Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: sithisak on February 27, 2011, 04:05:53 AM
-
Hello, Forum ^_^
I testing avast 6 free version and in Site Blocking Feature i found it can't block https:// protocal
ex. https://www.facebook.com or https://www.twitter.com (i want to block my children to access site)
Type site in list same this image and go to browser. Type https:// avast can't block site because
in list read it http://https://www.facebook.com. How to fix it?
Thank you, Avast Team :)
-
I don't know why it adds the http, one possibility is that since this relates to the web shield and the web shield doesn't monitor https traffic (it can't secure, encrypted) so it may think it should have http in front.
However you are making life difficult for yourself as *facebook.com/* should cater for all of those instances http://facebook.com www.facebook.com or https://facebook.com.
OK I tested that mask and it works for the first two, but not for the https connection because as I suspected the URL Blocking uses the web shield to achieve this blocking and as stated the web shield doesn't monitor https traffic.
So you could try blocking this in your firewall or in your HOSTS file.
-
Thank you for trick :) work right now
Cheer up! Avast :D
(http://poto.cyberwakeup.com/images/arx1298802493n.gif)
-
And make sure you set up a password for you're Avast settings so the kids cannot take and control you're Avast settings ;) to remove the block site feature set up 8) 8)
So you could try blocking this in your firewall or in your HOSTS file.
+1 I agree with DavidR
-
Thank you for trick :) work right now
Cheer up! Avast :D
you are blocking http://ads* , does it block all ads?
-
Thank you for trick :) work right now
<snip>
You're welcome.
However, you should use the mask that I showed *facebook.com/* note the / after the com and before the *. This ensures that it is actually facebook that is blocked and not a facebook sub-domain of a different site, for example facebook.comcast.com I don't know if this is a legit name (just an example).
There must be tens/hundreds of thousands of domain names beginning with com and they might have a sub-domain relating to facebook, but isn't actually facebook.com. So I try to be careful in the use of URL masks as they can have unforeseen circumstances.
-
Thank you for trick :) work right now
<snip>
you are blocking http://ads* , does it block all ads?
@ akshayk29
Please modify your post (button to the right of your post), and remove the image link as I did in my post and in your quoted text, there is no need to repeat the image every time of the topic gets very long.
However in answer to your question, the answer is NO as there are too many permutations for ads URLs. This URL mask is poorly constructed, not likely to be very effective/efficient and is likely to trap sites that have nothing to do with adverts, those with domain names beginning with ads.
Ads blocking is a specialist task and for that most browsers have ad blocking built in or you can use an extension, AdBlock Plus for firefox. Or use a HOSTS file manager they are much better at this sort of thing.
-
Or use a HOSTS file manager they are much better at this sort of thing.
+1
-
Thank you for trick :) work right now
Cheer up! Avast :D
(http://poto.cyberwakeup.com/images/arx1298802493n.gif)
you are blocking http://ads* , does it block all ads?
Yep, is work block in word " ads " all link. :)
-
hehe It works! I typed in ad and now it blocks everything that contains ad, so ad.youtube.com blocked :D
-
hehe It works! I typed in ad and now it blocks everything that contains ad, so ad.youtube.com blocked :D
add these and now all your ads are blocked!!!
http://ads*
http://ad*
-
If you think that all internet ads delivery functions all start with this string (if only it were so easy), I'm afraid you are in for a surprise, there really are better tools out there.
There is also no need for the first mask if you have the second one, as that covers that catered for by the first.
See images, which is a very small sample of the lists in adblock+ for firefox. The first image whilst it has ad in the first two characters, there is no guarantee that it will be proceeded with http :// So if that happens your mask won't work and putting a wildcard in place of the http :// would make it too general and trap many legitimate sites.
The second image shows just a few that don't even have add in the string at all.
-
one thing i hate about adblockers is that they are not available to chrome!!
-
That is hardly the adblockers fault.
Chrome has taken a long time to start to build up extension support (that is what stopped me using Chrome), but now there is a reasonable level of support I would check again and see if there are any now.
-
that's why chrome is not no.1 in browser wars
-
That is hardly the adblockers fault.
Chrome has taken a long time to start to build up extension support (that is what stopped me using Chrome), but now there is a reasonable level of support I would check again and see if there are any now.
Chrome has Adblocker support.
AdBlock
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en
Adblock Plus for Google Chrome™ (Beta)
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb?hl=en
It is still better to block ads with the HOSTS file.
-
I just added
*ads
*ad
and I'm happy. I find no ad that wasn't blocked by avast! site blocking feature. I'm not the active internet surfer so I don't need whole list of blocked ads. All youtube ads was blocked so far.
-
Just adding what you did shouldn't make any difference as there is no * at the end, so all it would trap would be URLs ending in ad or ads and I rather doubt that would be any as it ends in a file type, .htm, .gif, .php, etc. etc.
Adding an * at the end would also trap lost of legit sites with ad or ads anywhere in the URL path.
Using wildcard masks have to be treated with care.
-
can you tell me how can I block ads by hosts file?
-
can you tell me how can I block ads by hosts file?
Adding lines redirecting the sites of the ads to 127.0.0.1.
Or you can use HostMan to manage your hosts file automatically.
-
can you tell me how can I block ads by hosts file?
Adding lines redirecting the sites of the ads to 127.0.0.1.
Or you can use HostMan to manage your hosts file automatically.
thank you,but i use mvps host file onhttp://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm)
-
It is still better to block ads with the HOSTS file.
thank you,no I am using mvps hosts file which blocks all ads.Adblockers make the browser slow.Because I have a 256 mb ram,I can't afford them.I love the hosts file of MVPS http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm It is simple yet innovative
-
Because I have a 256 mb ram,I can't afford them.
Running XP with only 256MB RAM must be painfull. :'(
-
That is hardly the adblockers fault.
Chrome has taken a long time to start to build up extension support (that is what stopped me using Chrome), but now there is a reasonable level of support I would check again and see if there are any now.
a long time :D the extension system started a few months (setp 2009) after Chrome 1.0 got released (in dec 2008). What's a long time? ;D
that's why chrome is not no.1 in browser wars
you must be kidding ::)
Chrome is getting an extra 1% of browser market share every month. It reaches 11% now, repeatedly reducing the gap with Firefox that went down from almost 25-30% world wide to 21% now.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0
ps: IE market share is decreasing constantly as well
edit: think Chrome is only two years and 3 months old, 11% is not that bad ;D
-
That is hardly the adblockers fault.
Chrome has taken a long time to start to build up extension support (that is what stopped me using Chrome), but now there is a reasonable level of support I would check again and see if there are any now.
a long time :D the extension system started a few months (setp 2009) after Chrome 1.0 got released (in dec 2008). What's a long time? ;D
that's why chrome is not no.1 in browser wars
you must be kidding ::)
Chrome is getting an extra 1% of browser market share every month. It reaches 11% now, repeatedly reducing the gap with Firefox that went down from almost 25-30% world wide to 21% now.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0
ps: IE market share is decreasing constantly as well
edit: think Chrome is only two years and 3 months old, 11% is not that bad ;D
i agree that its good, but why some people don't prefer it is because it has lack of customisation and personalization.Don't reply me that it has launched its themes or extensions.You can't edit a single browser button (like back forward reload etc.) :'( :'( :'( while making a theme for it . Every software developer when he develops a browser extension or plugin,he ignores chrome e.g.(norton safeweblite,mcafee siteadvisor,webrep) why?????????????????????????
one day,there was a race between IE8 and a SNAIL,guess who won?
SNAIL
-
@akshayk29 lol ;D
ps: as to what I reply, I'll decide about that ::)
-
Your solution is not working. I did try it and it seems to work, but when you clic back the browsers (chrome, iexplorer, firefox) shows the page with htpps.
Have you think how work it out? Thank you all.
-
Read the my very first reply, this won't work, as the web shield is used to block and it doesn't monitor https connections.
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=72416.msg603925#msg603925 (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=72416.msg603925#msg603925)