Importance of running HTTP scanners?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by nmaynan, Jun 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nmaynan

    nmaynan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Posts:
    98
    Nod32's IMON, Avast's Webshield.

    Do you feel comfortable running AV without a web scanner? Plenty of AV don't have one, like MSE.

    Do you feel web scanners are effective and keep you safer or are not worth the performance hit to browsing speed?
     
  2. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    That question has been asked before. Search for "webscanner" or "web scanner". You'll find some threads discussing it. :)
     
  3. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Not necessary with real-time protection from the same product, but useful.
     
  4. Kernelwars

    Kernelwars Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Posts:
    2,155
    Location:
    TX
    I am very much comfortable running any av by itself without the need of any webscanner. I leave that task in the safe hands of clearcloud dns....:)
     
  5. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    I like the HTTP scanner feature but do not think that without it I won't be secured.
     
  6. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,433
    Location:
    Europe
    The same for me.
     
  7. kupo

    kupo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Posts:
    1,122
    Using a DNS like ClearCloud or Norton is better :D
     
  8. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    Using Sandboxie and WOT has replaced any Web Scanner...:cool:
    Besides, I don't use any Real-Time AntiMalware; just On-Demand Scanners...;)
     
  9. Yash Khan

    Yash Khan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    1,833
    I think they have some benefit. Sometime AV's detects malware & clean it but actually it is found to be running i.e may be your AV though said cleaned but was not able to clean it. With webscanner the detected malware has no chance of running coz it is detected before it is downloaded on the system. So atleast it is helpful in the case of malware coming from web. Thats my point of view & not a statement.

    Thanxx
    Naren
     
  10. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Agreed.
     
  11. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Yeah, this is a good reason for keeping web protection enabled. Another one is that web shields usually take advantage of other techniques for blocking malware that may be otherwise undetected by other scanning modules.
     
  12. s23

    s23 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Posts:
    263
    Currently I'm using Avast with the Web, IM and script shield only, along side with Clearcloud DNS.
    For me the advantage of running a web shield alongside the realtime scanner is the possibility of use different settings; You can use some easy ones at the realtime scanner and use agressive ones (heuristic and others) at the web shield without prejudicing to much the machine performance since it scan only the http traffic and not your game/system/docs/whatever files (and evading FPs in this files maybe with low heuristics) . Another one (and because I use), is at any detection, it abort the connection, works while downloading or even before download if is a know URL. Web shiled + DNS = 2 filters cleaning junkie without much performance hit.
     
  13. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    On-Access is enough imo :D
     
  14. nmaynan

    nmaynan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Posts:
    98
    WOT doesn't indicate that the site has been checked for malware, right? It's simply indicating how others rated the site? This rating is completely subjective and not based on any objective measure of the likelihood of finding malware on the site, right? So, hypothetically, lots of people could rate a malware ridden site as Trustworthy, there's nothing preventing that from happening, right?

    WOT is based solely on a visitor's experiences and opinion of the site, or does WOT provide some sort of objective "safety measure" in addition?
     
  15. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    WOT is NOT based on user comment. It's database is borrowed from sites MDL, malcOde, hpHosts etc. but that's OT.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
  16. nmaynan

    nmaynan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Posts:
    98
    I didn't know this. sits (sites?) MDL, malc0de, hpHosts are sites that look/screen for malware?
     
  17. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    It's sites..:p. Yeh these keep track of sites that distribute malware.
     
  18. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    2,824
    I like the HTTP scanner since I'm used to NOD32 doing that for many years so its a personal preference. But is it necessary? Probably not.
     
  19. nmaynan

    nmaynan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Posts:
    98
    Now I just went to a website: http://www.zencast.com/ with Avast Webshield enabled and it alerted saying that a Trojan is present in the HTML code. WOT shows zencast site as being a Green.

    I reported the Trojan to Avast and they said it is legitimate. Doesn't this kind of cast doubt on WOT? Or do I not understand how it's supposed to work?

    If zencast has a Trojan, why are the malware-finding sites not flagging www.zencast.com as a threat?
     
  20. EboO

    EboO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Posts:
    287
    There's a difference between dns and webshield : if a legitimate site is hacked and trapped the webshield would advertise you by detecting the exploit. Not the dns.
     
  21. nmaynan

    nmaynan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Posts:
    98
    Why is this Trojan still on the site? I reported it some time ago. Yet Avast still alerts when I visit the site today. Why hasn't WOT removed the Green rating for the site? If it's real as Avast says, people are prolly getting infected.
     
  22. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    WOT rates and ranks trustworthiness, vendor reliability, privacy and child safety based on community feedback. It has nothing to do with filtering websites which contain threats.
     
  23. nmaynan

    nmaynan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Posts:
    98
    That's what I thought, but post #15 led me to believe otherwise.
     
  24. tobacco

    tobacco Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,497
    Location:
    British Columbia
    It's not important and is plain and simple a "marketing tool" by the old school, "re-active approach" companies :rolleyes: In fact, it blows my mind how much time and effort is wasted on antiviruses in this forum.

    It's 2011 now people - Wake Up!

    #1 - IMAGE

    #2 - Virtualize

    #3 - Secure your browser from info stealing malware that may of bypassed your 100 scanners :cautious:
     
  25. nmaynan

    nmaynan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Posts:
    98
    What about the Trojan on the zencast.com site? This seems helpful to me that the Webshield alerted to it. Not only did it (I guess) protect me from it it also made me aware that there is a threat present. Other forms of protection may protect me but leave me unaware that there was even a threat. It seems to me in this instance the webshield was helpful.

    Aren't you guys concerned that zencast.com apparently has a Trojan in the HTML?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.