Please provide comments and solutions that are helpful to the author of this topic.
This middle option is the default settings.
Interesting. Like I said in my earlier comment, if the extension is not installed, then browser have to wait for Kaspersky to inject a script into every webpage which in theory could take some additional time. I guess the lack of waiting with the extension installed increased your browsing speed. I never properly tested it as having the extension highly increases CPU usage of Kaspersky on some websites for me. But great to know that it helps with the speed. Try testing with and without the extension on multiple sites to be 100% sure, and let us know what you find. In AV-Tests, website loading section Kaspersky has always been one of the slowest. But maybe the performance has improved very recently.
While I had this working for a few weeks without trouble, yesterday I noticed that one site where I had added a certificate scan exception updated its certificate, thus nullifying this configuration. Meanwhile, on the machine running Kaspersky, this continued to work since I could add the exception based on the URL, instead of the certificate.
After running Kaspersky with Firefox and its extension for a few weeks, I can say it does speed things up compared to without the extension. I've also not observed any CPU usage spikes, so I can also say it's working properly.
I believe Kaspersky has more sophisticated technologies compared to ESET, which may cause slightly longer check times. Kaspersky Standard and Safe Kids have no noticeable slowdown on our SSD and HDD systems, but I don't enable HTTPS scanning.
Don't have ESET on my VM at the moment so unable to verify by myself. You may follow this guide. In the guide below it shows the method of putting addresses into "List of addresses excluded from content scan". Instead you put your sites in the "List of allowed address" section and see if it does what you're looking for.
No, this is not related to more sophisticated technologies. Different engine, different technology, different filtering driver, different optimization many things can contribute to this. We can not know for sure. But in simple term, ESET's HTTPS scanning is more optimized for their product. Avast in my experience is the fastest at HTTPS scanning, then ESET then Kaspersky.
Thanks. Unfortunately, that doesn't exclude the url from being intercepted by the HTTPS scanner, as the certificate issuer changes to ESET's instead of the original provider.
Yeah, that's what I thought too. I guess websites won't change certificates until it's near the expiry date.
I meant the sophisticated technologies you stated—different but intricate. And maybe Kaspersky is running more checks or seeking additional factors that could lead to a small decrease in performance. However, I agree with you; we cannot know for sure.
copyprogramming.com
malwaretips.com
If I remember correctly, enabling this particular option from Kaspersky's Intrusion Prevention makes Kaspersky not scan HTTPS websites at all. I mean, if you visit a malicious/phishing HTTPS website that is blocklisted by Kaspersky, then it won't be detected. Protection will be working only for unencrypted HTTP websites for that particular browser.
Do you some list of test sites I could try? I've just found some, and I got a detection:
That looks like an unencrypted HTTP website. Try a HTTPS one. I don't remember if the extension has an impact.
Sorry didn't notice this at first. One of the easiest ways would be to search something like "Norton Crack" on Google and it will find many fake Norton craks. Most of the sites are blacklisted by most products. The site themselves usually don't contain any malware hence they are allowed by Google Safe Browsing, SmartScreen and may even bypass some AV product's blacklisting. So, it's safe to visit them on your main PC but preferably in browser's private/incognito mode.
I had no idea of that, especially since their update files are usually so small.
