I have two AVAST issues that frustrate me. Maybe someone can Help or Avast can take note!
My Web Shield blocks me from accessing some web sites. Ok it is doing its job, great. But, I want the ability to on-the-spot override that block and continue to the site. I must now disable the entire web shield for a period of time. Is this the best I can do. I should see a question “Do You Wish to Continue To This Potentially Harmful Web Site?” I can then Select “YES Continue” or “No Stop”. One of the web sites in question is https://fsaid.ed.gov/ which is the website for student college funding.
Note, I am using Windows 7 so this issue may not apply to Windows 10. It takes AVAST Internet Security a very long time to load up when i start my computer, and I run into problems if I start to use other programs before the AVAST load is complete. Also the AVAST symbol used to spin or pulse when it was ready. Now I must check the AVAST to determine if it is ready. This may fall into the category of a whine, I get it.
1a. There won’t be an option to continue to load a malicious/phishing website. A person with low technical could easily just click continue and get infected. I believe in cases of PUP, you do have a choice assuming PUP detection is enabled.
1b. You can exclude websites from Web Shield detection by going to Menu > Settings > Components > Web Shield > Customize > Exclusions and enter the URL(s).
That’s actually intentional - to minimize the effect on Windows startup (i.e. on other programs you may want to launch or be launched early), the start of the Avast UI has been delayed - which includes the tray icon.
However, it doesn’t mean that your machine is not protected till then - the main service (AvastSvc.exe) is launched earlier and it doesn’t need the UI to be running to scan and block infected files. So the real time protection is running, you just don’t know about it for a while.
Put it simply, The Antivirus engine is running before the user interface process “AvastUI” (which includes the tray icon) is loaded.
Hi,
fsaid.ed[.]gov was indeed a false positive and should be ok now.
Overriding URL blocks does not make sense. Say you visit fsaid.ed[.]gov and there was a way to override the detection. What happens next? The index.html gets loaded, which then requests ~25 more files from the same domain. As the traffic is intercepted at a very low level, it could not know that it is one webpage. Would you need to click 25 more “allow this” buttons? Even if you did, what then? The 26 files are downloaded and stored (either in memory or dumped on hdd). Since the files most likely contain the blocked domain, they will trigger the detection when memory scan happens or (in case of dumpin the files to disk) on-write. This is one of the reasons why it just cannot work.
The other reason is not technological, but psychological. If there was an easy “override” button, people would click it (because people click all the buttons all the time), rendering themselves vulnerable to potential attacks.
I am not knowledgable enough to adress your second point – I do not know the load procedure or the tray icon that much.
Thank you for the replies and comments. They were helpful. However I sill have a libertarian / laissez faire philosophical objection.
I support the internet security model that acts as police-judge-jury. Hacks & Attacks are ubiquitous, fast, and often beyond repair. The costs in money, identity loss, and other damages can be serious and long lasting.
But I still want the on-scene tactical ability to make an immediate decision to accept or override a security decision. If I hang myself by my actions, I can and will accept it. I hate the patronizing assumption that I am an idiot in these matters, dangerous to myself, and you know what is best for me. You probably, more often than not, 100% correct in that assumption. But I own the computer and I have the right to make the hard calls, and I shouldn’t have to apply for permission.
Now smart lawyers may say; “You can talk the talk but can you walk the talk? The first time you make a bad choice, you will turn around and accuse your security provider, such as Avast, of negligence, or not doing their job properly and then seek revenge through tort law.” Yes, that is a real problem and all too common in our society. Also, waivers often get thrown out the window as soon as there are problems. What can I say, some law suits are justified and some are not.
We should be able to take risks. Acceptance of Risk, and the Choices and Decisions we make define us as individuals and are a gift of being human.
I think AVAST is the best Security Provider on the market for individuals and in some business environments. But I hate the decision to remove me from my individual security loop and being forced to turn it off completely when I want to venture into the unknown. I can accept the default internet security premise of shoot first and ask questions later, but once in a while I would like to tell Avast “hold your fire.”
I personally am quite happy with Avast’s decision to block first then decide to allow after verifying the site.
I can wait for that decision. Nothing is that critical that I need to put my system at risk.
If you use Avast, you’ll need to accept their policy decision.
Avast is what it is because they protect you against threats you cannot know about. It comes with using Windows.
I’ve never encountered a virus or malware and got infected with Avast; it has blocked every single one. In each case the threat was completely unexpected and totally not connected in any way to what I was doing at the moment. Totally out of the blue.
Waiting for verification can be frustrating. But verify first and trust later. Has worked every time.
Setting it to Ask, isn’t a solution, it is just a pause in the process. When you would get an alert and it Asks, there are no other real options in the drop down list for the Web Shield actions other than Abort the Connection.
The only real option is to manually add the URL to the Exclusions.
After review, the Web Shield may not be the issue, it could be the firewall. I may disable the AVAST firewall and allow the Microsoft Firewall to operate independently. Hey, Microsoft security just delivered a smackdown to nefarious international hackers the other day. I know what your thinking, they did it behind the scenes without the end users knowing, and they certainly didn’t ask their clients first. All True. I am not giving up my Avast licenses or my Avast subscriptions.