Blocked Sites Annoying "Access Denied!" Placeholder

[SteveKasian]

Lately, every time NOD32 blocks a website that is in my restricted sites list, it creates a dummy HTML placeholder with a big red ACCESS DENIED! message on it. This is more annoying than the ads it blocks. Is there any way to remove the message and make it blank like before?

Thanks,
SK

[Marcos]

It's always been like that. I assume you must have recently set your browser to active mode in the web protection setup.

[SteveKasian]

Ummm... no, I haven't. And I've always just had blank areas, or at most some empty placeholders, in areas of a webpage that contained blocked content.

Also, I do not have any applications selected as being in "Active Mode" in the web protection setup.

Any suggestions on how I can get rid of these annoying messages?

Thanks!
SK

[Marcos]

If you think a particular website is blocked in error, you can report it to ESET's malware lab. Although it's possible to exclude blocked websites from content filtering, I wouldn't recommend that as you'd exposed your computer at risk. Websites are always blocked for a reason.

[Devrim]

Originally Posted by Marcos

If you think a particular website is blocked in error, you can report it to ESET's malware lab. Although it's possible to exclude blocked websites from content filtering, I wouldn't recommend that as you'd exposed your computer at risk. Websites are always blocked for a reason.

NOD32 should atleast have the option to continue. There is nothing more annoying than software telling you what to do. Even Google has the option to just continue

[Marcos]

So you mean something like "ESET has found malware. Would you like to run it now, later or never? "

[SteveKasian]

I believe there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here.

In light of my realization that there are obviously various applications for a blocked sites list, perhaps some insight into my application of it would prove useful here:

(First of all, my NOD32 blocked sites list is always empty unless I add my own sites and/or lists to the interface, so if it's supposed to be automatically populated by updates, it ain't working right. But that's another discussion entirely.)

I have compiled a running list of advertisement and tracking sites which I import into any new installation of NOD32 and keep updating every time I come across any advertisements that appear on any web page I visit. I scour the code of any page that contains an annoying ad to find what domain the ad is coming from, then I add that domain (i.e. " *zedo.com* ") to the list and export the list as a backup.

Before the new format (perhaps pre V5? Not sure when it changed), the ads were blocked silently. But now, they all contain an HTML placeholder file that says !ACCESS DENIED. So basically, whenever I visit my favorite sites, instead of getting a clean webpage, I get various "!ACCESS DENIED" messages all over the place where the ads would normally be, each of them rendered in varying degrees of visibility... with some of them overflowing their I-Frames and only half visible, etc.

It looks terrible and is very annoying. I just want the old behavior back, where there are no big red !ACCESS DENIED announcements at every instance of a blocked domain.

Can somebody PLEASE tell me how I can get rid of the new HTML placeholder pages? I'm wasn't intending to open the floor for a debate on this or other related issues, I simply want to know if and how I can get NOD32 to act in a civilized manner again and stop ruining my web surfing experience. I'd hate to have to go back to using V4 instead.

Thanks,
SK

[Marcos]

The only difference between v4 and v5 are css styles added to the html page shown when a web page is blocked in active mode (see below):

[SteveKasian]

Wrong restricted sites list.

I am referring to this list, right here... in NOD32's Advanced Setup section, NOT the invisible list that is included in ESET virus signature database updates:

Previous to the recent change in NOD32 behavior to which I've been referring, any sites listed in the Advanced Setup/Web Access Protection/URL Management WERE SILENTLY BLOCKED. There was no Access Denied placeholder page generated whatsoever.

[manak]

Remove all those addresses from ESET NOD32.
Edit Windows Host file. Add those addresses to host file. I think that is what you want. I'm not sure 100%
see: http://www.accs-net.com/hosts/how_to_use_hosts.html


ex)
127.0.0.1 2mdn.net


OR

If you use Firefox, Use Adblock Plus instead of ESET


Of course, It's up to you.
just my 2 cents

[Marcos]

Could you please post a screen shot of how a particular website looks with those "placeholders" ?

[SteveKasian]

@manak: Thanks for the tip - I didn't even think about that!

@marcos: Well, I was using a trial version of NOD32 on a new machine and it was about to expire, so I went ahead and bought a license after realizing that the workaround that user "manak" suggested above would accomplish the same thing... and whalah! NOD32 no longer inserts the placeholder on an activated version of the product! (and I didn't even have to edit my hosts file)

So no more annoying HTML placeholders are visible when a site is blocked on an activated version of NOD32. I guess there's an added hidden advantage to buying a NOD32 license that nobody knew about!

Thanks,
SK

[Marcos]

Please provide a screen shot of a web page with "placeholders" anyway.

[SteveKasian]

- DISREGARD THIS REPLY -

[SteveKasian]

Ok...I just got one to appear on a webpage and took a screenshot for you. See attachment.

Thanks,
SK

Edit: I've added 4 more I've come across to my attachments below.

[arsenaloyal]

I can confirm this behavior on a test machine with version 5.2.9.1.

[Marcos]

This change was made based on users' wishes but we'll consider further improvements so that it doesn't cause the issues mentioned in this thread.

[SteveKasian]

Thanks for looking into it, Marcos.

An options set (perhaps a simple check box) to turn the feature off and on with would be a worthwhile consideration.

SK

[arsenaloyal]

Originally Posted by SteveKasian

Thanks for looking into it, Marcos.

An options set (perhaps a simple check box) to turn the feature off and on with would be a worthwhile consideration.

SK

My thoughts exactly