Is An HTTP Scanner Really Necessary?

Message forums are just that, a place where people post up their own opinions,advice,etc etc. If you do not like what people offer for advice on a message forum,you can always leave and seek out research somewhere else.

 

It could be argued that one guy has a vested interest in promoting HTTP scanning since he works for an AV company that endorses its use whether or not they're actually right. It's like the old argument regarding whether we need email scanners - most AV companies include that option these days, but one could argue they too are unnecessary.

 

I would love to use and dns service but dns service provided by my isp is over 50 % fast than comodo , open , norton or clear cloud
so im sticking with my default dns with avast web shield

 

The_ChamP, in the case of Avast, the network shield is the one that blocks malware URLs (without slowing down web browsing), not the web shield... And from the tests I've done I think it's pretty effective and even better than a DNS service in some ways (it also blocks malicious IPs).

 

you could argue that no form of scanning is needed if you wanted to couldn't you?they all have an impact on the way a PC runs:-he has a vested interest yes but only in promoting his own product line not HTTP scanning in general as most av companies now employ it,I love the way it moves from is it needed to trying to say that a guy working for an av company is only saying that it probably is because basically it suits him to say it is!
I personally have reservations regarding the way that most av companies seem to be moving to "cloud" type protection because if a malware writer can sneak something on to a pc that disables the av's abilty to connect to home then a great deal of protection goes out the window but all methods used to protect a PC do have drawbacks and compromises

 

I think the point being that different Av software has uses different methods to scan web pages, http feeds etc, some are more comprehensive, and possibly aggressive than others. They may also have a greater impact for the protection that provide.

For me while it could be argued the av experts have a vested interest in plugging their product, I don't personally view it that way, or again my own point of view, it wasn't presented as such. After all these forms discourage a v b arguments and fanboi type comments.

It's also worth bearing in mind that some people have been quite successful in using a windows PC, surfing the web, with no AV protection.

So using that logic, the OP's decision is whether they want to improve their surfing experience while accepting they maybe a greater chance of being infected by a virus etc.

 

Phaser , My network and web shield both are on and i have not noticed any slowdown in my net speeds...running great

 

Yes, you're missing one important attacking vector: Human stupidity. The never ending pleasure of clicking everything, playing funny games, or lead to think they will be playing funny games, while all it is meant is to infect the system.
The question is: How will most users know whether or not they should have NoScript to permit this or that script, when they visit some website that has been crippled by NoScript blocking javascript, for example?

If the website is crippled and they have no idea what scripts to allow, they will just take the trial and error approach by allowing every other domain blocked by NoScript to be able to use javascript. Game over.

I've tried this approach with some family members in the past. Way too confusing for them. They wouldn't know what to allow and what to keep blocked.

Most people need backup solution, be it a http scanner, url blocker like WOT, etc.

 

One more valuable opinion from Marcus Matten:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1627935&postcount=224

So, the reasons on why you should use a http scanner are there for all to see. Take it or leave it.

 

Don't forget that safe websites can be hacked anytime and as Noscript allows scripts from specific URLs it won't protect you if you've allowed a site which has been safe previously and has been hacked.

 

Yes, exactly. I forgot about that specific characteristic of NoScript. I don't use Firefox, and thereby neither NoScript. Only tried and see how it looked, like 3 years ago, for the sake of seeing if would be something family members could deal with and what protection scope it had.

Yours is, indeed, a very good point, and only makes make stronger my view. NoScript is only efficient for as long as the scripts are blocked, and if whitelisted websites become hacked, then NoScript users won't be protected, unless they have backup solutions that could stop what ever attack would come from the web browser, and as I previously mentioned it can be either an url blocker, url scanner, DNS (Norton DNS, ClearCloud DNS, etc), the web browsers own protection, like SmartScreen (IE), Google Safe Browsing for Firefox and Chromium/Chrome (Don't know if Iron and others that are based on Chromium use it too due to the "privacy" issues.), Opera by making use of AVG's ratings (Maybe both web scanner and linkscanner I haven't read any info about this partnership as I don't use Opera anymore, for near 2 years).

The options are there, and one solution will never fit everyone.

The user that started this thread mentioned slow browsing with avast! web shield; I have installed avast! 5, only to use the web shield component in a family member's system, and no slow downs at all. Most likely, there's always a third-party application involved that makes avast! ( or any other application) web scanner slow browsing experience.

One can only go there (to achieve the needed protection) by seeing what actually is better to be at one system, protecting one specific user, because never two users will need the exact same protection.