Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Other security for Windows, Mac, Linux
Best Free AntiMalware in 2023
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SeriousHoax" data-source="post: 1029735" data-attributes="member: 78686"><p>AFAIK everyone except Avast uses the MITM proxy method for HTTPS scanning where browsers have to trust a self-signed certificate made by the AV vendors. Avast changed their method a few years ago and they use SSLKeyLogFile method where the browsers leak the secret key that is used to secure the HTTPS connection made between the browser and the website server. So, Avast can use this key to decrypt the traffic without breaking the connection. This method is generally less problematic and has less security issues than the MITM proxy method used by other vendors. So, looks like this worked in your favor in your experience with Avast + Adguard combo. Also, Avast with HTTPS scanning is faster than BD, Kaspersky and ESET in my experience.</p><p></p><p>Your AV in this case Avast, B̶i̶t̶d̶e̶f̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ and Kaspersky's web protection will still work system wide. It's just that the HTTPS traffic won't be decrypted. But if you visit a known malicious HTTPS host, it'll still be blocked.</p><p><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">Edit:</span> [USER=19756]@monkeylove[/USER] <span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">Really sorry my info was wrong about this for Bitdefender. Disabling HTTS scanning aka "Encrypted web scan" as it's called in Bitdefender, completely disables scanning of HTTPS traffic. I just tested.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">So, my previous statement is true for Avast (tested again just now) and Kaspersky but not for Bitdefender.</span></p><p></p><p>I see. But if you're a Firefox user all the time then I'll say IMO your current method of using uBO in Firefox is better than using ADG Desktop. Firefox + uBO combo is faster and lighter. ADG desktop could be useful for Chromium browsers in the future if Google don't improve the adblocking limitations of MV3.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SeriousHoax, post: 1029735, member: 78686"] AFAIK everyone except Avast uses the MITM proxy method for HTTPS scanning where browsers have to trust a self-signed certificate made by the AV vendors. Avast changed their method a few years ago and they use SSLKeyLogFile method where the browsers leak the secret key that is used to secure the HTTPS connection made between the browser and the website server. So, Avast can use this key to decrypt the traffic without breaking the connection. This method is generally less problematic and has less security issues than the MITM proxy method used by other vendors. So, looks like this worked in your favor in your experience with Avast + Adguard combo. Also, Avast with HTTPS scanning is faster than BD, Kaspersky and ESET in my experience. Your AV in this case Avast, B̶i̶t̶d̶e̶f̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ and Kaspersky's web protection will still work system wide. It's just that the HTTPS traffic won't be decrypted. But if you visit a known malicious HTTPS host, it'll still be blocked. [COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]Edit:[/COLOR] [USER=19756]@monkeylove[/USER] [COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]Really sorry my info was wrong about this for Bitdefender. Disabling HTTS scanning aka "Encrypted web scan" as it's called in Bitdefender, completely disables scanning of HTTPS traffic. I just tested. So, my previous statement is true for Avast (tested again just now) and Kaspersky but not for Bitdefender.[/COLOR] I see. But if you're a Firefox user all the time then I'll say IMO your current method of using uBO in Firefox is better than using ADG Desktop. Firefox + uBO combo is faster and lighter. ADG desktop could be useful for Chromium browsers in the future if Google don't improve the adblocking limitations of MV3. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top