new beta does not cause any issues or bottle necks compared to the current release. Contrary to what some may have you think, my web page loading with the beta is just as quick as a PC using just the AV.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "I find that web scanning with the new beta does not cause any issues or bottle necks compared to the current release. Contrary to what some may have you think, my web page loading with the beta is just as quick as a PC using just the AV." }-

I have another problem, and that is that some images do not load at all. I will install the new build this morning and see if this has been rectified. I do not find much of a delay in loading pages, but Firefox appears to be problematic in terms of some images not loading completely.