Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: mevcit on October 28, 2008, 07:52:18 PM
-
Hi.
Script blocker has a problem on Vista. Although I choose the option "Show splash windows on startup", the script blocker window doesn't appear when I run IE 7. I also turned off UAC, and there is still no splash window. On the other hand when I choose the option "Show detailed info on performed action", I can see the information of script blocker actions at the bottom right corner. So I think the module works. But I want to see the window. Will the problem be fixed soon(with the new version)?
Thanks.
-
Yes, this is a known thing.
IE 7 runs in Protected Mode on Vista (see your status bar) and Script Blocker won't work in this situation.
-
Yes, I know that, the protected mode is active on Vista by default. But I've already turned off UAC. When I turned off UAC, the protected mode automatically turned off. I mentioned in my message above that I turned off UAC. So the protected mode isn't active (the status bar says this :) ). And also I disabled the option about the protected mode (in IE settings) although this option has no importance, because UAC is passive. However still the splash window doesn't appear. So I'm waiting for a response to this issue.
On the other hand when I choose the option "Show detailed info on performed action", I can see the information of script blocker actions at the bottom right corner. So I think the module works.
And what do you think about this? Does this situation show that the module works?
-
Turning off UAC isn't a good idea, It makes Vista even less secure than XP. Also you might want to check out this thread:
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=35814.0
-
Thanks for your suggestions. I don't want the UAC alerts all the time. However I found some configuration settings for UAC, if we set it as "no prompt" by regedit, there will be no alert anymore for most applications that need approval. But the important changes for system area (for instance, changing HOSTS file) and some more actions (for instance, extracting an archive file to "Program Files", "WINDOWS", "Users", etc. folders directly) still aren't allowed. And these preventions occur automatically as well. So it is logical to use UAC in this mode after the necessary changes to the system by the user. Therefore I decided to use UAC with this way.
And I've found out the answers to my questions by myself. There is no splash window function of script blocker module of Avast on Vista. Hence, absence of the splash window doesn't mean that the module doesn't work.
I selected the option "Show detailed info on performed action" (in script blocker settings), and I got the information of script blocker actions at the bottom right corner when the protected mode is off (as I said before). But I didn't get the info of script blocker when the protected mode is on. So we can say that script blocker works when the protected mode is off, and it doesn't depend on the splash window.
We can turn off the protected mode by IE settings when UAC is on. People who don't want to turn off UAC but want to use the script blocker can turn off the protected mode by IE settings. Besides, I should remind that the protected mode can't be active when UAC is off (even the option is selected in IE settings).
Thanks for your interests. :)
-
mevcit, which is safer?
Protected Mode of Vista or Script Blocker of avast on Vista? ???
-
Hi Tech.
Sorry for the late reply. I think you wanted to say "Protected mode of IE" by saying "Protected mode of Vista". But you are right, the protected mode of IE is safer. Now I am using the home version of Avast. Hence, there's nothing to decide between the protected mode of IE and the script blocker. :)
And UAC is also a safe application as marc57 said. Before, I was using UAC with a registry change as I mentioned. Now I'm using it with its full functionality (that is, with no registry changes). I am not complaining with the UAC windows anymore. :)
I am happy with my system now, I think this is the ideal. :) Thanks for all of your interests.
-
But you are right, the protected mode of IE is safer.
I never made this statement, just was asking a question. I'm not sure which is more protected: the Vista (or IE) protected mode or the Script Blocker running.
-
I thought you meant by that question that the protected mode of IE is safer. Anyway, I still think it is safer. But it is difficult to evaluate them separately since they have different functions. Therefore I evaluate them with my security combination. For instance, Avast has Web Shield and it can do what script blocker does. However, the work done by the protected mode of IE isn't done by the other security softwares. The protected of IE can prevent some installations, changes, etc. that are done by the web sites and occur automatically in the background. For these reasons I say the protected mode of IE is safer.
-
... For instance, Avast has Web Shield and it can do what script blocker does ...
It's not that simple. Recent trends in java script malware shows increasing amount of script obfuscation which can't be fully handled by the web shield alone. The Web Shield guards most of ways how a script can be delivered to a browser but the Script Blocker keeps the eye on all script code passed to the java script machine.
-
I see, thanks for the info mafist. :)
-
The Script Blocker keeps the eye on all script code passed to the java script machine.
Is there a way (like eicar) to test the Script Blocker on Vista?
I never saw it in use...
-
As you said, you can use EICAR (http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm) and save it as a *.js file. Then you have to pause or turn off the standard shield. The execution of the file shows a virus in "a script started by ...\WScript.exe".
In this case the Script Blocker wouldn't be necessary, but the script might be packed in the source file, so the standard shield wouldn't catch it. A script virus could be also somehow generated on runtime and then passed to the java script machine.
-
Thanks mafist, tested and worked.