blackice

Level 27
Verified
Don't use https filtering. This break all your https security and integrity!
Although I would largely agree, it isn't necessarily as bad as the haters make it sound. Most security software the MiTMs certificates just move the trust to that software. They generally ignore EV certificates and other prominent certs (so they aren't snooping on your banking), and do check for cert validation/expiration/other issues. I know AdGuard filters all certs, and I also feel more comfortable with the browser being the termination point, I also feel there's a lot more to it than the HTTPS scanning downers state.
 

Chri.Mi

Level 7
I do realise that, however IVPN has an anti-tracking feature in addition to it being a VPN, it also has two levels. Apart from it being the finest VPN east of the Mississippi ;);)
I would not trust antitracking in vpn, for me sound like this:
antitracking:vpn=privacy:avast :ROFLMAO:
 

DDE_Server

Level 21
Verified
This means Adguard will MITM the encrypted HTTPS connection between the server and your browser. It needs to do this for it to block ads properly. Some AV like Kaspersky, ESET, Bitdefender does this too by default to scan webpages.
HTTP is not encrypted so it doesn't require such method.
Yes for http is this not encrypted but @security123 was talking about blocking this connection through adgaurd application but I find https only so I suggest to block port 80 in the firewall to for that purpose as I think all browser must support also porting in 443 for https that the only method I mag think of it
Yes many AV do that I think one was of reason of slow browsing using Kaspersky is that it installing it's certificate and decrypt https connection. For packet /traffic inspection
 

Chri.Mi

Level 7
Public wifi when traveling. And geo-restricted streaming. Not many other reasons. Unless you don't trust your ISP, but they have ways of watching anyway.
Geo-restricted streaming for what i know can be bypassed by doh.
Cant give opinion about wifi public in travelling, but if i understand correctly much extension give anonimity, block tracking,etc
 

DDE_Server

Level 21
Verified
If it's for some specific apps and services that don't use HTTP on port 80 then it's alright but blocking port 80 system wide for all apps isn't recommended.
yes but i don't think of any other app using port 80 except of web browser for web server request
may some torrent file
any popular app if connecting to its server such pdf reader "for example for update" /torrent client may need it should be through encrypted protocol "HTTPs" for security purposes. i don't now if you could block port 80 for specific app through windows native firewall may need 3rd part app to accomplish this task
 

SeriousHoax

Level 29
Verified
Malware Tester
yes but i don't think of any other app using port 80 except of web browser for web server request
may some torrent file
It's not the case. Actually even Windows Update uses port 80 along with port 443. So, it shouldn't be blocked system wide.
i don't now if you could block port 80 for specific app through windows native firewall may need 3rd part app to accomplish this task
It's possible to block ports for specific apps via Windows Firewall.
 
Top