Ablitiy to block websites without the advanced option.

Discussion in 'Feature Requests (AdGuard for Windows)' started by Venky, Dec 7, 2014.

  1. Venky

    Venky Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    151
    hi, I want adguard to block malicious websites without displaying the advanced option as show in the image below.

    clicking on advanced gives the option of visiting the website, which i don't want.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2014
  2. Dolfi

    Dolfi Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    218
    would have to be part of parental control to disable the advanced options bc AdGuard has to be a helping tool, not a censoring one (the 'educated user' will want to have the option to proceed).
    I for instance hate iceweasel for simply blocking SSL access to some sites w/o giving the option to accept a cert, no matter how shitty the cert was.

    Edit: Besides: I guess you want to have the Proceed Anyway removed, not the Advanced option(s). It can be handy to see at least the 'reasons why'-page (and the discussion).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 7, 2014
  3. Nameless

    Nameless Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    731
    They give you the option to proceed because sometimes its a false positive and people may need to still continue.
    Ive had to ignore it a few times, i really should just disable it.
     
  4. Dolfi

    Dolfi Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    218
    OP is totally right in that a 'parent' would not want to have 'kids' open bad sites and infect systems.
    Option to proceed is necessary to any user but not to anyone being (legally) being protected by [whomever].
     
  5. Nameless

    Nameless Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    731
    What i was saying though is they added the ability to proceed if there was a false positive and i have used it myself in the past. For alot of users though i would recon they would look over it and just click Go Back

    But like i said, if parental controls are activated then yes advanced should be removed otherwise people may still need to visit the site it could be an added option.

    parental controls enabled > sensitivity (your choice including disabled) Disable Proceed anyway [ ]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2014
  6. Venky

    Venky Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    151
    I am sorry if I was not clear in my opening post. But yes I am referring to the advanced/proceed anyway option displayed even when parental control is enabled in users.

    I cannot believe that I missed this during Beta testing phase, but this is a serious flaw which in effect renders parental control completely useless.

    I do have sensitivity disabled. A better option would be for the advanced option to ask for password before proceeding to the blocked website.
     
  7. mysteriously

    mysteriously Beta Tester & Translator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    508
    Yes, you're right :)
     
  8. Dolfi

    Dolfi Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    218
    Nope. You mix up parental control and phishing protection. Parental control works as it should (just check yourself at www.playboy.com (or www.gayboy.com, depending on your preferences ;))).
    Just the protection gives the option to be overridden, not the parental controlled sites (might explain why you "did not see that in BETA").
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2014
  9. Nameless

    Nameless Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    731
    As said though, if parental controls are activated then that option should be removed after all its the children your normally trying to protect from these types of sites i just thought of another feature that could be added to parental controls but, might be going over the top after all this is ment to be an adblocker.

    Anyway the feature is a timer. What it does is allows the parent to set up a timer at which a site will be locked, so lets say i have a child and i say you can play your web based game for an hour. I set up an hours timer and they can enjoy their game then in 50 to 55 minutes a pop up will appear saying you have 5-10 minutes left and continue to count down till the site is locked and a password is required to unlock it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2014
  10. avatar

    avatar Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,895
    Hi @Venky!

    If you use Parental Control than even if you proceed you'll see Parental Control's Access Denied page.

    ---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

    Missed it. Than it's our bug, we should block dangerous pages event if sensitivity level is disabled.
     
  11. Nameless

    Nameless Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    731
    Your best checking it avatar.

    Disabled - warning but allowed
    Early - blocked
    Young - no warning allowed
    Teen - warning but allowed
     
  12. avatar

    avatar Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,895
    We'll check it, looks like another issue - caching sensitivity level check results.
     
  13. Dolfi

    Dolfi Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    218
    The children are protected from unsafe (for children) content. Parental control(led sites) has/have no workaround (except using an 'unknown' browser or simply renaming the executable).
    Just ones computer isn't protected from malicious sites as Proceed Anyway is available despite the parental control being enabled.

    That works already. What does not work yet (but was pretty usefull for multi-user systems) is the final blocking of malicious sites (i.e. no Proceed Anyway available at all, or way better Venkys idea
    Nope, it does not depend on sensitivity level (mine was 'age 10', still could proceed to malicious site) whereas proceeding to 'unsafe' site asked for password.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2014