I actually have a few reasons not to use the WebShield (in no particular order):
- The WebShield intercepts HTTP(S) traffic before it reaches the browser and acts like a man in the middle that assures that the traffic is safe. This is good but it also introduces a few trust issues, specially when we consider HTTPS and its SSL chain of trust. And yes, I do know that I can just disable the WebShield for HTTPS but at that point it's kind of pointless to keep it just for HTTP with so much of the web traffic today being HTTPS based (which is a good thing, and in fact I even use the HTTPS Everywhere extension in my browser)
- I have a feeling, at least a few versions back, that the WebShield causes some minor issues. Possibly because it inspects all HTTP(S) traffic, whether it comes from your browser or not (yet again, I do know that I can restrict it to look JUST into traffic coming from known browser processes). I often felt some overall system sluggishness, specially while browsing the web. I don't feel like slowing down my PC just because of it. Well, in fact, I'm unsure if the slowdown is noticeable or if it is just a placebo effect. But as long as I'm not risking (too much?) my security, I'm ok with gaining performance through a bit of placebo effect
- I feel that the WebShield is somewhat pointless if the File System Shield does its job effectively. First of all I also have uBlock Origin on my browser with anti-malware filters, which should keep me away from most known sources of malware. Besides that, if the file happens to reach my file system, I'm counting on the File System Shield to alert me once it gets there, or at the very latest, whenever I try to execute something suspicious. I don't care (too much) if an infected file happens to reach my hard disk as long as it never gets a chance to get executed or harm my computer. Sure, I'm betting ALL on the last line of defense, but either way if the same file got to my computer by other means (other than an HTTP(S) download) I would have to rely on that protection as well.
I'll edit the list if something else comes to my mind. And I do know that this is somewhat off-topic, but given that CyberCapture seems to work with ONLY with the WebShield, I think that it's relevant to show the avast! team that there are valid reasons not to use the WebShield, and for the users that choose to do so this new CyberCapture technology is simply useless
.
Also, just as a disclaimer, I'm currently NOT using Avast. I'm using Windows Defender on Windows 10 since the Anniversary Update. Not that I had any specific problem with Avast and the update. But I had a few other problems with drivers and one of the things I tried while troubleshooting was getting rid of Avast. So, for the last few weeks, I just kept Windows Defender running. I've yet to have any problems. In fact, I RARELY get any detection with ANY antivirus I use (I play it safe and I'm able to avoid most threats). Still, I somewhat feel that I would feel more at peace if I'd use a security product from a specialized vendor, such as Avast.
That was why I've been looking to get Avast back installed, but while I was thinking about it I decided to learn more about the Nitro Update and that was when I also learned about CyberCapture. I found this topic when I was searching about how did it work and I was kind of disappointed to find out that it wouldn't work for me since I usually only use the File System Shield. Therefore, the Nitro Update has actually decreased my theoretical level of protection, since before it I at least had DeepScreen with Avast NG enabled, but that was replaced with CyberCapture which only works with files that come from the web as detected by the WebShield. So, I've been considering just keeping Windows Defender for the time being. It seems "good enough", simple, unobtrusive and light (Avast now claims to be lighter than Windows Defender, but I'm a bit skeptical... maybe as light as, but surely not substantially lighter).
