The Norton thing- to clear up my thoughts i couldnt on the support thread

So i just downloaded the beta again...
and took a look at insight :  

I expected to not gain a comment on this...
But i had to make clear that the most comments in the SD support threat must have been directed at 2012 products or below.
The scareware software that DOC pointed to was from 2011 and a standalone free product, I respect DOC highly since he has actually knowledge about what he writes. And even he agreed that Nortn has improved lately

As already mentioned i was never speaking about 2012 or below products from Symantec I even pointed that out, what it said was that 2013 Norton AV is a huge step forward for Symantec and can’t be compared to older versions since it was completely rewritten. But the whole brand was bashed instead of a version number.
I can´t be positive about something like that if I would agree I would be also forced to say that the first beta of windowblinds8 was shit simply because the taskbar transparency didn’t work for ME.
Did I do that..NO! because it was not necessary and because it was sure to be fixed…

I wanted to give another comment into the support threat today but since i already received a fair warning that it is a "support topic" i did not.

I respect everyone’s opinion on the topic, but lately I have read on a lot of brand bashing around here, sometimes like in this case based on old or wrong info.
To tell you the truth i don’t like that.
Even though this site is about customization I expected a bit more respect to other company´s since I’m sure SD wouldn´t like the same propaganda around their products or tips to be giving out to leave software in the shelves so they get what’s going on.
As mentioned in the end of the OT above- why not pass out betas to be approved if it causes that much trouble would seem more professional and would give your customers a better experience.

This part is an example ( mocking and should not be taking serious ) while its based on a real experience
I installed public WB8beta that included Fences as adware.
Fences on windows8 is so slow at boot up that I can drive around the block to pick up cigarettes until it has loaded it´s fences- what’s even worse is the fact that support was contacted about this:
the advice given was : 
If you right click the desktop, once you can, speed up Fences loading?
After i received this answer i tested and responded that this did not help at all and if there are any more suggestions:
So i tried your Suggestion and restarted the pc when the Desktop was still loading i right clicked the desktop with the mouse but nothing changed it still Needs a lot of time to load up any other suggestions ?
Never got another response... ( see the following as blackhumor ) So i should tell all my friends to leave Fences in the shelves that will show them!?

If I wouldn’t be a customer and have trust in you guys that would be probably what I would do.

What this is about :
I’m sick of false info... i see it all day when I turn on the TV when I speak to co-workers or when I go voting don’t need that shit around my favourite sites as well 
if I did i could go and read Bild or watch FOX.

 

When you install Windowblinds it doesn't pop up a message suggesting Norton "is not safe".

Norton sees no issue in questioning the integrity of what it calls 'unknown files' .... even when it may have an actual HISTORY of knowing [BEING TOLD] that they ARE safe.

Antivirus software that is perhaps sloppily written uses the ideology....when in doubt...assume the worst.

"is not safe" is English for "is dangerous".

Antivirus companies think they are exempt from slander/defamation because they prefer to be SAFE AND NEVER SORRY.

Now...in the ONLY defense you will hear for Norton.... their more recent products are better.  They HAD to be, because their old stuff was pretty ordinary.  Whan an AV can kill Windows' BITS service rendering you unable to effect repairs...and you had 2 options.... a lengthy several-page step by step process of cmd line fixes and registry alterations or ...IF YOU HAD IT run a re-install of SP2 via disk ....remembering of course to also do likewise with SP1 [it may have been 3 and 2 - it's been a while]... you know you have a program with a FUNDAMENTAL fault in coding.

Older vers of Norton were often the hardest 'pest' to eradicate from an OS - worse then the Virii they didn't catch.

Now, you can defend Norton or whatever program you like...but remember it is ONLY AV programs that are apparently happy to falsely accuse other legitimate programs of being "not safe".

The phrase "false positive" is just as annoying in programming as it is in medicine .... just ask Doc ...;)

 

OK...who's waking me up this time. Oh. Jafo.

It annoys me endlessly, and the patients who get unnecessary treatment, more. False negatives are just as bad...for the opposite reason.

 

Rolo, Jafo's right about this. Norton has been a "Schmerzen in den Arsch" since it doesn't differentiate well enough in its filter code. Maybe try "Whitelisting" Stardock's programs. Honestly, there is no malware present.

Better yet, get rid of Norton, it is nothing but a pain in the rear and always has been.

'I assume you mean Norton 2010 running on Vista that required a [removal tool] or regedit and i agree that is not how a AV is supposed to work...
I´ve heard that you hate Norton and to be honest i couldn’t stand Norton for a long time as well mainly bc it slowed down your pc and did not work the way it was supposed to.
But i would need to lie if i would try to equate all versions of Norton AV... im trying to be fair

When windowblinds installs it doesn’t question Norton- 
I understand what you mean with that Jafo but i rather get a fair warning with the ability to choose on my own risk if i want my system to be potentially infected if the file doesnt have a signiature of its [origin]* i think that may be the problem ! take a look at the first screenshot company stamp however is displayed.
If Norton 2006-2012 handles that differently and blocks you completely from recovering that file - that is something different however i have the choice to view and choose what i want to do with the file on 2013.

 
However i do understand and agree in this case- luckily this can be fixed with directing issues like this to the root... fixing stuff together is always better than blaming one half for not doing the right thing or giving the advice not to go for a product or the right medicine 
would you agree the hand in hand method would be the better option to take ? 


As far as i remember older versions i agree but currently i have to say not this one...from the view point of an enduser 
i want to add that there was no "malware alert" in either of those DL for me just a warning that the file is unknown ( i may translate it wrong : reputation alert )

[After rethinking this may be what Jafo meant in the first place with not taking responsability* If you choose to install it anyway its your fault and not Nortons
Yeah from a point of view of a AV this is not the right way something like a deep scan for malicious code would be in order then or the option to upload the file online to a platform like virus total or gathering more info about its origin and reputation... that would make it whole and truly protecting ] May change this since its just a quick thought i had before taking my dog for a walk

No...it was 2003 on XP....and there was no 'tool' back then. Norton KILLED the BITS... preventing it from being restarted.  Normal methods of restarting services, etc was inoperable. Norton simply 'fucked' Windows' ability to ever access the MS essential file updating service....something fundamental to ALL MS OS vers....;) 

All of our installers are digitally signed using valid certificates signed by trusted root CAs, same as is used for SSL/TLS.

 

The problem lies in the fact that most users don't make (or understand) the distinction. If their AV gives them a scary warning, that to most means 'it has a virus!'.

 

Exactly....what I was aiming at...Kryo said it more simply....;)

I stand by my very simple, easy to understand reply #1 on the support thread. 

Don't tell Yrag, but I work on PCs for people, and I get the joy of removing Norton quite often. Even with their tool, it isn't easy and there is still plenty in the registry that I have to go manually remove.

 

Lots of Norton and Symantec parts left behind.

 

Nuff said.

Mhh that is strange since it was not for Fences as you can see in the OT-screenshot 
(yellow box says that the program is known  has many users and is reliable )
(red box underneath says downloaded from unkown origin)


The other screenshot states WB DL orgin from stardock.cachefly.net
So my first guess would be SDC ? will test it later... im almost sure that there is a connection to it.
Since its the only [missing] info for insight everything is alrighty. Just would like to know why folks got that scare message in the first place since this only happend to the beta as it seems and the beta had fences added.
 

mhh good point... 

To be honest my XP memorys are a bit blurry cant remember but i trust you on this one...I thought it was v2006 that blew it and gave it its reputation...
Must read about this... but i assume it deleted essential parts because of a wrong detection so that you were unable to update anything at all, ( service pack of windows ) if im correct the only way to resolve this would be via CD/HDdisk... but then isnt it also responsable for machine to machine input...ehh something to read up on sunday

Yes, because without BITS you cannot DL the packs from MS ...so if you do not have an alternate means to get them...or don't have the disks it means a re-install of Windows from the ground up.

It is the sort of quaint 'mistake' that guarantees you will forever be leery of ever using a product from them again.

Back in the 90's Litestep had a similar reputation for 'apparently' hosing an OS....but in their case it was a simple missing dll file...replace it and all was well....however when people got the message "You must reinstall Windows" on their screen there was always going to be a wee panic....;)

So even a privateer's/open source shell replacement program was less painful than Norton.

I also remove Norton and McAfee for all of my clients at no additional charge. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/31/symantec-gets-a-black-eye-in-chinese-hack-of-new-york-times/

Norton has been a PoS since 2000.  It always amazes me how many magazines place it in their top 5, which IMO just goes to show that spreading around enough money will keep you on top.

People need to wean themselves off of AVG as well.  AVG program has been sucking post 2009 when they decided to turn it into a suite.

 

read up upon it this morning - And yes not having control over these services would lead me to a fresh setup since im a guy that wants a running system not a half broken one...even tho it could be fixed with reversing SP step by step the by far easier method would be to install windows from ground up with service packs included.
However i did not find a article that lead to Norton2003 that blamed Norton only for it... i did find the error code 0x8024001E for it in combination to a service pack install most of the refered times...   
Would be nice if you could point me into a Symantec specific page would like to know more about it. TY in advance

nice did you read the whole article ? 

may I ?: Symantec’s track record in the Times appears worse still. But it’s worth noting that its peers would likely have been equally useless: The security firm actually outperformed most of its competitors in the most recent tests by German antivirus testing firm AV-Test, which gave Symantec a rating of 5.5 out of 6 for protection of Windows 7 in its latest enterprise antivirus analysis, a better score than McAfee, Kaspersky, or Microsoft.  T

I use 2013 myself and i would not go and say i install total crap on my machine...im not having unprotected onenightstands in the www so to say... but im aware that even with AV installed im not safe if shit hits the fan
*little umbrella
I get it Norton failed to protect them but these attacks were not casual nature these attacks were aimed and it’s likely that a exposed backdoor was used
let us get back to the article:
It’s not clear exactly what lesson companies can draw from the Times‘ penetration. The paper’s chief security officer Michael Higgins says he suspects the breach began with a highly-targeted email sent to unwitting employee and containing an infected link or attachment–a difficult sort of attack to prevent. But at the very least, it shows that antivirus protection alone barely represents a speed bump to determined hackers. [ Jupp ]

Also at the very end : Correction: A previous version of this story stated above that Mandiant “found that only 24% of the custom malware it found on its clients’ systems hadn’t been detected by antivirus,” when in fact it was meant to read “had been detected by antivirus.”
*CUSTOM   - i know that is 76% that it did not detect - but i guess on such a breach Norton was trashed already - But still something nice to read on Sunday morning was funny i like how they can’t decide what to say they say its shit and that competitors also probably would be shiet in the same situation but still gave Norton credit in the middle.

 

Oh I'm sure Norton went out of its way to bury its balls-up.  Keep searching...you'll find it.

I have no interest in wasting time with Norton.  I dumped almost a year's worth of subscription once I found the AV proggy had done me more damage than good.

I graduated to Bitdefender and Norton was dumped in the trash both figuratively and really.

Prior to Norton I was a beta tester for another company's AV program, and since BD I moved on to Kaspersky....and have no incentive now to go anywhere else....;)

Haha alright i guess i should ask a support guy about this / kidding...
guess if something in the chat log would be found that an employee claims that the Norton product destroys background intelli transfer services occasionally would lead into working not at all for anyone in the same business for in near future.

I will find something... will also post it here if i do so... 
heard Kaspersky would be good was aiming for it also when i switched plates sadly it wasn´t window8 ready when i needed a AV for8...   

 

Cachefly is used for all of our direct downloads and has been since back when Impulse first came out (IIRC). It is a common CDN used by many other companies. The only exception now are the trial versions that link off CNet or similar.

 

I can't read German, but nothing I've translated off that screenshot appears to actually refer to the digital signature (which funny enough, is countersigned by Symantec themselves). You can view it and the certificate in the file properties.

 

 

As Neil has pointed out before, the sensible approach for a reputation system would be for the reputation data of all files sharing that signature to be shared. After all, files don't have reputations... people do. If a certificate gets compromised and is used to sign bad code, then it needs to be revoked anyway, because then it no longer provides non-repudiation.

That is plenty for me not to use Norton. Flagging software that they themselves certified. 

I only provided one example of Norton sucking.  I could easily cite 50 sources of where it failed for each positive review.  I work in IT and deal a lot with virus issues and also do my own annual evaluation of the products available.  It sounds to me like you're just trying to justify the money you spent for a PoS Anti-Virus application.  Now if you're using the Enterprise version of Norton (that AV-Test used), that's a completely different product than what the home user buys off of the shelves and IS a decent A/V.  Again, completely different technology than the boxed/free crap Symantec sells.

Another reason I steer clear of Norton is that not that long ago they were heavily invested in by the Chinese Gov't.  I don't feel like funding Communist countries, so they don't get my money.
https://www.facebook.com/AmericanMovement

AV-Test is interesting and moderately reliable IMHO.  None of the major magazines (PC World comes to mind) have any credibility for reviews as they're in the pocket of their advertisers.

 

Strange..........some very experienced IT Managers that I know feel that Norton has come along way over the past few years with their products and the version that we use at home - as opposed to the Enterprise Symantec Product that they deploy on their networks - is pretty damn good and up there with anything else you can buy. 

hey there just came back from my holiday trip and i brought some goodys aswell will take a little to get them to my pc since i havent unpacked yet i just hope that they got good.
Anyway i will respond a bit later i just couldnt find the time.=)