(2) Conflicts with other commonly used software, some of which I had on the PC, and many people complaining about it online.
Judging from Woody’s cover story, maybe “slow” is a Norton defining attribute? I replaced it with Webroot, that takes some 5 minutes, so now I scan the PC twice daily every day. So, being a lazy busy person, I would scan maybe once a week. Took more than half an hour to scan my PC every time, even when I had used it to scan the day before. Maybe not exactly on topic, but close: I had Norton Antivirus for several years, and finally got rid of it because of the following: But even if true, seems like this one is still on Norton, for a couple of reasons:ġ) if a bad ad is served–in good faith by an established site through a legitimate ad network–sure, blackhole the bad ad & associated domains/ip addresses/redirects/downloads/etc, but maybe NOT the established site acting in good faith.Ģ) if you do s***w up and throw a false positive on a pretty-obviously-NOT-malicious site, maybe don’t take _two weeks_ to correct the false positive! Fwiw, took me ~30 seconds on virustotal(.com) to double-check (good news, woody, virustotal shows _NO_ scan engines (0/68) having any problems with your site–all show GREEN & CLEAN)! Norton’s warning is a classic false positive, generated by an aberrant algorithm.Īs the Askwoody page being reported is obviously clean, it’s possible the triggering event that generated the warning was a bad ad that made it through the ad network. A quick glance at the page shows a handful of links to Microsoft sites. Identity Threat / Phishing Attack in location/on page Norton Safe Web is saying that there is an
0 kommentar(er)
