WebShields/HTTP scanners delay

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Kees1958, Dec 1, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Hi,

    I have used my PC quite some time without AV (OS-only protection). I handed over my three year business laptop to my wife (a 1.6 AMD Turion X2 with 2GB Ram and a new Hybrid Harddisk). After some time she asked what AV we were using, because some one at her work had ran into a kill disk infection. Allthough I told her we have photo's etc on her backup brick (a Maxtor external, mostly off-line harddisk) and an additional copy at my desktop PC, she said she would be more relaxed when 'we' had an AV also.

    I never argue with my wife on issue's she is not interested in, but does have an opinion on it. So I said sure which one do you want? Yesterday she told me her colleague now used Avast free (advised to her by an expert, I am okay with any choice on her PC).

    So I decided to put on Avast Webshield and Mail shield, only. She sees the mail shield plug-in when starting Outlook and sees Avast icon spinning when browsing, so that was enough visual feedback on having realised her wishes :)

    I allways though that HTTP scanners delayed the browsing experience a lot. But after putting Avast on, I could not notice any difference, so I did a benchmark - uninstall - benchmark - install - benchmark.

    Based on test: speedtest.net download 21.6 Mbps to 20.9/20.8, sunspyder tests from 591 to 598-601. The differences of decrease of 4% in download and 2% in javascript execution is hardly noticeable. Differences could also lay in the 1-sigma (approach 95%) reliability of the tests.

    Not a heavy AV user myself, I allways read about delays due to HTTP scanners or Internet/web shields. SO I was surprised in the positive way.
     
  2. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Avast is very light. Even sandboxing my browsers, I noticed no slowdown. It may be there, but it isnt noticeable.
     
  3. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Personally, I never made use of HTTP scanners, but I do have family members to who I have deployed antiviruses with HTTP scanner component enabled, and never were any noticeable slowdowns.

    What could happen is that some HTTP scanner, due to really bad coding, could kill your downloads at some point. I have experienced that in the past, when trying them out.

    Never with avast! or AVG, though.
     
  4. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Never use HTTP Scanners. Sometimes the delay is greater than usual. There's no extra security benefit imo.
     
  5. Zimzi

    Zimzi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Posts:
    289
  6. Sherlock_Holmes

    Sherlock_Holmes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    1,447
    Location:
    Mumbai
    No slowdown here either... :thumb:
     
  7. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Yep, Avast is one of the best, with the least impact, from my experiences too. Some do produce a marked delay, but I have to agree that Avast is extremely good.
     
  8. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Well,

    So a combo of good luck (choosing Avast) and increasing technology power

    - average seek time DNS = 30 to 100 ms
    - average page size of a website (including HTML, flash, images, script, style) = 80 to 160K, so (with 20Mbs connection) = 30 to 70 ms connection time
    - average rendering time 100 to 200ms

    So this stays well below 500 ms or the wait trigger of half a second. When Avast adds 10 to 40 msecs processing (assuming blacklist data base is allready in memory), it will be a lot with current dual core's running om average at 2Ghz.


    As posted, her laptop does not need an AV (nothing can download, execute without consent of the user, all risky processes running with low rights), but now it is:
    - Norton DNS (through router) IP blacklist
    - Google Search IP black list
    - Smartscreen filter of IE
    - Webshield blacklist of Avast

    SO enough measures taken to stay out of risky places.
    Regards Kees
     
  9. zerotox

    zerotox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Posts:
    417
    I agree, I've used Avast as well. But for me upload speed is also important and there lies the problem - I've checked it with Avast, Eset - always quite a difference made by the HTTP scanner.
     
  10. Malcontent

    Malcontent Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Posts:
    451
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    My concern is that without the File shield, if she plugs in an infected USB flash drive, she would infect her laptop. Without the Files shield, Avast won't be able to scan the USB Flash drives she gets from coworkers/friends. At least one her work computers was infected recently. Mostly likely won't be the last.

    I would suggest you consider installing the Avast File shield on your wifes laptop.
     
  11. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Kees, just like Malcontent mentioned, what if some file is open from an USB device, and turns out it's infective? Say an image file.

    You got Internet vectors covered, but what about the above example? Besides any image backups you may have, what else protecting at the moment it matters have you got? Something that could contain the infection would be needed.
     
  12. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    It is a x32 vista business, with GPO settings for autorun and a SRP of deny execute on USB drives. Her laptop allways stays on the dinner table. She only uses it for social networking, mail, browsing and occasional letter. All het documents and media partitions are also deny execute. She can only install from 1 directory (using run as admin). Program has to be signed to elevate, so I live with that risk (malicious signed programs).

    Regards Kees
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2010
  13. Vladimyr

    Vladimyr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Posts:
    461
    Location:
    Australia
    I know it's there but I also never really notice any latency from avast! Webshield.
    Just a note though, Webshield doesn't use a compiled list of identified bad sites. It scans HTTP stream content in real time.
     
  14. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Yes term used is not clear, I meant compares against the Avast malware fingerprint data base.

    Have you included video and pictures to scan?
     
  15. Vladimyr

    Vladimyr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Posts:
    461
    Location:
    Australia
    If you mean, have I altered the default settings? No.
    Audio, video and .gif & .png images are excluded.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Yes.

    We seem to miscommunicate, but also are able to guess each others intentions :D
     
  17. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2010
  18. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Yes there is a benefit by having the HTTP scanner ON I think.....

    Since it will Block Access to the site before any harm can be done.
     
  19. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Iv'e read the posts by people working in the Av field and they agree with you.
     
  20. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Won't the File Shield block the threat anyhow?
     
  21. Kyle1420

    Kyle1420 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Posts:
    479
    Possibly J_L, But it really depends on how the company works.
    For instance AFAIK avast blocks malicious hosts so it's not only file downloads..
    If a host is known to be churning out new variants all the time, they can just block the host.
     
  22. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Isn't that the Network Shield, not Web Shield?
     
  23. Kyle1420

    Kyle1420 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Posts:
    479
    To be honest I'm not 100% sure. As far as I know - the network shield scans for worms\exploits. (that's what I read in the past...)

    I guess another reason to use a webshield is because you can configure it to the highest of settings - and leave the 'system gaurd' on moderate\low settings.
     
  24. s23

    s23 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Posts:
    263
    Another advantage in have the file shield and the web/mail shield on is that is different modules and you can use different settings: For the file one you can leave defaults and minimize system drag and evading FP's (heuristics in a lower level) but put web/mail at max settings to scan what's is becoming introduced at the computer.
     
  25. siberianwolf

    siberianwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Posts:
    516
    guess that was a lil bit redundant for the same thing's been mentioned in a slightly different way:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.