Bug in Smart Security 7 - Web access Protection

[igrikk 0]

In Eset Settings under "Web access protection":

 

You can block some HTTP-Addresses by adding them to the "restricted" list and using a mask.

For example using a mask "*ads*" will block any addresses containing "ads" and potential advertising.

Hovewer this will also block addresses which contain "downlaods" or "uploads".

 

For that reason, as i thought, there is another list which allows you to exclude addresses from filtering.

However, if you add to this list "*downloads*" or "*uploads*",  those addresses will still be blocked.

 

So there is a problem for some reason "restricted list" has a higher priority then "excluded list" which makes no sence.

 

Could you fix this bug in the following updates ???

[Marcos 5,070]

Excluding a mask from from filtering is not recommended as it puts the computer at risk. This option should only be used if you experience an issue while loading the content of a particular website. For filtering ads, use a dedicated program or plugin for your browser.

[igrikk 0]

Still its not the answer to my request. It is still a bug. If eset provides a functionality to exclude a mask from filtering it should work properly, which it doesnt. Whether i use it for blocking ads or not. Imagine me trying to block a domain for example "*loads.com*" and excluding another from filtering like "*downloads.com*". Those functions were put in the program for a reason, and they should work properly.

 

Just because filtering web-addressess isn't commonly used by users doesn't mean it doesn't need fixing, when errors occur. Saying i should use another software to do exactly what a firewall and anti-virus software like eset should do is like saying that eset is not good enough. This should instead be reported and at least looked over by developers.

[PodrskaNORT 17]

@igrikk

 

Please check if following is what you want:

 

  - add for example *net* in blocked addresses

  - add *internet* in allowed

 

www.net.com should be blocked

www.internet.com should be allowed

 

I did not test with *ads* and *downloads* but it should work, too...

 

 

Tomo

[cyberhash 188]

Well using * in front and behind text in any application that allows filters will block anything with the text specified

 

Such as *age* , would block... sausage .... stoneage .....iceage .... aged .. ageism... ect

 

Using filters like that will really cause you problems online, as it will end up blocking loads of sites and pages that you would like to see.

 

Best using something like adblock plus for firefox and subscribe to some of the lists that are available for it, these wont websites that are not AD related

[igrikk 0]

@

PodrskaNORT

 

good suggestion only tried to use "exclude" list.

 

It seems to work now when adding *downloads* and *uploads* to the "allowed" list.   

But i still think it's a bug that adding those masks to "exclude" list hasn't solved this.

 

@

cyberhash

 

yeah.. tell me you will use second antivirus if it happens that eset don't recognize a virus

Edited October 14, 2013 by igrikk

[cyberhash 188]

@

PodrskaNORT

 

good suggestion only tried to use "exclude" list.

 

It seems to work now when adding *downloads* and *uploads* to the "allowed" list.   

But i still think it's a bug that adding those masks to "exclude" list hasn't solved this.

 

@

cyberhash

 

yeah.. tell me you will use second antivirus if it happens that eset don't recognize a virus

 

I thought you were trying to block advertisement websites ?? , ad's are not viruses and no antivirus will block adverts. You need a dedicated AD blocking plugin for your browser to do this   

[igrikk 0]

cyberhash

nice, what next ?? if i use 3 different browsers do i need then plugin for every browser ?

 

its not about blocking ads only its about eset and errors in the program if you had read this topic, you would understand

 

P.S. if you think ads are not viruses then you may think adware or spyware is not harmful too and maybe it should not be blocked by antiviruses too. And where does adware come from ? Right, from advertising sites which may pop-up whether you have popup blocker or not.

Edited October 14, 2013 by igrikk

[SweX 871]

cyberhash

nice, what next ?? if i use 3 different browsers do i need then plugin for every browser ?

AdMuncher is a popular ad-blocker too wich works in many browsers.

hxxp://www.admuncher.com/

[cyberhash 188]

its not about blocking ads only its about eset and errors in the program if you had read this topic, you would understand

 

P.S. if you think ads are not viruses then you may think adware or spyware is not harmful too and maybe it should not be blocked by antiviruses too. And where does adware come from ? Right, from advertising sites which may pop-up whether you have popup blocker or not.

 

I do understand what you are saying but if you are using a wildcard as a mask then its going to mask everything with the text you are specifying.

 

And i would guess that the block list would have a higher priority than the allow list, and this would probably not make it a fault with the software itself.

 

Plugins like adblock plus , or standalone apps like admuncher cant use expansive wildcards and use lists of known ad servers/ip addresses to block the content.

 

Ads by definition are not dangerous otherwise there would be no advertising at all. Yes there are sites that will auto install malicious software , but using a good antivirus and ad blocking software or browser plugin then you will have a really good chance that nothing like this will ever get onto your computer. There is no 100% guarantee and never will be. 

 

I'm only trying to offer you in my opinion the easiest solution to your problems