So what, the wording 'completely unsafe' it completely incorrect, no matter if it can be viewed or not.
Without complicity or stupidity on the part of the user then the safezone is perfectly fine. Not to mention this can't be a targeted attack, random IP address or visiting a hacked/malicious site (not so likely when using the safezone, web shield and network shield), so pot luck on what AV is installed and if avast, does/is the user have Pro/AIS and happens to be running the safezone at that time.
Too many coincidences required here for it to be that the safezone is 'completely unsafe,' the topic title being a play on words safezone being completely unsafe and an over dramatisation (FUD)
The same statement could be made of avast (and other AVs) if you apply the same logic, the users inadvertently gives permission for software (malicious) to be installed and run on their system. Typically fake AV, that generally requires the same degree of complicity on the part of the end user.
For those users very little will protect them when they act like this.