Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: balm on November 28, 2010, 04:02:18 AM
-
my understanding is when accessing gmail directly thru the IE, with the gmail settup as https (instead of http) Avast has nothing to do with it, thus we rely on gmails own webmail scanning before it arrives - i assume also this applies if the mail is not downloaded, thru "work offline"
also i understand if we set up gmail in the mail client (Windows Mail) and access it there, the mail is downloaded to the computer, and thus Avast goes to work on it (with proper configuration,mail shield, and maybe file shield)...
1. are my understandings above correct?
2. my question is a basic, is it better (safer) to access my email directly on the web, or thru Windows Mail (with Avast running of course)?
thanks
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=66536.0 (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=66536.0)
-
link=topic=66695.msg562714#msg562714 date=1290913338]
my understanding is when accessing gmail directly thru the IE, with the gmail settup as https (instead of http) Avast has nothing to do with it, thus we rely on gmails own webmail scanning before it arrives - i assume also this applies if the mail is not downloaded, thru "work offline"
also i understand if we set up gmail in the mail client (Windows Mail) and access it there, the mail is downloaded to the computer, and thus Avast goes to work on it (with proper configuration,mail shield, and maybe file shield)...
[/quote]
You assumptions are correct. Web-based mail is scanned my Gmail security software, and mail that arrives at your address via a web-mail client is scanned by avast.
It is safer to access mail from free clients via the web, clients such as hotmail or Gmail, because they are liable for the security of the attachments, and that is why they make sure that they are no viruses, because if there were, it would damage their credibility.
Hope that helps.
Cheers
The Dude 321.
-
@ The Dude 321
Please go to PROFILE then Modify Profile then Forum Profile Information then select your country in Please select your country: then update your Signature: with information like my signature as this helps the helpers offer pertinent advice.
@ balm
You need one more post to enable you to update your PROFILE
-
thanks Dude,
ok YoKenny, here it is then 8)
1.so if someone sends me an attachemnt and i access it thru gmail, that attachment is more secure than if avast had scanned it?
2. also, why then do i read that for any mail information of personal nature its better to NOT use webmail, or is this another issue?
thansk
-
I would get rid of McAfee Site Advisor as it is not very good and even rates sites with known malware as safe. ::)
Finjan Secure browsing is much better. :)
http://securebrowsing.finjan.com
1. True
2. This is another issue and webmail is as secure as Gmail or Hotmail provide.
-
To me it's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. I think both ways would be equally secure. I prefer to centralize my email accounts with an email client. I use Outlook Express but Outlook, Windows Mail or Thunderbird (if you can get it to work, I never could) are other alternatives.
-
I believe there is a gmail add-on for thunderbird, here are a few of them from a little search, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/search/?q=gmail (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/search/?q=gmail).
-
This is another issue and webmail is as secure as Gmail or Hotmail provide
im a little confused,
1. so how is NOt using webmail, more private ?
2. what is the safest, most private then, is this using (logging into) your ISP account?
3. what about the mail client, does accessing Gmail thru there any safer when compared to any of the above?
4. so whats the point in ever using Mail Shield?
so many questions i know, so much to learn thanks
-
1: A question of keeping your data local or cloud based, and which you prefer. Some would say web mail is an invitation for corporate snooping. Others would say this is just more FUD spreading.
2: Infinitely debatable. No clear answer.
3: Possibly you are getting a little more safety this way. Gmail scans with 2 engines, last I checked, adding Avast! mail shield would be a little more protection. More of the same type. Treading the line of unneeded redundancy, perhaps.
4: To protect yourself if you choose to use mail client software.
Follow the old gold standard of not opening any unknown mail, especially unknown attachments. Common sense and learning from others misfortunes are still your best defense, whatever you choose.
-
if your interested this explains the complexities of the security no matter waht method:
The Lack of Security in Email
Email is inherently insecure. In the following sections, we will see just how insecure it is. At this stage, it is important to point out the insecurity in the email delivery pathway just discussed:
•Webmail: If the connection to your Webmail server is “insecure” (i.e. the address is http:// and NOT https://), then all information including your username and password is not encrypted as it passes between the Webmail server and your computer.
•SMTP: SMTP does not encrypt messages (unless the servers in question support opportunistic TLS encryption). Communications between SMTP servers may send your messages in plain text for any eavesdropper to see. Additionally, if your email server requests that you send your username and password to “login” to the SMTP server in order to relay messages to other servers, then these are also sent in plain text, subject to eavesdropping. Finally, messages sent via SMTP include information about which computer they were sent from and what email program was used. This information, available to all recipients, may be a privacy concern.
•POP and IMAP: The POP and IMAP protocols require that you send your username and password to login; these credentials are not encrypted. So, your messages and credentials can be read by any eavesdropper listening to the flow of information between your personal computer and your email service provider’s computer.
•BACKUPS: Email messages are stored on SMTP servers in plain, unencrypted text. Backups of the data on these servers may be made at any time and administrators can read any of the data on these machines. The email messages you send may be saved unexpectedly and indefinitely and may be read by unknown persons as a result.
-
Yokenny
Finjan Secure browsing is much better.
http://securebrowsing.finjan.com
when i tried downloading it doesnt work witth Windows 7?
-
when i tried downloading it doesnt work witth Windows 7?
It works fine for me on Windows 7 with IE9.
-
my understanding is when accessing gmail directly thru the IE, with the gmail settup as https (instead of http) Avast has nothing to do with it, thus we rely on gmails own webmail scanning before it arrives - i assume also this applies if the mail is not downloaded, thru "work offline"
also i understand if we set up gmail in the mail client (Windows Mail) and access it there, the mail is downloaded to the computer, and thus Avast goes to work on it (with proper configuration,mail shield, and maybe file shield)...
1. are my understandings above correct?
2. my question is a basic, is it better (safer) to access my email directly on the web, or thru Windows Mail (with Avast running of course)?
thanks
I use Thunderbird (IMAP) for all my accounts, including GMail, and I don't see how it can be anything but safer to have avast! scan incoming mail as it is accessed by the client in addition to the protection inherent in GMail.
-
...it is accessed by the client in addition to the protection inherent in GMail.
Says all, doesn't it...
asyn
-
YoKenny,
from finjan:
Q: How do I know if my browser and operating system are supported by Finjan SecureBrowsing?
A: Finjan SecureBrowsing supports the following:
Operating System
•Microsoft Windows XP Home (Service Pack 2)
•Windows 2000 (Service Pack 4)
•Windows Vista
Web Browser
•Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or 7.0
•Mozilla Firefox 1.5 and above
so i assume this is outdated....
when download it gave me a similar message, some attempts it would tell me to retry if unsuccessfull with recommended settings???, finally i saved to desktop, then ran it, after 2 attempts it seemed to work
in the browser it acts strange, each time i change pages, it adds more and more of the rating icons up to 6 of them, and the more information option is always blank??? not giving me much confidence its working.
-
gargamel360, Vladimyr, Asyn, thanks all for your help, im getting better understanding...
1. i guess i was thinking if Avast MailShield isnt set up properly, or misses something, then the mail thru mail client is more risky since its downloaded to computer, as opposed to webmail...is this incorrect?
2. my ISP (sympatico) say its safest to access mail thru them, directly or thru mail client, either case as compare to webmail, what???
-
so i assume this is outdated....
It does need to be updated.
in the browser it acts strange, each time i change pages, it adds more and more of the rating icons up to 6 of them, and the more information option is always blank??? not giving me much confidence its working.
I notice that when I do a Google search sometimes but I ignore it.
Have you un-installed McAfee SiteAdvisor as having both is redundant and can cause problems with Finjan Secure Browsing.
I use Sympatico as my ISP and I use Windows Live Mail 2011 for regular POP3 and Hotmail but not for Gmail that I use natively as I have never needed to set it up:
How to Access a Gmail Account in Windows Live Mail
http://email.about.com/od/livemaildesktoptips/qt/et_get_gmail.htm
-
To me it's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. I think both ways would be equally secure. I prefer to centralize my email accounts with an email client. I use Outlook Express but Outlook, Windows Mail or Thunderbird (if you can get it to work, I never could) are other alternatives.
If you are using Firefox you can use Addons for Yahoo, Hotmail and Google mail
The Addons work for me. They notify you on the FF taskbar if any new email has arrived at those accounts. You then just click on the iocon and it takes you to the webpage for Yahoo, Hotmail or Google email respectively.
The downside is that you have to open the respective webpages though they can be opened in a separate tab to read your email whereas Thunderbird will pop up the incoming message header while you are in FF.
The upside is that they work and there is very little setup that even a five year old can do.
One other downside is that addons; i.e. extensions in FF use memory. How much memory these addons in particular use I do not know.
-
I use Thunderbird (IMAP) for all my accounts, including GMail, and I don't see how it can be anything but safer to have avast! scan incoming mail as it is accessed by the client in addition to the protection inherent in GMail.
This is also the case with Outlook Express. I use it for GMX, Gmail and Hotmail. I also can retrieve Yahoo mail using a little program called FreePops. When I check the headers for my GMX mail in Outlook Express, it says that the mail was scanned by both the antivirus in GMX (Norton although it doesn't actually say that) and Avast!. I turn off the Spam filters at the websites and let SpamFighter handle that in Outlook Express. The setup works very well and It also works the same way with Windows Mail or Outlook. Thunderbird I could never get to work with all of my mail providers. I get all my mail via POP3 though. I've never used IMAP.
-
YoKenny,
i cant trust Finjan, everything is green check marks, not a single red mark, also a few of the ones MCAffe flagged as dangerous are green with finjan, what???
also not loading correctly on Windows 7, could my IE setting be causing aproblem, never had any issues before....
-
I use WOT instead of Mcafee or Finjan.
http://www.mywot.com/
What do you guys think of that add-on?
-
I use WOT instead of Mcafee or Finjan.
http://www.mywot.com/
What do you guys think of that add-on?
It's too user biased, imo...
asyn
-
Finjan SecureBrowsing is not supported in Firefox 3.6.12. I don't use IE, so I cannot comment on that.
-
I use WOT instead of Mcafee or Finjan.
http://www.mywot.com/
What do you guys think of that add-on?
It's too user biased, imo...
asyn
Finjan SecureBrowsing is not supported in Firefox 3.6.12. I don't use IE, so I cannot comment on that.
And then we only have Mcafee next to webshield of Avast... :(
-
And then we only have Mcafee next to webshield of Avast... :(
I'm not sure, what you want to achieve...??
The webshield blocks dangerous sites, what else do you want/need..??
asyn
-
And then we only have Mcafee next to webshield of Avast... :(
I'm not sure, what you want to achieve...??
The webshield blocks dangerous sites, what else do you want/need..??
asyn
I like it when i use Google or Bing that I can see in the results if the site is trusted or not.
It stopes me from going to bad sites before the webshield kicks in.
See this link from Gizmo's:
http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/best-internet-safety-check.htm
They can explain it better than me.
-
YoKenny,
i cant trust Finjan, everything is green check marks, not a single red mark, also a few of the ones MCAffe flagged as dangerous are green with finjan, what???
also not loading correctly on Windows 7, could my IE setting be causing aproblem, never had any issues before....
No problem for me so maybe your IE settings are the problem but I do not use IE8 on Windows 7 any more:
http://securebrowsing.finjan.com/statistics.html
This may be of help:
Reset Internet Explorer 8 settings
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-CA/windows-vista/Reset-Internet-Explorer-8-settings
-
See this link from Gizmo's:
They can explain it better than me.
Sorry, but why shoud I read a link, while you are the one to tell what you want/need...??
asyn
-
I use WOT instead of Mcafee or Finjan.
http://www.mywot.com/
What do you guys think of that add-on?
Never have used any of them ;D
-
YoKenny,
when i manually force the page refresh, the multiple check mark icons, become single marks again....i played with the temp. internet files memory setting , but it doesnt help, i still have to click the refresh icon to make the finjan check marks reduce to a single mark per
-
Are you clearing out IE Temporary Internet Files Cache (TIF) ???
I keep IE TIF clean quite often with CCleaner.
-
i deleted temp files under tools-options-browse,
and did developer tools - cache- refresh from server
and used ccleaner
i think i tried a few ways to delete, one object remained...???