http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2016/m...s-decreases-security.cfm&utm_contact=77016351 So I don't need a real-time AV? I expect to be hit while surfing and that's why I use an AV. Unfortunately, they don't name the AVs.
Of course it's not wise to get rid of antivirus software. Browsers won't perform a deep analysis of scripts or protect you from malware coming via other means than browsers for instance. On the other hand, browsers usually provide anti-phishing function but this works in tandem with anti-phishing protection provided by AV programs. The article was referring to some AV programs that scan SSL communication using the MitM technique. We at ESET do the same, however, we don't negatively impact security. For instance, if an unsecure cipher is used, we can block further communication. Or if the certificate has been revoked, we block further communication as well.
FF blocks legitimate sites by telling users their certificate are untrusted but don't provide them with the means to obtain a valid certificate or an exception override which has already been taken away.
The link posted refers to a study done last year and was recently republished. You can get further details here: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thre...-client-end-tls-interception-software.385640/ For starters, the republished study contains tables that haven't been updated since the original paper was published. For example, it states Eset's SSL protocol scanning doesn't support TLS 1.1 or 1.2 which is no longer true. Etc., etc..
I think a combination of zemana antimalware and browser (chrome or chrome based specially) with add-ons like avira browser safety, Ublock origin (optimized via setting) was 100% effective at blocking all malwares. I found out the chrome add-ons of avira browser safety and Ublock origin optimized blocked 99% of all malwares and zemana took care of any that made through at all. Also the add-ons of mcaffee site advisor alone blocked 100% of all malware downloads since it scans every downloads. in combination with ublock origin optimized and avira browser safety you can be protected from dangerous websites fully too. So these 3 add-ons I recommend for anyone who want to strengthen their browser. Also if all you do is use browser and download and nothing else then using these add-ons in chrome is PERFECT protection. If you want a computer protection then zemana antimalwrae or secureaplus are the best. This is from my experience.
Hi Norman, I seen you posting what you write above at least a dozen times in different threads. In my particular case, in two computers with different systems were Firefox is the everyday browser, I never see Firefox blocking sites. If in the past, I have seen the message you are talking about, it is so rare that I cant remember last time I saw it. I know you are very happy using something else but I suggest you test creating a new Firefox profile, or do a clean Firefox install. Bo
I've seen this blocking behaviour with Firefox recently. Usually though other browsers mistakenly claim the certificate is untrusted as well. This sounds to me like a false-positive problem and not just concerning Firefox. What I did notice recently when Firefox claimed a certificate was untrusted on Windows was that it didn't behave in the same way in Ubuntu. Even when three other browsers claimed the certificate was untrusted. The site in question had recently revamped their homepage and this was some kind of bug so I informed them (they were a retail business I know) and they fixed it.
