get rid of network shield option (redundant)?

[Theblob]

so yeah since no one knows what network shield does exactly & the question never really been answered so far, its clear now that the network shield aint really a useful option. so is it possible to get rid of the option in later releases? it just complicates things more


btw network shield only checks for KNOWN malicious sites - but who cares about those, since its the UNKNOWN sites that matter the most. in other words network shield aint got no heuristics or "smart AI" of any sorts to detect suspicious code for unknown sites, so it just clogs up memory with its list of known sites. bug deal
so it can be safely disabled 

[DavidR]

Why are you spreading this over three topics are essentially it is the same thing you are asking.

Essentially you are trying to cripple avast to save some RAM and that isn't wise, RAM is cheap, security isn't.

[igor]

If NetworkShield is able to deal with an infected site by simple checking the URL against a database, then there's no point in trying to detect the code on that page. So, that "heuristic" detection may not be present (saving the CPU and memory, if you wish). So, if you disable Network Shield, you get infected.

[Theblob]

If NetworkShield is able to deal with an infected site by simple checking the URL against a database, then there's no point in trying to detect the code on that page. So, that "heuristic" detection may not be present (saving the CPU and memory, if you wish). So, if you disable Network Shield, you get infected.

so in other words network shield only useful against known bad sites?

in that case I can disable it cause most threats are unknown (websites change all the time anyway)

[schmidthouse]

If NetworkShield is able to deal with an infected site by simple checking the URL against a database, then there's no point in trying to detect the code on that page. So, that "heuristic" detection may not be present (saving the CPU and memory, if you wish). So, if you disable Network Shield, you get infected.

so in other words network shield only useful against known bad sites?

in that case I can disable it cause most threats are unknown (websites change all the time anyway)

Your logic is flawed.

[DavidR]

The overhead from the network shield is minuscule, detections by the web shield eventually result in a site being added to the malicious sites list and would be blocked by the network shield.

There is no holy grail shield, all are working together to provide protection in depth.

[igor]

If NetworkShield is able to deal with an infected site by simple checking the URL against a database, then there's no point in trying to detect the code on that page. So, that "heuristic" detection may not be present (saving the CPU and memory, if you wish). So, if you disable Network Shield, you get infected.

so in other words network shield only useful against known bad sites?

in that case I can disable it cause most threats are unknown (websites change all the time anyway)

I didn't say that... I don't know exactly what processing the Network Shield does, and I don't really care. As I said, even if it were the case now, it may change in the next virus definition update.
What I'm saying is that the protection assumes the shield is there - other, possibly unknown, websites may be redirecting traffic to these sites (there's a lot of redirecting in the malware world) - and when we find out, there's no reason to add another detection (read: "tweak heuristics if it doesn't detect it already") if the payload is actually covered by the "stupid" Network Shield already.

Besides, "known" and "unknown" to you may not be the same as known and unknown to us. We have quite a broad infrastructure and we can deliver the updates of the database (via streaming updates) within minutes, possibly less.

So if you are looking for a heuristics that solves everything - well, good luck with that. Real-time updates and good/fast data sources are quite efficient as well.