Norton Internet Security / Norton AntiVirus

[NotStoked]

Symantec gave someone a cookie.

[megamawax]

---

huwyngr wrote:

<< I was not aware that you you had been appointed to some "Higher Authority". >>

I made a suggestion ....

I've been around a bit longer than you so perhaps experience and reading tens of thousands of messages here counts ....

---

Experience is exactly why you should know that your original message was antagonistic.  No one would have taken what you said and the way you worded it as simply trying to be helpful.  Now, if you had said "they only check these forums for technical issues, so you might get better luck trying so and so or going to such and such a place to resolve financial issues," and not tactlessly added that lecture about his font size, he wouldn't have reasonably snapped back at you.  But, of course, you know that.  This is the internet  - trolls abound, always looking to start an argument through insults, antagonistic responses, passive-aggressive comments, righteous indignation, and so forth.  And, of course, the classic "how dare you admonish me for my rebuke" bit.  Similar in nature to that "how dare you be offended by that insulting thing I said" business.  The variation you went with, naturally, was the oft-used 1-2 punch of "hey, I was just trying to be helpful, geesh.  You don't have to jump down my throat,"  line, feigning ignorance, of course, as to why the responder was jumping down your throat, followed by a nice helping of condescension to convey the message that you are, in fact, the higher authority and how dare you be questioned by some peon.    Doubtless, thousands, maybe millions, of others are playing out variations of this exact same conversation right now.  

For what it's worth, I'm also having this same stupid problem with Norton - just started today.  I guess I must have hit whatever the limit is on program rules.  It doesn't seem like it ought to be that big of a deal for the programmers to fix this stupid bug, but I'm not a programmer, so I don't know for sure.   I'm curious if anyone was able to get Norton to fuction as if normal again by deleting rules, thus getting below this threshold without having to uninstall and reinstall, and then being able to use the drop down menus without the program crashing.  

[gwm Contributor]

What I have found (I have 7 machines that had this annoying stupid problem!!) is that the 2011 version works.  It;s not what we paid for--but at least it works!

[BullSpit]

---

megamawax wrote:

---

huwyngr wrote:

<< I was not aware that you you had been appointed to some "Higher Authority". >>

I made a suggestion ....

I've been around a bit longer than you so perhaps experience and reading tens of thousands of messages here counts ....

---

Experience is exactly why you should know that your original message was antagonistic.  No one would have taken what you said and the way you worded it as simply trying to be helpful.  Now, if you had said "they only check these forums for technical issues, so you might get better luck trying so and so or going to such and such a place to resolve financial issues," and not tactlessly added that lecture about his font size, he wouldn't have reasonably snapped back at you.  But, of course, you know that.  This is the internet  - trolls abound, always looking to start an argument through insults, antagonistic responses, passive-aggressive comments, righteous indignation, and so forth.  And, of course, the classic "how dare you admonish me for my rebuke" bit.  Similar in nature to that "how dare you be offended by that insulting thing I said" business.  The variation you went with, naturally, was the oft-used 1-2 punch of "hey, I was just trying to be helpful, geesh.  You don't have to jump down my throat,"  line, feigning ignorance, of course, as to why the responder was jumping down your throat, followed by a nice helping of condescension to convey the message that you are, in fact, the higher authority and how dare you be questioned by some peon.    Doubtless, thousands, maybe millions, of others are playing out variations of this exact same conversation right now.  

For what it's worth, I'm also having this same stupid problem with Norton - just started today.  I guess I must have hit whatever the limit is on program rules.  It doesn't seem like it ought to be that big of a deal for the programmers to fix this stupid bug, but I'm not a programmer, so I don't know for sure.   I'm curious if anyone was able to get Norton to fuction as if normal again by deleting rules, thus getting below this threshold without having to uninstall and reinstall, and then being able to use the drop down menus without the program crashing.  

---

" I'm curious if anyone was able to get Norton to fuction as if normal again by deleting rules, thus getting below this threshold without having to uninstall and reinstall, and then being able to use the drop down menus without the program crashing.  "

Yes, I have been able to do exactly that. Depending on how many "auto" rules you have, you may have to delete them one at a time and hope it does not crash. I now have added to my daily maintenance routine of cleaning the auto rules from it. If that fails, you can reset the firewall and that clears all rules, giving you a fresh start and would allow you to add any new custum rules prior to the auto rules populating, which leads to the framework crash. Another option is to modify a rule (choose the yellow button on the bottom) and set your choices there.

[langfdp]

---

BullSpit wrote:

---

you can reset the firewall and that clears all rules, giving you a fresh start and would allow you to add any new custum rules prior to the auto rules populating

---

Hi BullSpit,

Where should I find the option to reset the firewall you mentioned?

Or is it just turning the Smart Firewall option (as shown in the picture) off and then on?

Thanks,

Dean.

[BullSpit]

---

langfdp wrote:

---

BullSpit wrote:

---

you can reset the firewall and that clears all rules, giving you a fresh start and would allow you to add any new custum rules prior to the auto rules populating

---

Hi BullSpit,

Where should I find the option to reset the firewall you mentioned?

Or is it just turning the Smart Firewall option (as shown in the picture) off and then on?

Thanks,

Dean.

---

Bring up the main UI, click settings, then firewall and click the reset button.

[BullSpit]

Your screen grabs did not load for me before, they are now. I am using N360 2012, and since it shares the same "guts" as NIS 2012, I would bet that the same steps would be needed to reset your firewall.

[elsewhere]

---

gwm wrote:

We are being ignored. Obviously.

Is there going to be anything done to compensate us customers who paid for this broken and unfixed  "feature" ?

"Let's try this:

I buy a magazine subscription.

Every magazine that I get has pages with ink smears rendering said pages unreadable.  I call the magazine to complain and they tell me I am SOL.

Or this: 

I purchase a new car with a subscription to OnStar.  I am driving one day and have an accident.  I press the OnStar button to get help.  The OnStar voice says "I am sorry, the feature you have accessed is not available.  Goodbye."

It's pretty obvious to me.  Norton does not give a hoot about it's customers anymore.  I have been a Norton customer for over 15 years.  And THIS is how you treat me????  I point out a significant problem with your product that has caused many people big problems, and we as a group ask for just a little goodwill and you respond with "Why do you think that you are entitled to compensation?"  THAT is rude.  Good way to treat paying customers!"

Thanks!

---

gwm, that question was asked so that I could determine if users affected by this firewall crash issue actually understood what they were purchasing when they bought a Norton Internet Security product (Norton 360 included).

From the feedback and examples given, it appears that users think they are buying a particular version of a Norton product. This isn’t the case. When you purchase a Norton subscription, you are free to choose whatever supported version of the product’s interface that fits your needs i.e. version 2012 back to 2010 and earlier. The comparison examples posted by affected users to date represent issues with physical products or software/subscription purchases that would have been either fixed quickly under warranty or globally based upon the criticality of the issue (number of users affected as a proportion of the total number of users for the product in question). None of the examples provided to date are directly comparable with the behaviour of current Norton products.

In terms of this firewall crash defect, the immediate solution/workaround is to roll back your product version to the NIS 2011. Affected users have done this without loss of continuity in terms of their protection and are currently being protected by the normal NIS 2011 product updates. Given this, and in light of the above, can you explain why there is a perceived need for compensation?

[gwm Contributor]

Users of a product expect to be able to use said latest, released, tested product.

Example:

If you have purchased a new car and found a defect, how would YOU feel if the dealer told you:

"We are not going to repair your vehilce.  Take this two year old car instead.  Thank you for choosing Norton.  Goodbye."

---

elsewhere wrote:

---

gwm wrote:

We are being ignored. Obviously.

Is there going to be anything done to compensate us customers who paid for this broken and unfixed  "feature" ?

"Let's try this:

I buy a magazine subscription.

Every magazine that I get has pages with ink smears rendering said pages unreadable.  I call the magazine to complain and they tell me I am SOL.

Or this: 

I purchase a new car with a subscription to OnStar.  I am driving one day and have an accident.  I press the OnStar button to get help.  The OnStar voice says "I am sorry, the feature you have accessed is not available.  Goodbye."

It's pretty obvious to me.  Norton does not give a hoot about it's customers anymore.  I have been a Norton customer for over 15 years.  And THIS is how you treat me????  I point out a significant problem with your product that has caused many people big problems, and we as a group ask for just a little goodwill and you respond with "Why do you think that you are entitled to compensation?"  THAT is rude.  Good way to treat paying customers!"

Thanks!

---

gwm, that question was asked so that I could determine if users affected by this firewall crash issue actually understood what they were purchasing when they bought a Norton Internet Security product (Norton 360 included).

From the feedback and examples given, it appears that users think they are buying a particular version of a Norton product. This isn’t the case. When you purchase a Norton subscription, you are free to choose whatever supported version of the product’s interface that fits your needs i.e. version 2012 back to 2010 and earlier. The comparison examples posted by affected users to date represent issues with physical products or software/subscription purchases that would have been either fixed quickly under warranty or globally based upon the criticality of the issue (number of users affected as a proportion of the total number of users for the product in question). None of the examples provided to date are directly comparable with the behaviour of current Norton products.

In terms of this firewall crash defect, the immediate solution/workaround is to roll back your product version to the NIS 2011. Affected users have done this without loss of continuity in terms of their protection and are currently being protected by the normal NIS 2011 product updates. Given this, and in light of the above, can you explain why there is a perceived need for compensation?

---

[elsewhere]

---

gwm wrote:

Users of a product expect to be able to use said latest, released, tested product.

Example:

If you have purchased a new car and found a defect, how would YOU feel if the dealer told you:

"We are not going to repair your vehilce.  Take this two year old car instead.  Thank you for choosing Norton.  Goodbye."

 

---

Another pointless example. Please re-read what I've written above again.

Are you prepared to test and confirm that this issue has been fixed under the NIS 2013 beta by using one of the seven affected machines in your possession?