If you know someone who worked on Norton...
-
And free... It's scary when you first install it. Suddenly, even ZoneAlarm's tirade of alerts seems like a trickle, when there's suddenly alerts for components in programs that I never knew anything about.
Need Another Seven Acronyms...
Confused? You will be... -
And free... It's scary when you first install it. Suddenly, even ZoneAlarm's tirade of alerts seems like a trickle, when there's suddenly alerts for components in programs that I never knew anything about.
Need Another Seven Acronyms...
Confused? You will be...And I worked there :rolleyes: ? Hehe I was about to join them, at the last moment I changed my plans. Only through their offer, I came to know about their product :-D. Btw you've tried BitDefender? Feedbacks say it's the best one around now. :~ The version 8 of BD is a free. The File-Usage/Net-Usage graph it displays is a wonderful idea. Quite little display. Like BitDefender.
-
...please, please smack them upside the head for me. We finally figured out a random problem we have been having with people visiting our website. For no easily explainable reason certain menu links where just missing. Their page would otherwise render normally. The links were just static anchor tags. No fancy javascript. They weren't dynamically created at runtime. Turns out the people who wrote Norton are EVIL! One menu item that was consistently missing when the problem arose was a link named "My Company" which directed the user to "/Advertiser/default.aspx". Pretty simple, no? The problem is that Norton considers this to be a banner that should be blocked. Why? Because the folder name is "Advertiser". Well, excuse us Norton! The people using the system are advertisers. They advertise in our printed magazines. So, please, smack 'em hard. Three times! Once, because they are blocking words en-masse that may be entirely legitimate. Twice, because they give no visual indication that anything on the page has been altered by Norton. Thrice, because this feature is part of their "Spam Blocker" and what they are blocking ISN'T SPAM! :mad::mad::mad: You probably want to check the web for a list of things these creeps are blocking by default. You can be affected if you do something as simple as putting "?adv=" in a URL.
A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer. - Mitch Hedberg
-
...please, please smack them upside the head for me. We finally figured out a random problem we have been having with people visiting our website. For no easily explainable reason certain menu links where just missing. Their page would otherwise render normally. The links were just static anchor tags. No fancy javascript. They weren't dynamically created at runtime. Turns out the people who wrote Norton are EVIL! One menu item that was consistently missing when the problem arose was a link named "My Company" which directed the user to "/Advertiser/default.aspx". Pretty simple, no? The problem is that Norton considers this to be a banner that should be blocked. Why? Because the folder name is "Advertiser". Well, excuse us Norton! The people using the system are advertisers. They advertise in our printed magazines. So, please, smack 'em hard. Three times! Once, because they are blocking words en-masse that may be entirely legitimate. Twice, because they give no visual indication that anything on the page has been altered by Norton. Thrice, because this feature is part of their "Spam Blocker" and what they are blocking ISN'T SPAM! :mad::mad::mad: You probably want to check the web for a list of things these creeps are blocking by default. You can be affected if you do something as simple as putting "?adv=" in a URL.
A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer. - Mitch Hedberg
Tom Welch wrote:
Turns out the people who wrote Norton are EVIL!
And who would complain if AV software was not doing this and a hacker decided to come in through the "advertiser" door?
Tom Welch wrote:
Once, because they are blocking words en-masse that may be entirely legitimate. Thrice, because this feature is part of their "Spam Blocker" and what they are blocking ISN'T SPAM!
And just how are they supposed to know that? If a word/phrase can be used for both good and bad, they are just erroring on the side of caution. If they didn't, folks would then complain that they are not doing enough (to catch the obvious things).
Tom Welch wrote:
Twice, because they give no visual indication that anything on the page has been altered by Norton.
What visual indication would you want. Most folks do not want to be bothered with every little thing that their AV software is doing behind the scene. They just expect it to do its job and move on. If something does indeed need attention, that's different.
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
Isn't that Mike Dunn ???
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I think so. Either way, I wasn't knocking Mike ( who I think rocks ), I was more saying 'hey, cool people can find they have ended up working on bad products'.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I think so. Either way, I wasn't knocking Mike ( who I think rocks ), I was more saying 'hey, cool people can find they have ended up working on bad products'.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Ah, I mine some data here. When I attended an interview with Norton, first question they asked me was if I know WTL. Well I said "NO", they said "Sorry". Not saying the entire Norton runs on WTL, but I guess they do use it wherever possible. And about Mike, He is for WTL what Nish is for CLI. :-D may be get had to get into WTL when he worked with Norton?:^) umm just a guess.
-
I think so. Either way, I wasn't knocking Mike ( who I think rocks ), I was more saying 'hey, cool people can find they have ended up working on bad products'.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
lol. too late Mike, you did it. Tar and feather for Mike please ^^
[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]
-
I think so. Either way, I wasn't knocking Mike ( who I think rocks ), I was more saying 'hey, cool people can find they have ended up working on bad products'.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
I was more saying 'hey, cool people can find they have ended up working on bad products'.
Granted, but I hope after having been smacked upside the head that person, in turn, smacks someone else in the head and that it travels up the management chain. Somewhere along the way the person responsible will get his due. ;)
A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer. - Mitch Hedberg
-
Tom Welch wrote:
Turns out the people who wrote Norton are EVIL!
And who would complain if AV software was not doing this and a hacker decided to come in through the "advertiser" door?
Tom Welch wrote:
Once, because they are blocking words en-masse that may be entirely legitimate. Thrice, because this feature is part of their "Spam Blocker" and what they are blocking ISN'T SPAM!
And just how are they supposed to know that? If a word/phrase can be used for both good and bad, they are just erroring on the side of caution. If they didn't, folks would then complain that they are not doing enough (to catch the obvious things).
Tom Welch wrote:
Twice, because they give no visual indication that anything on the page has been altered by Norton.
What visual indication would you want. Most folks do not want to be bothered with every little thing that their AV software is doing behind the scene. They just expect it to do its job and move on. If something does indeed need attention, that's different.
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
Interesting counter-questions, but ultimately the whole idea is rather moot. Hackers aren't going to come through the "advertiser" door because once the hacker is aware of Norton's default list of publicly available terms they won't use those terms anymore. It's a losing battle on their part. Norton could have done a lot more to reasonably determine that my link was not something it should ignore. First, the link was a relative link to a resource on the same site as the page itself. If that isn't a safe assumption then nothing is safe to assume. Any web server can retrieve, funnel, or redirect content internally and forward it to the client. As for visual indication... anything would be great. Norton is no stranger to barraging it's users with popups, flashing icons, or toolbar status messages. They could put a yellow block in place of the replaced content. They could pop open a little tip bar like everything seems to be doing these days. My initial venting has run its course and I'm better for having gotten it out of my system. But I have to look at Norton and scratch my head. What do they accomplish? The people they are trying to stop can easily rename, redirect, and otherwise hide their spamming, bannering intentions. It's the innocent bystanders (page viewers and web developers) that suffer from being inconvenienced.
A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer. - Mitch Hedberg
-
Ah, I mine some data here. When I attended an interview with Norton, first question they asked me was if I know WTL. Well I said "NO", they said "Sorry". Not saying the entire Norton runs on WTL, but I guess they do use it wherever possible. And about Mike, He is for WTL what Nish is for CLI. :-D may be get had to get into WTL when he worked with Norton?:^) umm just a guess.
:laugh::laugh:
Regards, Satips.:rose: Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Walk beside me, and just be my friend. - Albert Camus
-
...please, please smack them upside the head for me. We finally figured out a random problem we have been having with people visiting our website. For no easily explainable reason certain menu links where just missing. Their page would otherwise render normally. The links were just static anchor tags. No fancy javascript. They weren't dynamically created at runtime. Turns out the people who wrote Norton are EVIL! One menu item that was consistently missing when the problem arose was a link named "My Company" which directed the user to "/Advertiser/default.aspx". Pretty simple, no? The problem is that Norton considers this to be a banner that should be blocked. Why? Because the folder name is "Advertiser". Well, excuse us Norton! The people using the system are advertisers. They advertise in our printed magazines. So, please, smack 'em hard. Three times! Once, because they are blocking words en-masse that may be entirely legitimate. Twice, because they give no visual indication that anything on the page has been altered by Norton. Thrice, because this feature is part of their "Spam Blocker" and what they are blocking ISN'T SPAM! :mad::mad::mad: You probably want to check the web for a list of things these creeps are blocking by default. You can be affected if you do something as simple as putting "?adv=" in a URL.
A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer. - Mitch Hedberg
-
...please, please smack them upside the head for me. We finally figured out a random problem we have been having with people visiting our website. For no easily explainable reason certain menu links where just missing. Their page would otherwise render normally. The links were just static anchor tags. No fancy javascript. They weren't dynamically created at runtime. Turns out the people who wrote Norton are EVIL! One menu item that was consistently missing when the problem arose was a link named "My Company" which directed the user to "/Advertiser/default.aspx". Pretty simple, no? The problem is that Norton considers this to be a banner that should be blocked. Why? Because the folder name is "Advertiser". Well, excuse us Norton! The people using the system are advertisers. They advertise in our printed magazines. So, please, smack 'em hard. Three times! Once, because they are blocking words en-masse that may be entirely legitimate. Twice, because they give no visual indication that anything on the page has been altered by Norton. Thrice, because this feature is part of their "Spam Blocker" and what they are blocking ISN'T SPAM! :mad::mad::mad: You probably want to check the web for a list of things these creeps are blocking by default. You can be affected if you do something as simple as putting "?adv=" in a URL.
A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer. - Mitch Hedberg
If I knew anyone who worked for Norton you would be a long way back in the queue of people waiting to have their smacks administered!
Phil
The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of the author, especially if you find them impolite, inaccurate or inflammatory.