Author Topic: " HTML:frame-inf"  (Read 7846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lakrsrool

  • Advanced Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 712
  • Get the Picture !
Re: " HTML:frame-inf"
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2015, 08:56:20 AM »
Thank you Asyn.
I anticiapate that once I report it nothing will happen, so I assume then the only alternative is to uninstall Avast and get something else.
I am surprised that there is not a "bypass" setting so that the User can authorise access and override the software.

As far as "authorizing access and overriding a website" (as you put it) this can be done by adding the site to your "Exclusions" list.

I'm not sure why it is that nobody has pointed this out to you but you do have the option to add any website address (I guess in this case it's "wwwpromoter.com") to your "Exclusions list" and Avast Web Shield will then "bypass" (override as you put it) checking for that specific website (URL).

Of course you have to be plenty sure that the website is totally SAFE, since doing this can be dangerous.  Perhaps no one has pointed this out because it's not something you would want to do very often since doing so obviously reduces the level that the Avast Web shield security provides to the extent that you do this.

If this is what you want to do you can do this in Avast2014 by going to "Settings" > "Active Protection" > "Web Shield" options > "Exclusions" > Enter the URL of the website to Exclude (bypass) and Click "Add".
« Last Edit: March 10, 2015, 08:58:04 AM by lakrsrool »
Processor: i3 2.53 GHz 4 GIG RAM, OS: WIN 7, Connection: High Speed, Virus/Malware Protection: Avast-2015, SpywareBlaster, Windows Firewall & Defender. Email: Outlook 2010 w/ POP Peeper Email Notifiers.

Online bob3160

  • Avast √úberevangelist
  • Probably Bot
  • *****
  • Posts: 46569
  • 61 Years of Happiness
    • bob3160 Protecting Yourself, Your Computer and, Your Identity
Re: " HTML:frame-inf"
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2015, 09:24:51 AM »
Thank you Asyn.
I anticiapate that once I report it nothing will happen, so I assume then the only alternative is to uninstall Avast and get something else.
I am surprised that there is not a "bypass" setting so that the User can authorise access and override the software.

As far as "authorizing access and overriding a website" (as you put it) this can be done by adding the site to your "Exclusions" list.

I'm not sure why it is that nobody has pointed this out to you but you do have the option to add any website address (I guess in this case it's "wwwpromoter.com") to your "Exclusions list" and Avast Web Shield will then "bypass" (override as you put it) checking for that specific website (URL).

Of course you have to be plenty sure that the website is totally SAFE, since doing this can be dangerous.  Perhaps no one has pointed this out because it's not something you would want to do very often since doing so obviously reduces the level that the Avast Web shield security provides to the extent that you do this.

If this is what you want to do you can do this in Avast2014 by going to "Settings" > "Active Protection" > "Web Shield" options > "Exclusions" > Enter the URL of the website to Exclude (bypass) and Click "Add".
There is a drastic difference between what you suggest and what was actually done for the user by Avast.
Your method can potentially lead you to an infected site since you've created an exclusion for a site that was blocked.
Submitting the site to Avast, allows that site to be analysed and only removed if fount to be safe.
Free avast! Security Seminar: http://bit.ly/2N1eaR2  -  Important: http://www.organdonor.gov/ -- My Web Site: http://bob3160.strikingly.com/ - Win 11 Pro v21H2 64bit, 16 Gig Ram, 1TB SSD, Avast One 21.11, How to Successfully Install Avast http://goo.gl/VLXdeRepair & Clean Install https://goo.gl/t7aJGq -- My Online Activity https://bit.ly/BobGInternet

Offline lakrsrool

  • Advanced Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 712
  • Get the Picture !
Re: " HTML:frame-inf"
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2015, 04:10:15 PM »
Thank you Asyn.
I anticiapate that once I report it nothing will happen, so I assume then the only alternative is to uninstall Avast and get something else.
I am surprised that there is not a "bypass" setting so that the User can authorise access and override the software.

As far as "authorizing access and overriding a website" (as you put it) this can be done by adding the site to your "Exclusions" list.

I'm not sure why it is that nobody has pointed this out to you but you do have the option to add any website address (I guess in this case it's "wwwpromoter.com") to your "Exclusions list" and Avast Web Shield will then "bypass" (override as you put it) checking for that specific website (URL).

Of course you have to be plenty sure that the website is totally SAFE, since doing this can be dangerous.  Perhaps no one has pointed this out because it's not something you would want to do very often since doing so obviously reduces the level that the Avast Web shield security provides to the extent that you do this.

If this is what you want to do you can do this in Avast2014 by going to "Settings" > "Active Protection" > "Web Shield" options > "Exclusions" > Enter the URL of the website to Exclude (bypass) and Click "Add".
There is a drastic difference between what you suggest and what was actually done for the user by Avast.
Your method can potentially lead you to an infected site since you've created an exclusion for a site that was blocked.
Submitting the site to Avast, allows that site to be analysed and only removed if fount to be safe.

What I am suggesting is if a person is absolutely certain beyond any doubt that there cannot be any risk and the issue is persistent as far as avast flagging the site then it is an option the user can take.  Point being, there is no reason to even have an option available to the user at all to elect to add an "exclusion" if we are to say don't ever do this. I would agree that this may not be the case here as far as absolute certainty, but the option is available to users hence I'm pointing this out.

Let me give you some real life personal examples that I've had that would apply to this discussion:

1) I had one of my own personal websites blocked by Avast in the past.  I knew there was no risk so I excluded the website.  Yes if I recall correctly I took the time later to let Avast know about my website, but I knew there was zero risk and if I recall it was not a site with much traffic (relatively new) so I wasn't in a hurry to report it anyway as it was developed.

2) I have also had a software application (executable) that I wrote which maintained all of my passwords that I used.  For some reason Avast would always alert me that my application was a "threat".  Possibly  because the VB6 code I used had references to the text "password" or for some reason Avast considered the path to either my executable or data files as "suspicious".  I initially did not feel a need to contact Avast considering the fact that the application was entirely mine and was resident only on my personal computer so it was not something that would impact the community in any way, however I did eventually get around to reporting it but if I recall Avast continued to block it for some time after that when I had taken the time and checked back by removing the "exclusion" to see if anything was done on Avast side and I found that Avast remained persistent in continuing to consider my software application a "threat" anyway. Bottom line, I knew in this case it was safe so I excluded it since in my case there was absolutely no risk under the circumstances.  This was back around 2002 so it's been a long time (I stopped using my application when my hard drive failed on that desktop and I lost part of the code and never bothered to rewrite it) so I can't recall if I either excluded the path to the executable or I excluded the process name (possibly both) but I did find it helpful to have these options available to me in my case.

And I would add lastly,

3) There have been rare examples (can't recall specifics of the top of my head) that I knew beyond a doubt I was getting a "false positive" so it was expedite for me to use the "Exclusion" option in these rare cases from time to time.  Of course the "false positive" was always resolved in due time and I would report this to Avast when I had the time.  And of course this is clearly not recommended for the casual user, but for the sake of expediency for users who know what they are doing it can be a helpful option.  It is of course imperative that the user is completely aware of valid file paths and aware of valid file names essential to the OS when dealing with anything beyond personally known factors.

Your absolutely correct to say that the "Exclusions" option should ONLY be used with the up-most caution and the user better know what they are doing of course (and just as you pointed out, generally advisable to report to Avast when appropriate).  Which is why you might notice that I included the following in my post:
Quote
Of course you have to be plenty sure that the website is totally SAFE, since doing this can be dangerous.  Perhaps no one has pointed this out because it's not something you would want to do very often since doing so obviously reduces the level that the Avast Web shield security provides to the extent that you do this.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2015, 05:47:19 PM by lakrsrool »
Processor: i3 2.53 GHz 4 GIG RAM, OS: WIN 7, Connection: High Speed, Virus/Malware Protection: Avast-2015, SpywareBlaster, Windows Firewall & Defender. Email: Outlook 2010 w/ POP Peeper Email Notifiers.

besmith01@btinternet.com

  • Guest
Re: " HTML:frame-inf"
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2015, 06:18:38 PM »
Thank you everyone for the assistance, it really is appreciated.
Be sure I will only use the "exclusion" option if absolutely necessary and will take every precaution.