Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nickoftime" data-source="post: 1008246" data-attributes="member: 5940">That&#039;s the point of this thread, to NOT use them. The problem isn&#039;t about trusting AV providers in general (never claimed they are &quot;evil&quot;), but with this particular man-in-the-middle practice which has become the norm, essentially breaking end-to-end encryption. No software should do this, not even AVs. Just my opinion, of course.It has become almost impossible to find a well-known AV that does not perform this, so I was willing to consider AVs that only do this optionally but only under the condition that they would still offer strong web protection. Not easy to evaluate this.Not sure what you mean. I was never worried about the lack of HTTPS interception, since it would be the exact opposite of what this thread is about. My questions on Defender were always on the presumption that it does NOT perform HTTPS Interception.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nickoftime, post: 1008246, member: 5940"] That's the point of this thread, to NOT use them. The problem isn't about trusting AV providers in general (never claimed they are "evil"), but with this particular man-in-the-middle practice which has become the norm, essentially breaking end-to-end encryption. No software should do this, not even AVs. Just my opinion, of course. It has become almost impossible to find a well-known AV that does not perform this, so I was willing to consider AVs that only do this optionally but only under the condition that they would still offer strong web protection. Not easy to evaluate this. Not sure what you mean. I was never worried about [U]the lack[/U] of HTTPS interception, since it would be the [U]exact opposite[/U] of what this thread is about. My questions on Defender were always on the presumption that it does NOT perform HTTPS Interception. [/QUOTE]

Verification