Antivir

[maddawgz]

I cant find webgaurd settings i think i installed it ok? it also detected my spywareblaster exe during scan hlp

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "I cant find webgaurd settings i think i installed it ok? " }-

You need to run Modify in Add/Remove Programs after install to add Webguard...

[danny9]

-{ Quote: "I cant find webgaurd settings i think i installed it ok? it also detected my spywareblaster exe during scan hlp" }-

It has been stated that the detection of SpywareBlaster is a false positive and will be corrected.

http://forum.avira.com/wbb/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=72035

You can find the Web Guard settings by going into configurations in expert mode. At least according to the help file.
I don't use the Web Guard myself so it's not showing in my window.

Dan :)

[maddawgz]

thanks..Danny why dont you use webgaurd can i ask?

[danny9]

-{ Quote: "thanks..Danny why dont you use webgaurd can i ask?" }-

I just don't like the lulls caused by web guards when surfing.
I am a fairly safe surfer and visit several sites quite regularly.
Generally, your av should catch any nasty that a web guard would have caught on the web.

On one computer I use the Avira suite with Ges Wall and I don't install the web guard.
On the other I use Avira free with Online Armor paid which automatically installs the web guard but it can be turned on and off like a light switch.
Now if I was taking a trip to the dark side, well that would be an entirely different story. LOL
All a matter of preference. 8)

[maddawgz]

lol the dark side, ok do you think the webgaurd slows you down anymore though?

[danny9]

-{ Quote: "lol the dark side, ok do you think the webgaurd slows you down anymore though? Txs" }-

Yes I do.
Some more so then others depending on which software you're using.
To be truthful, none of the lulls or delays are that bad.
I'm not a very patient person and expect the web pages to jump from one to the other.
As I mentioned earlier, it's a matter of preference, just as one's surfing habits or choices.
No harm in using web guard for the extra protection. :)

[Macstorm]

I use WebGuard just because it doesn't slow down my surfing (not noticeably at least) ;)

[Edwin024]

But the spywareblaster false positive is a drag...How long must it take to solve this?! It started over 24 hours, and many updates, ago.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

Webguard does slow down web page loading to some degree- albeit a fraction of a second-but it is slower than not having the webguard.

My view is that you don't need it since the guard will catch anything that executes. One school of thought is that the webguard is totally irrelevant (in terms of protection) but was added because of the wishes of an ignorant public. It is argued it provides another "layer" of protection, but does it really?

I simply don't install webguard in Avira Premium.

[eBBox]

-{ Quote: "My view is that you don't need it since the guard will catch anything that executes. One school of thought is that the webguard is totally irrelevant (in terms of protection) but was added because of the wishes of an ignorant public. It is argued it provides another "layer" of protection, but does it really?" }-

I totally agree with you in that :thumb:

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "One school of thought is that the webguard is totally irrelevant (in terms of protection) but was added because of the wishes of an ignorant public." }-
Without a HTTP scanner, an antivirus cannot block malicious scripts before they are read and executed by a vulnerable network program, even if the scripts can be detected. By the time the scripts hit the local cache to be scanned, the browser will already have interpreted them, and their work is already done. Many products include signatures for malicious scripts in their databases, but some of them have no way of stopping these scripts even though they can detect them.

The people who follow the school of thought quoted above, are actually no wiser than the "ignorant public" that they hold in contempt.

[Arup]

I for one would rather let webshield stop at the virus at its tracks than let it enter and get detected. Far better approach. One of the reasons I used Avast for a long while, they were among the first to implement web shield and the idea of the network shield is good as well as it keeps junk from a dirty public LAN at bay.

[ola nordmann]

-{ Quote: "I for one would rather let webshield stop at the virus at its tracks than let it enter and get detected. Far better approach. One of the reasons I used Avast for a long while, they were among the first to implement web shield and the idea of the network shield is good as well as it keeps junk from a dirty public LAN at bay." }-
If an AV-scanner can detect a threat, it has already entered your system;) You can't scan files without them touching your computer - that would require some voodoo-magic that none of today's products have.

Not that it matters, as the threats are still blocked before execution.

[ola nordmann]

-{ Quote: "Without a HTTP scanner, an antivirus cannot block malicious scripts before they are read and executed by a vulnerable network program, even if the scripts can be detected. By the time the scripts hit the local cache to be scanned, the browser will already have interpreted them, and their work is already done. Many products include signatures for malicious scripts in their databases, but some of them have no way of stopping these scripts even though they can detect them.

The people who follow the school of thought quoted above, are actually no wiser than the "ignorant public" that they hold in contempt." }-
This may or may not be true, depending on the browser you use. Some browser behave like you describe, while in other browsers the files are read from cache so that a regular file-monitor will give enough protection, without the need for a webscanner.

BTW, the job of stopping malicious scripts is not really up to an AV, but should be handled by the browser itself, by not allowing dangerous scripts in the first place. So if you browser is fully updates with no known vulnerabilities you should have nothing to fear. Unfortenately some vendors (*caugh* Microsoft *caugh*) are a little slow in their patching departement.

So basically, wheter you feel the need for a dedicated webscanner is entirely up to what kind of browser and settings you use (and browsing habbits perhaps ;) )

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "If an AV-scanner can detect a threat, it has already entered your system;) You can't scan files without them touching your computer - that would require some voodoo-magic that none of today's products have.

Not that it matters, as the threats are still blocked before execution." }-


Yep most likely its in the cache and nowhere else.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Without a HTTP scanner, an antivirus cannot block malicious scripts before they are read and executed by a vulnerable network program, even if the scripts can be detected. By the time the scripts hit the local cache to be scanned, the browser will already have interpreted them, and their work is already done. Many products include signatures for malicious scripts in their databases, but some of them have no way of stopping these scripts even though they can detect them.

The people who follow the school of thought quoted above, are actually no wiser than the "ignorant public" that they hold in contempt." }-

That is not correct- it depends on your browser and settings and most all properly patched browsers will protect you. Http scanners are relatively new and few AVs have them- so there would be countless past and present infections if your premise was true- there aren't- so your premise is false.

[ugly]

This is Stefan Kurtzhals opinion about HTTP scanners. (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1073294&postcount=29)

More then clear.

[Arup]

Exactly what I feel.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "This is Stefan Kurtzhals opinion about HTTP scanners. (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1073294&postcount=29)

More then clear." }-
Yes, that pretty much sums it up....

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "That is not correct- it depends on your browser andsettings and most all properly patched browsers will protect you." }-
So show us how to configure, say, IE, so that AntiVir (minus its HTTP scanner) can scan scripts before the browser interprets them. I'll save us the time and tell you what the inevitable outcome is: you can't.

A patched browser is one of the many methods to stay safe from exploits, but it doesn't make your erroneous statement any less wrong. HTTP scanners are neither irrelevant in terms of protection, nor are they added because of the wishes of an ignorant public.

Also, what do "countless past and present infections" have to do with the fact that some antivirus scanners are unable to block exploit scripts before they are interpreted by the browser?

[noway]

So, for example, when AV companies added wmf exploit sigs to their progs they were doing it for decoration only, since it would be too late according to Stefan?

Even if I used an HTTP scanner, I woudn't rely on it to prevent expoits based on unpatched browsers, since the during the last wmf fiasco, many AV vendors were slow in adding the detection:

http://news.cnet.com/Antivirus-makers-catch-up-to-Windows-bug/2100-1002_3-6018696.html?hhTest=1

I would be interested in seeing some detailed tests (using more than one AV) if anyone has any links showing how a browser exploit can be prevented with an HTTP scanner but allowed to do damage when only the active monitor is enabled. Is it possible that the sigs used for the HTTP scanner are easier to make than the sigs for the active monitor?

[hex_614]

avira's webguard is very light on resources compared to other product. it's lighter than AVG and AVast Web Shield. But compare to ESET Real time Threatsense technology it's only 2nd place.

Avira is better than Avast that for sure.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "avira's webguard is very light on resources compared to other product. it's lighter than AVG and AVast Web Shield. But compare to ESET Real time Threatsense technology it's only 2nd place.
" }-

+1 on this... Also, haven't had any issues w/ their webscanner so far, can't say that about Avast. AVG 8.0 is plain horrible, will be replacing everyone's AV with an alternative solution.

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "This is Stefan Kurtzhals opinion about HTTP scanners. (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1073294&postcount=29)

More then clear." }-
Clearer than water :thumb:

[maddawgz]

well since i have no browsing issues maybe ill just keep it for that added layer ::)

[ankupan]

Hi,

I m using Avira from last 6 months and not found any problem yet. :thumb:

[danny9]

-{ Quote: "well since i have no browsing issues maybe ill just keep it for that added layer ::)" }-

No harm in that.
Glad it's working well for you! ;D

[Arup]

Compared to Linux, under XP my browsing takes a hit with a slight delay as I run the web shield,still I am willing to pay that price for some repose.

[Kerodo]

Compared to others, the hit on browsing is very very minimal in Avira, as well as Avast. Small price to pay. A well written web scanner like both of these will have minimal impact...

[noway]

-{ Quote: "Compared to others, the hit on browsing is very very minimal in Avira, as well as Avast. Small price to pay. A well written web scanner like both of these will have minimal impact..." }-

Not specifically referring to Antivir here but in general:

It can be well-written, but other factors like internet connection speed and file type scanning options may cause an impact. Like if you go to a photography site and the page contains 50 jpg files, each 3 MB in size. Many web scanners are set by default to check all files. Everyone uses the internet in different ways and will be impacted differently and for some users speed matters whereas for others it doesn't.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "If an AV-scanner can detect a threat, it has already entered your system;) You can't scan files without them touching your computer - that would require some voodoo-magic that none of today's products have.

Not that it matters, as the threats are still blocked before execution." }-


It's called sandbox.. it prevents it from going any ware.. no need for magic just think outside of the box.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "I just don't like the lulls caused by web guards when surfing.
I am a fairly safe surfer and visit several sites quite regularly.
Generally, your av should catch any nasty that a web guard would have caught on the web.

On one computer I use the Avira suite with Ges Wall and I don't install the web guard.
On the other I use Avira free with Online Armor paid which automatically installs the web guard but it can be turned on and off like a light switch.
Now if I was taking a trip to the dark side, well that would be an entirely different story. LOL
All a matter of preference. 8)" }-

Actually it's a matter of rationality. You don't need a webscanner- if your AV is any good (and Avira provides the best detection according to several tests) it will catch anything http throws at it- plain and simple. Why take even a very small performance hit when having a webguard is redundant and unnecessary? Avira's Guard will keep you safe without adding false "layers" of program modules to your box. If Avira's Guard needs help, we are all in trouble and should uninstall it now.

I am a contributing member of the Avira forum, and I have never read any reasoned argument as to why a webguard is necessary. They added it for the public-and it adds zero to the equation.

[ola nordmann]

-{ Quote: "It's called sandbox.. it prevents it from going any ware.. no need for magic just think outside of the box." }-
Actually, I know all about sandboxes, HIPS and other "outside the box"-methods of protection ;)

It was a really a joke, although my point is still valid: To scan a file for malware, the file has to lie somewhere on your computer (harddrive or RAM). The reason I joked about it, is that some people seem to be obsessed with detecting threats as early as possible, even though it has no additional security benefit. For instance, whether a malware is detected during download of a file, or after the file is finished downloading, doesn't matter from a security point of view. It's still detected and blocked before execution, and that's what matters :)

[Kees1958]

-{ Quote: "To scan a file for malware, the file has to lie somewhere on your computer (harddrive or RAM)" }-

Ola,

What about embedded code in data files or distributed processing options in protocols or the hosting OS, this makes the line between storage and execution much thinner.

Do you think these threats are overrated to create Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) for marketing reasons?

Regards Kees

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Actually, I know all about sandboxes, HIPS and other "outside the box"-methods of protection ;)

It was a really a joke, although my point is still valid: To scan a file for malware, the file has to lie somewhere on your computer (harddrive or RAM). The reason I joked about it, is that some people seem to be obsessed with detecting threats as early as possible, even though it has no additional security benefit. For instance, whether a malware is detected during download of a file, or after the file is finished downloading, doesn't matter from a security point of view. It's still detected and blocked before execution, and that's what matters :)" }-

I agree, but paranoia here often replaces reason and of course there is no security benefit- but many are here to promote things that provide unneeded "layers" of protection.

[Macstorm]

Use the provided WebGuard. No slowdowns when browsing? Keep it. Sluggish browsing? Disable it.

[QBgreen]

Re AntiVir's WebGuard, I've had it (intentionally :o) pluck malicious code from unscrupulous sites. (Don't ask, I won't reveal them!) It sure does work well. Much rather have any malware "snatched from the air" than from the hard drive. Per speed, I don't notice a difference on my 20 MBPS cable connection. It beats F-Secure's Client Security in that regard, another program that I respect.

[Mongol]

With the latest program update I can't tell the webguard is even running. It's my second layer of kevlar protection...:o ;D

[Arup]

I am on an infected WAN till my broadband comes and every few seconds I get hit with JS/Dldr.Agent.4815 and Avira keps it at bay.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "I am on an infected WAN till my broadband comes and every few seconds I get hit with JS/Dldr.Agent.4815 and Avira keps it at bay." }-

Kind of like a quote from you eather in this post or another... why Let it in the door, when you can stop it before it even knocks. 8) "at least that was the sum of it"

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "Kind of like a quote from you eather in this post or another... why Let it in the door, when you can stop it before it even knocks. 8) "at least that was the sum of it"" }-


Correct........why do we have doors and perimeters.

[maddawgz]

-{ Quote: "Re AntiVir's WebGuard, I've had it (intentionally :o) pluck malicious code from unscrupulous sites. (Don't ask, I won't reveal them!) It sure does work well. Much rather have any malware "snatched from the air" than from the hard drive. Per speed, I don't notice a difference on my 20 MBPS cable connection. It beats F-Secure's Client Security in that regard, another program that I respect." }-

But i want to test it to see if it works lol ......


What is this Sandboxie thing? How does a novice use it?

[bugsy_pal]

-{ Quote: "Not specifically referring to Antivir here but in general:

It can be well-written, but other factors like internet connection speed and file type scanning options may cause an impact. Like if you go to a photography site and the page contains 50 jpg files, each 3 MB in size. Many web scanners are set by default to check all files. Everyone uses the internet in different ways and will be impacted differently and for some users speed matters whereas for others it doesn't." }-

Agreed - it depends on what you are looking at on the web as to whether there will be a noticeable bottleneck in display of pages. But for general browsing, I notice no difference whatsoever with Avira WebGuard enabled.

One thing I noticed which concerned me when I first used the Webguard was that downloads of large files seemed to be slowed to a trickle, at least as indicated by the download dialogue or manager in use. However, this was only WebGuard doing it's thing - it turned out that the download was still progressing as normal, but was being captured by Webguard first. When Web Guard had finished it's thing, the download progress bar would jump to 100% immediately - and the net effect on download time was neglisgible.

[ola nordmann]

-{ Quote: "Re AntiVir's WebGuard, I've had it (intentionally :o) pluck malicious code from unscrupulous sites. (Don't ask, I won't reveal them!) It sure does work well. Much rather have any malware "snatched from the air" than from the hard drive. Per speed, I don't notice a difference on my 20 MBPS cable connection. It beats F-Secure's Client Security in that regard, another program that I respect." }-
Of course it works, but the interesting question is wheter the malware would have been stopped just as effectively by the regular realtime on-access scanner.

Maybe you can do a test - one with webscanner enabled and another with only realtime scanner, and see if it makes any difference :thumb:

[QBgreen]

-{ Quote: "Of course it works, but the interesting question is wheter the malware would have been stopped just as effectively by the regular realtime on-access scanner.

Maybe you can do a test - one with webscanner enabled and another with only realtime scanner, and see if it makes any difference :thumb:" }-

I just might do that. I'll say now that the AntiVir Guard will in all likeliness catch everything as well. We'll see!

[maddawgz]

how do you stop that noise when it finds a virus can you turn it off :o

[deanmartin]

-{ Quote: "how do you stop that noise when it finds a virus can you turn it off :o" }-
Expert mode, under (scan) look in (further actions) uncheckmark (Acouistic alert) if you want no sound alert. also there you can choose your own wave sound.

[maddawgz]

-{ Quote: "Expert mode, under (scan) look in (further actions) uncheckmark (Acouistic alert) if you want no sound alert. also there you can choose your own wave sound." }-

oh great thanks i might have something less loud