Turn off all URL:(threat) without disabling actual malware/virus threat protect

Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security
1

Hello,

I don’t need my antivirus software to be a “parental control” tool, much less one that works on “rumors, suspicions, low threat assessments, or paid for antipiracy conglomerates”.

All of URL:scam, URL:phishing, URL:blacklist, URL:etc … are preventive measures on non-software issues that should be OPTIONAL and not mandatory forceful prohibitions.

As of this moment, the above mentioned “threats” completely BLOCK the users ability to access these websites by BLOCKING THE CONNECTION entirely. Without any option to just go through.

Even Google and many other companies “working on their user’s safety” will initially block and sternly WARN users BEFORE allowing them to continue.

With this, Avast has turned it’s malware/virus software into a parental control firewall (no longer an antivirus) to which we the users have no option to opt-out, we either abide by whomever decided (or was bought for) to flag a site as “possibly bad for you… so we will not let you in even if that’s what we’re here for” or you have to turn off all defenses against real SOFTWARE BASED threats (trojan,malware,antivirus,etc…) which is the whole point of having Avast in the first place… not just because a site may be a scam of has may popups that may trick you into doing stuff.

What’s the point of having the “shields” enabled if you are only ALLOWING us to navigate to safe sites ? Wouldn’t we better off just using an Avast recommended list of websites on the internet instead? FFS!!! What’s the point of having a bodyguard that will fend off offenders if you are not allowed outside our home?

Avast is meant to fight against software based threats (malware and virus) and not forbid us to access sites. What’s the point of a vaccine if we are not allowed outside our homes?

TERRIBLE. DISCOURAGING.

Give me back my freedom without taking away my software based threats protection.

All antivirus do is STOP THE ACTUAL threat NOT BLOCK THE ENTIRE WEBSITE.

It’s an antivirus NOT A FIREWALL.

Site in question: https://solarmovie.pe/home

2

The point is layered protection. Nobody can guarantee a 100% detection of downloaded malware - so when it’s known that a particular site serves malware, blocking it makes it more likely to protect you also in the future when the malware may change to evade AV detection (and before the updated file detection is released)

I’m not sure where you heard the rumors that the protection is based on rumors… e.g. URL:blacklist is plain malware, and I believe the other blocks also have an objective foundation. Of course, false positives might happen - but it’s the same with file detections.

3

Precisely my point : " … so when it’s known that a particular site serves malware, blocking it makes it more likely to protect you" – this whole premise is wrong … it’s akin to blocking Outlook or any other mail client just because it contains viruses on a regular basis.

Your job is not to block access to the containers, but to detect and prevent the EXECUTION of software, not it’s container, not the users, not the rest of whatever the virus is embedded onto. Websites just as mail clients, or emails for that matter, may and will contain malware threats, but you are not meant to deny access to the entire container, only the specific piece of software that will cause harm.

Just the same as you don’t deny access to an email with virus: We can read the email and your job is to prevent the execution of the virus WITHIN.

And that’s if we’re talking about actual malware, what about these URL:scam, URL:phishing access deniers ?? What’s the objective foundation to disallow me ENTIRELY from accessing those websites unless we whitelist/exclude them from actual malware protection? … again same thought : Let’s also deny access to email clients (Outlook, Mail, Thirnderbird, etc…) just in case ??? who’s the genius that came with such a great idea.

The detection and warning is much appreciated, but we THE GROWNUPS, should also be able to decide if we want to bypass the parental control for dumb people but still be protected of actual malware threats.

That’s why these URL:(threat)'s should be an option we could opt-out whilst still keeping the actual malware (trojan,malware,virus,etc…) active.

4

If you want you can choose not to install the Web Shield.

5

Thx for participating genius, that’s just like a condom company advertising their product and saying: however you must take the condom off if you know you are about to engage in sex with a possibly ill person … our products are made just for safe sex interactions ?? wtf !!!

6

But you’re the one saying that you only want Avast to stop the viruses, not block access to the websites. If you get rid of the Web Shield, you can still go to the websites without it being blocked or getting a pop up from Avast, and if you do go to a website and get a virus on your computer, Avast’s file shield will (or at least should) detect the virus once it’s on your computer and remove/quarantine it. That seems to be the trade off here but would be closer to what you want Avast to do.

7

Then find another product that work the way you want

8

  1. I’m not talking to you why would you even bother answering such a dumb thing? The non-millenial way is to complain about things to make them better not to rollover and cry.

  2. This a request to improve an (up-till-now) excellent product

9

Web-shield does block malware on the fly, what you are suggesting would allow malware execution.

What I’m asking/suggesting is to have an option to bypass these “URL:” blocks that impede navigation altogether and keep web-shield realtime malware protection … just as it always used to up to a few updates ago

10

I’m not familiar with Avast’s web shield ever providing an option to bypass a block and allow the user to go to a website that it has flagged. If that was the case and changed, it would have been more than a few updates ago.

It is worth noting that Avast will also still block elements of a website it deems harmful and not the website itself. Anecdotally, I remember going to read a USA Today article last month and the Avast web shield alert popped up saying it blocked a completely different website, maybe related to an Ad on the website.

11

In fact no, as as was said at other comment, is layered protection
If no install or disable web protection, you can freely access to any site
But a browser after all to show a site need execute the html or script code, that mean file protection will deal with it (the same shield that work when you open a file at Word or Excel)