AVIRA 8 Release Notes - Now released!

TrustPort does the same, except for a slowdown in download speed.


Cheers

 

I'm running Avira Premium Security Suite with Webguard and ArtificialDynamics Safespace and I'm not having any slowness when browsing. All under Vista Ultimate 32bit SP1.

Just because it's running slow with your config/software combination doesn't mean that it's the defacto for everyone else... and vise versa

Avira isn't the problem.. it's the rest of the stuff you may have running that is conflicting with Avira.

 

No, it is Avira. Avira has stated publicly and earlier in beta forum that, of course, Webguard slows your browsing and, of course, it ruins your speed tests. If you are a terrified user who is convinced by the marketing hype that you will have a disaster if you don't use Webguard, then you will use it and suffer the slowness and the fact you can't run your speed testing software in the background or ever do an accurate speed test. If you are not gullible to marketing hype you won't use Webguard. It is that simple.

 

Well, regardless of whether Avira has said anything or not, my browsing has NOT been slowed (I ran a test between Avira's Webguard and the HTTP scanning function of Avast, neither of which has had an impact). I wouldn't be so quick to throw us all that are in favor of this type of functionality into the "gullible paranoids" group. The fact is, I have been to quite a few websites lately where BOTH AVAST and Avira guards have stopped the page from loading and warned me about a trojan and such being on that page.

If it says it will stop a certain thing from happening and actually DOES stop it, it's not so much hype, now is it? I'm afraid from what I'm seeing around here lately is that in the attempt to comfort the masses that are afraid there's a hacker/trojan/CIA agent at every turn on the Internet, actual dangers are being tossed aside as paranoia. Remember, just because you're sitting behind 30 different security apps and have a pop-up every time your computer farts, does NOT mean you are invincible.

Malware/virus writers are even MORE determined to get at you than the security vendors are determined to protect you. If you forget that one very important fact, you're only setting yourself up for trouble. It's always best to try to gather as much information as you can and take every reasonable precaution you can to protect yourself. But as far as paranoia, well, it's only paranoia if they really aren't out to get you.

 

They are out to get those who insist on going to sites like Facebook and CNN and use Flash Player and IE. Stay away from those sites, don't install Flash Player and use Fx or Opera and you greatly increase your odds of never being infected even if you use NO security software. Safe hex will still save you in almost all instances. It is just that many users refuse to practice safe hex and they are the ones who insist on saying "they are out to get you". I don't buy that. They are out to get those who refuse to protect themselves by acting with prudence at all times when on the internet or using email.

 

I completely agree with you that just about every infection is due to little to no protection and the insistence of people wanting to crack this and that program or download so and so's newest album/movie. The only thing I was saying out of all that rambling on I did was that recently we've started seeing the ability of malware to break right on through some of these tried and true security apps and that they were no longer just being found on the "seedy side" of the internet.

Personally I find people who say "they are out to get you" and don't practice "safe hex" are hypocrites. But make no mistake about it, they really ARE out to get you if they can. I say that sitting behind Firefox with Noscript, Adblock Plus, Sandboxie, Avira Premium, Spywareblaster and so on. It's just going to get worse in the future. Criminals are always going to go where they can get the most bang for their buck, so to speak.

Why rob a bank and risk the Federal Pen or getting shot when you can unleash a keylogger or set up a fake bank site and own that bank for days, maybe even weeks with a drastically reduced risk?

 

The bottom line here,one can never be to safe.I say to defeat the bad guys one must think like one, this applys to are general daily lives as well.why shredd up are personal info before putting to the trash and yet put these things online such as banking,social security etc, with out proper security.why one would have a burglar alarm in there Home and not use it.Awarness/precautions and common sense so to speak=secure it most of the time.

 

I have been using it here for several days now and it doesn't slow down my browsing at all. For me, the only 2 that don't are Avast's and Avira's web scanner. The rest suck in varying degrees. I refuse to use a web scanner if it does slow me down, so believe me when I say, Avira's does not. If it did, I'd disable it..

And if you need to test your speed once, disable the web guard and test, then enable it again I guess...

Also zero issues with Avira in general. One good product as far as I can see.

 

I have to add my 2c here. I set up a pc for my 2 teen-aged daughters. Their only use for the pc (besides school projects) is Facebook, Windows Live Messenger and Hotmail. The only browser they use is IE7. FlashPlayer is installed too. Their only security is AntiVirFree, ThreatFire and a router. Twice a month I go in their pc to do maintenance and check on updates. I also perform on-line scans. Months have gone by with not a single infection, BSOD or crash. NADA! My daughters don't know the meaning of "safe hex", so PLEASE, quit with the FUD already!!! Rant done....

 

Avira Personal and ThreatFire free will be my choices as well for security when my license for Mamutu and Avira Premium expire. Well maybe Avast and TF. Or AVG 8.0 Free and TF. Or maybe....LOL.

 

With regard to the usefulness of a web scanner I highly suggest reading the sophos threat report which was published recently. Not visiting facebook or myspace doesn't really make a difference, nor does visiting crack or warez sites.


http://www.sophos.com/securityrep08q1.html

Sometimes I just can't believe how much the discussions in here resemble the preachings of religious lunatics in the middle ages. It's scaring me, really. I just wish for discussions to be less emotional and biased by having experienced issues with one or another software. There are different approaches to staying secured, sandboxes, webscanners, execution control etc etc etc. What works for one, does not have to work for everyone. Remember that security also lies in not everyone doing the same! Diversity in methods of protection is one additional hurdle for the bad guys. So, if you feel you're better off with a sandbox than a webscanner, feel free to do so. But please, please... do not call the users of a webscanner idiots just because you do not share their view or find it unsuitable to your needs.
The same goes the other way around. I find sandboxes a great thing, but have not made all that good experiences with their stability on MY system. Also handling of downloads was somewhat awkward for me... could be that has changed since then though.

Let's just try to be reasonable people, ok? I find those level-headed discussions much more satisfying than endless ranting pro this or contra that with random insults thrown in to spice the soup.

 

well Said

 

That was interesting report. Thank you.

I don't see however that report's connection to your saying it doesn't make a difference if one visits crack, warez or Facebook, MyRealspace in terms of the risk in getting infected! Facebook and MyRealspace are cesspools of malware and junk sites on top of it. You visit them to INVITE infection if you are a malware researcher. Plus, obviously crack and warez sites just like Porn and gambling sites are malware nests so I don't get why you think it doesn't make a difference as far as getting infected goes if you do or don't visit those sites. Of course, it makes a difference!

 

Mele, what i mean is that the classical view of "not visiting certain sites" does not help. All of the sites i've personally seen this year that were infected were either private websites, specialized online forums (for example gaming related), government websites, financial institutions or well known news sites.

I don't go to myspace, never been on facebook and i do not visit warez or pr0n sites. So in the classical sense I'm a rather safe surfer. Still, i've personally stumbled over dozens of infected websites this year.

 

Ok, I see what you are saying. I would simply say that you still should not visit warez, porn, etc. sites and also be very careful about major sites. Visit them on Fx or Opera and install the Proxomitron. It doesn't (at least for me) slow your browsing nor does it interfere with speed tests and it filters out all ads including poisoned ones and does a ton of other things. Install a classic HIPS so you'll know if some nasty did download and was trying to exe. or use a sandbox or whatever, but I still don't think anyone should be using a webguard as your Sandbox, HIPS, will catch it plus if you don't use IE the chances of getting a nasty on a webpage at some big popular site is negligible if Opera or Fx is up to date. I might be vulnerable as far as Fx goes because I am using 1.5 on my host machine (will upgrade to Fx3 when it is released), but I have Proxo and ProcessGuard and I simply see no need for webguard as Guard will catch it but just later than webguard.

 

None of this makes sense. You are telling someone not to use a webguard, but to use other multiple apps, ie.sandbox,hips, to accomplish the same principal as just using the frigging web guard. Mele, do you not think that those other apps may also use processes that can effect performance. It is like you have a crusade against web scanners and thats cool as you are entitled to use and think anyway you want. But when you insist that a person doesnt need a pail, but to use a bucket instead, excuse me while I keep banging my head against the wall.

 

EXACTLY. If I thought a web scanner would catch 100% of every malicious thing out there, I would NOT layer myself in the other programs, and vice versa. The truth is no program can catch everything, which is why you layer in the first place. Look, IMHO, the topic has been beaten to death, people have weighed in with their opinions.

If a scanner doesn't affect your performance and you like that little bit of extra protection, use it, if it affects your performance to an unacceptable extent and/or you don't feel the need to use it, then don't, but enough of the throwing around reports from this that and the other and the "it hasn't happened to me, you're just being silly" and "my daughter/son/wife/grandma/ family pet goes here, does this and that, and they've been clean for years so you're wrong" attitudes. Use it if you choose and it helps, don't if you don't want to and don't see the need.

Sometimes I look in here in these forums and wonder if the years of experience some have and some claim to have are getting to their heads and people are starting to have a go at their fellow members. We're here to learn, not insult each other or throw our knowledge in other's faces. Some know more than others, yes, but let's help them (myself included) learn without calling them paranoid idiots. Malware changes every day, there may come a time when all of these program we love and defend won't do squat against them. We're already seeing things like that happen if you look at some recent posts.

 

I now use Avira SS with webguard, Boclean, SAS Pro and Norton Antibot ( and Windows defender is running in the background too in Vista Ultimate). I hope that is enough to be as safe as possible, next to a conscious mind. Agreed?

 

A computer is a tool,and the way some people download so many programs just to keep their computer "safe" maybe it's best if you just put the tool away if you cant use it for what it was intended to do

 

You can also turn that around... for a few people not for everyone. There are millions of users of Avira, don't forget that.

 

I would say with over 34.000 views and nearly 600 hundred post, yep lots of users.

 

Put forthe the effort to read all the posts and you will see the number is miuch lower.

 

Agreed
and also i hope this stop those "i use sandbox"-"i don't use any AV scanner"-"reboot to restore"(LOL) type of posts for good
BTW, thanks for the Sophos link

 

This thread has really degenerated.

Mele20, you are way overboard. If you don't like Avira, use something else.

Religious lunatics, no just lunatics ranting.

I read the Sophos report and it does not say a thing about how or why a web scanner would be helpful.

I believe the rational of the web scanner is to catch malformed items that are intended to corrupt the browser and allow arbitrary code execution while these items are being parsed by the browser, prior to being written to disk where the on access scanner would take over. Whether this can be demonstrated to provide an actual improvement in security is another matter.

The web scanner is active on my machine right now, but I am unable to notice any difference in the speed of browsing. It may present issues on some older slower machines.

Perhaps someone around here has an objective or helpful thing to say about web scanners, but a few of you are giving me a headache.

 

If the webscanner is annoying to you (breaks your firewall rules, slows down your browsing, etc), it can be replaced with other security measures. If it works OK, keep it.