web shield extension list

[miscreant]

What would be a comprehensive extension list to use in the web shield rather than the default scan all files?. Im finding the all files option slightly slows my browsing down on my old spec computer and would like to the scan extensions option ,but am unsure of exactly what extensions to put in ,other than the obvious exe ,scr etc,
tia
miscreant

[DavidR]

Htm/l documents can be just as dangerous as any exe file, if it has an iFrame tag, that can import and execute data we are seeing infected jpg files, etc. so the list could be long and not fol proof. I feel you are better off using the Sensitivity of Web Shield rather than any custom list.

I have the sensitivity set to High on Web Shield and I see no noticeable slowing and I'm on dial-up, If you have the sensitivity set to Normal that provides a compromise between performance and protection.

You don't tell us much about your system, CPU RAN, connection, etc. ?
What is your firewall does that also scan content ?
What other security based software do you have ?
e.g. Spybot S&D (TeaTimer), AdAware (AdWatch), SpySweeper, PrevX, WinPatrol, etc.

[Lisandro]

What would be a comprehensive extension list to use in the web shield rather than the default scan all files?

Htm/l documents can be just as dangerous as any exe file, if it has an iFrame tag, that can import and execute data we are seeing infected jpg files, etc. so the list could be long and not fol proof.

I would have asked the same question...
David is always right, but, just for sure, Igor, can you confirm this? Thanks.
David, nothing personal, you know 

[miscreant]

Htm/l documents can be just as dangerous as any exe file, if it has an iFrame tag, that can import and execute data we are seeing infected jpg files, etc. so the list could be long and not fol proof. I feel you are better off using the Sensitivity of Web Shield rather than any custom list.

I have the sensitivity set to High on Web Shield and I see no noticeable slowing and I'm on dial-up, If you have the sensitivity set to Normal that provides a compromise between performance and protection.

You don't tell us much about your system, CPU RAN, connection, etc. ?
What is your firewall does that also scan content ?
What other security based software do you have ?
e.g. Spybot S&D (TeaTimer), AdAware (AdWatch), SpySweeper, PrevX, WinPatrol, etc.

Hello...David

Im using p3 ,733mhz,256 ram w98se on 1 meg dsl connection.I use outpost firewall 3.51 with active content ,ads ,and content plugin enabled,and firefox with noscript extension..Im using web scanner on normal setting and it does slow down browsing a little.I am using the default extension list for standard shield also as i dont really think scanning all files is of any added benefit.I guess i just answered my own question as in standard shield i see the list of extensions scanned ( i didnt notice that before until i just checked what settings i was using).I guess putting those extensions in should be ok?
tia
miscreant

[DavidR]

No problem, I'm happy if official confirmation can be given but, I'm not sure what it is you are asking confirmation about, iFrame tags and or html documents.

If it is about html with iFrame tags then the .dhtml (dynamic by their nature) could also prove a risk, as could .asp (active server page) pages as in either case you don't know what the content might be of if it can execute code.

[Lisandro]

No problem, I'm happy if official confirmation can be given but, I'm not sure what it is you are asking confirmation about, iFrame tags and or html documents.

I want a list of possible extensions IF it's better than to scan all files.

[DavidR]

Hello...David

Im using p3 ,733mhz,256 ram w98se on 1 meg dsl connection.I use outpost firewall 3.51 and firefox.Im using web scanner on normal setting and it does slow down browsing a little.I am using the default extension list for standard shield also as i dont really think scanning all files is of any added benefit.I guess i just answered my own question as in standard shield i see the list of extensions scanned ( i didnt notice that before until i just checked what settings i was using).I guess putting those extensions in should be ok?
tia
miscreant

Well as you can see from my signature I also use Outpost Pro, I have disabled many of the plug-ins as they can ad an overhead, I have the following disabled, Anti-spyware, Active Content, Content and Attachment Quarantine. With the exception of the last they could all impact on your browsing causing possible double scanning.

Whilst I have dial-up which is slow so avast would have lots of time to scan content it may be slightly different with a 1MB download but, there are many avast users with much faster connections they don't seem to suffer as much with this. Whilst your system is up to the job having more memory could help overall system performance.

Setting the default list that is in standard shield would be a start but since HT* is there that would include htm and html files.

@ Tech
That would be good and IF it is better how about also having the option to use a default list in web shield like standard shield rather than have to input them manually.

[miscreant]

Thanks for reply...
I dont use any dedicated spyware scanner as such so im inclined to leave the outpost spyware plugin enabled.To be honest my browsing is quite fast.Its only since this morning that i installed the web shield ,that i noticed a lisght slowdown to the usual..I have been running with just mail and standard shield.Since i installed the web shield this morning ,browsing slowed a little.However switching on the computer and browsing again , i havent noticed that much of a slowdown scanning all files.Its either a placebo effect or cached pages.Ill tey putting in the extensions later and see if it makes a noticable difference.
miscreant

[DavidR]

Well Outpost uses a version of AdAware for its anti-spyware and that can scan lots of file during boot, that causes avast to also scan these files causing duplication and extended boot duration. So you could use other options for anti-spyware that are on-demand scanners, not resident using system resources, valuable in your case.

If you haven't already got this software (freeware), download, install, update and run it.
1. Ad-Aware
2. Spybot Search and Destroy
3. Spywareblaster Don't install this until you are clean.

[miscreant]

I have adaware as a backup on demand scanner.Spybot is just way to heavy in resources for 98 these days.I thought outpost spyware defs were actually from its tauscan trojan scanner than from lavasofts adaware?My boot u p time isnt that bad at all ,though as i mentioned i do have avast standard shield to only scan extension lists rather than all files.The more im browsing the less im noticing any web shield slowdown,so i think im gonna leave it at scan all files.I have noticed that the "task name" used in all three modules i.e standard shield,email scanner and web shield says "resident scanner".Does this mean its using the standard shield settings anyway?
tia
miscreant

[Lisandro]

I do have avast standard shield to only scan extension lists rather than all files.

I suggest do not scan ALL files on open/create/modify on Standard Shield.
It will degrade your system performance.
It's enough the Nornal level.
All files could be scanned at WebShield provider (not Standard Shield).

Does this mean its using the standard shield settings anyway?

There are settings for each provider...