I have 0/0. On version 6,0,1000 I had about 600/0
The problem is that image is proof of nothing as it doesn’t show what is being scanned.
Only the actual script shield UI would show what was actually scanned. So unless you actually have that UI open and watch it like a hawk and see that it is scanning web based scripts whilst browsing with IE9 that image doesn’t provide proof.
Even when it shows a web based script being scanned, it isn’t necessarily as a result of IE9, see my image and I use firefox which isn’t supported. So that occurrence is a a non-browser http connection (when I reinstalled winamp today).
So for me other than when I ran either WMP 11 (now completely uninstalled) or winamp the total daily activity for the script shield was 0/0. Yes on earlier versions of 6.0.x I had a much greater script shield activity in 1044 virtually nothing.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say but I don’t have WMP 11 as I have WMP 12:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/features/windows-media-player-12
The main point of my post was:
a) to make it clear your imaged didn’t prove IE9 was being covered by the script shield, but obviously that wasn’t what you wanted so omitted it.
b) that the script shield is doing (or rather not doing) some freaky things. In previous builds there would be daily activity for it. However in both 6.0.1027 and this build 1044 the daily activity for the script shield is 0/0, none, nada, nil, zero, no activity unless you launch an application which runs many scripts (commonly media players).
So it is the inconsistency between builds for the script shield which works in one but not in another build unless you specifically launch a media player, which I wasn’t having to do previously to see activity during my normal computer use.
I did not have any media player active only IE9.
I have been using 6.0 since beta, and the script shield has never, and I mean ever, scanned so much as one script while browsing 100% with Chrome. On my XP test rig, as soon as I fire up IE8, the script shield goes crazy. However, if I use Chrome on that same XP machine…Nothing, nada, zip for hours and hours of browsing… Sure seems browser dependent to me???
See this http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=74149.msg614956#msg614956 by Vlk.
You don’t need to have a media player active, the whole point of using it was to confirm that the script shield wasn’t completely dead.
The script shield scans more than Internet Scripts, that is why it is important to actually confirm that it is scanning IE9 script traffic and you simply can’t do that with the statistics image that you posted.
That’s talking about PRE-RELEASE REFRESH 6.0.1035 not the current 6.0.1044 PRE-RELEASE!
Right. But nothing in any of the release notes for 6.0.1044 indicates any change in Script Shield at all. http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=74515.msg617340#msg617340
And new in v6.0.1044: - solved a memory leak in the avast gadget - solved a few things in WebRep - autosandbox-related fixes - WinXP: File System Shield not doing repetitive scans anymore - improvements in SafeZone isolation - improvements in the avast! sandbox (better TDL shielding etc) - localization updates
Of course, Vlk can confirm Script Shield’s capability if he wishes. :
I’m talking about Windows 7 not XP!
I know, but Vlk wasn’t limiting his statements to Windows 7. 
;D
Sorry to dig up an old thread but I was searching for info on the script shield and IE9 and found this thread.
That clears things up. The Avast Script Shield definitely does not work with IE9, I noticed this a while ago as did many other people. It still doesn’t work with the Avast 6.0.1091 release either and Igor’s response indicates why.
It sure does work!
No it doesn’t, your photo proves nothing. It only works for you it seems. : You’re special. Also, before you do so, please don’t start a rambling ping pong match of what you know and I don’t. I also don’t want to hear about who has a profile and who doesn’t, etc…
I would hate to be street_lethal in the USA as thugs would come looking for me with guns. 
Here we go with your nonsense.