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
Inactive Support Threads
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
Browsers
Web Extensions
Emsisoft Browser Security
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fabian Wosar" data-source="post: 786101" data-attributes="member: 24327"><p>It depends on how those mechanisms are implemented. The way the extension works is that when a webpage is loaded either in a browser window or any kind of frame, we will check it in the background whether it is malicious or not. The way most of the phishing filters that are part of the browser work is that they check before the website is loaded, so those will be consulted first. It's also the reason why most testers turn it off when testing security products. Products that use a local blocklist, like uBlock for example, will also intercept requests. The problem with intercepting requests, in general, is that it becomes difficult to differentiate between a website and resources on a website (like the pictures on a website for example). If your database is purely local, then verifying every single resource is fine, because it is incredibly fast. Via cloud that becomes an issue, as we essentially add about 50 - 100ms for the check on most systems. Given that pages often include 100 - 150 resources (pictures, CSS, JavaScript, etc.), adding 10 - 15 seconds of online lookups becomes unfeasible.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The extension is solely developed to improve phishing detection in EAM. EAM will install it on the system or suggest installing it on the system, depending on the browser. We are well aware that it won't become a big hit with non-EAM users. So that's completely fine. The protection would be identical whether we send whole URLs to the server compared to what we do now. So why send the whole URL to the server?</p><p></p><p></p><p>We will just add the download handler to the next version of the extension. It will be missing on Edge, since Edge doesn't support the required interfaces, but that is probably okay. It looks like Microsoft stopped approving extensions for Edge anyways, probably because the upcoming switch to Blink/Chromium.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Pretty much, yes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because the only way to access the URL data without messing with all your SSL/TLS connections is as part of the browser.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fabian Wosar, post: 786101, member: 24327"] It depends on how those mechanisms are implemented. The way the extension works is that when a webpage is loaded either in a browser window or any kind of frame, we will check it in the background whether it is malicious or not. The way most of the phishing filters that are part of the browser work is that they check before the website is loaded, so those will be consulted first. It's also the reason why most testers turn it off when testing security products. Products that use a local blocklist, like uBlock for example, will also intercept requests. The problem with intercepting requests, in general, is that it becomes difficult to differentiate between a website and resources on a website (like the pictures on a website for example). If your database is purely local, then verifying every single resource is fine, because it is incredibly fast. Via cloud that becomes an issue, as we essentially add about 50 - 100ms for the check on most systems. Given that pages often include 100 - 150 resources (pictures, CSS, JavaScript, etc.), adding 10 - 15 seconds of online lookups becomes unfeasible. The extension is solely developed to improve phishing detection in EAM. EAM will install it on the system or suggest installing it on the system, depending on the browser. We are well aware that it won't become a big hit with non-EAM users. So that's completely fine. The protection would be identical whether we send whole URLs to the server compared to what we do now. So why send the whole URL to the server? We will just add the download handler to the next version of the extension. It will be missing on Edge, since Edge doesn't support the required interfaces, but that is probably okay. It looks like Microsoft stopped approving extensions for Edge anyways, probably because the upcoming switch to Blink/Chromium. Pretty much, yes. Because the only way to access the URL data without messing with all your SSL/TLS connections is as part of the browser. It is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
