Hi I kindly wish to know The following:
In the web shield settings, exceptions in mime types to exclude:audio, image gif ,image/png,txt/css,video
all the above as I understand ,are there by default. Does this mean all files from this kind will not be scanned?
2.In the help file I didnt see anything about root kit and spy ware scanning ,please correct me if Im wrong. Is there such a scanning in the home edition 4.8?
3.What additional function adds the high sensitivity web shield to the normal? Does the high sensitivity slow down the computer or causes sytem extra load ?
Personally, I set avast! to include those file types omitted by default. If I am not mistaken, spyware and rootkits are checked by default during a scan, and spyware is checked by default in realtime. As for the web shield, I, personally, would settle for a slightly slower PC on the net than for a fast, infectable PC; however, you need to adjust these settings to as you see fit according to your confidence in the safety of the web sites you visit.
By WebShield only. It’s safe. These files will be scanned by Standard Shield.
Yes, integrated with the antivirus protection.
Indee this is not on the help file… I think it won’t make difference for this specific provider.
The slider is kept there for homogeneity with the other providers.
Hi
Thank you for your reply.
Regarding your first answer it is not clear why this exceptions are there to begin with, and what happens if I delete these ones ,can you elaborate on this please?
Thank you very much for your help.
EP
Hi
I`m sorry to persist,but it is important to me to understand the following unanswered part of my question, repeating: In the web shield settings, exceptions in mime types to exclude:audio, image gif ,image/png,txt/css,video
all the above as I understand ,are there by default. It is not clear why this exceptions are there to begin with and why are these not to be scanned by default ???
Will it slow the system down because of the extra scanning if I delete those entries?
I’m not an expert on it but, for sure, it’s not necessary or mandatory, otherwise they won’t be excluded. Maybe the http traffic of these components can’t reveal an infection by itself, so, no need of WebShield. For instance, WebShield can’t scan https traffic, or protocol UDP, for instance. Communications through these ways won’t be scanned.
Again, I’m just guessing.
I suspect that Tech’s (rather better than informed) guess is correct.
The avast team put the exclusions there because they determined that they could reduce overhead by excluding unnecessary scans with minimal exposure.
If you are expecting them to justify their decision to you in this free product they may just surprise you and do so. However, you must not expect any company to feel obliged to explain it’s design decisions to you in any part of its product. You buy the product (even for free) and accept its design decisions … if this list were not displayed (as the avast team are not bound to do) then you would not be asking this question. It is part of the honesty and the open configurability of avast that it is exposed to the user community.
You may indeed remove the elements in the list as you choose. Please do not be surprised if future updates reinstate the defaults determined by the avast team.
Hi
Thank you for your reply.
I meant no offence by asking my questions of course the AVAST TEAM owes me nothing I downloaded the product only a few days ago, I wish to get acquainted to it and make best use of it out comprehension of the product and not doing things like an automaton. I rather see it the other way around you see…they should be more than happy that people show interest and will to understand the product and thus be a good “agent” of the product, as many of us hang around computer forums…and recommend a product… or not ,and may help others to use this or that product.
I took no offence at your post … why would I? I am just an avast user as you are. Please forgive me if my response did not appear to respect your view … that was not my intention.
It might appear however that you took my comments as some form of chastisement. Advising you that the avast teams owes you nothing was not an admonishment. It was simply a statement of fact that I have learned … avast is not, after all, a charity … it is a commercial enterprise.
Recall I said “they may just surprise you and do so”. The avast developent team members frequently surprise me with their openness and willingness to work with users directly in the forum … again … what other equivalent products have this benefit?
avast already has users in its tens, likely hundreds, of millions … nevertheless I believe that the avast team goes out of its way to encourage those who might be a “good agent” of the product. Even so, you and I might - once in a while - ask questions that the team (mindful of their competitors) might not wish to answer - no matter how simple it might appear to you or me.