04-30-2011 11:01 PM - edited 04-30-2011 11:03 PM
The challenges posed to developers by reputation-based security measures are going to become more widespread in the future as more security products begin to incorporate this approach into their protection schemes. Microsoft is currently using this in its IE 9 SmartScreen FIlter. When a user downloads a file that does not have an established good reputation, they get a warning that the file could harm their computer. See this article for more information on this:
Developers are already expressing concerns about this new IE 9 feature, such as in this post, which is very similar to some of the posts appearing in this thread:
Clearly finding ways to accomodate legitimate developers needs to be looked at in a larger context, as reputation-based protection is becoming a widely-adopted method in malware prevention, and not just the province of a single security company.
05-02-2011 04:44 AM
Still nothing. So that's 4 days when Norton says it resolves disputes in about 24 hours.
I released a new version today of the latest app. Still fails. Also released a very similar but slightly different version used by one group. This ran with no problems. Just gave a warning that it hadn't been downloaded by many users.
I'm beginning to think some jealous competitor has somehow convinced Norton I'm evil.
Come on Norton, spill the beans please.
05-02-2011 08:36 AM
The top of the page has a warning notice on it about the Forum is experiencing problems with IE 9. There is also a warning before you even sign into the site. The problems with the Forum and IE 9 has to do with the host of this Forum. It is not Symantec's fault that there is a problem with posting and IE 9. The host of the Forum is working to correct these problems. Thanks.
Success always occurs in private and failure in full view.
05-02-2011 10:56 AM
We received your dispute last week and took action to resolve it in a comprehensive way that should have prevented recurring issues. I am sorry to hear that you are still having problems and that communication was unclear. I'd like to work with you offline to investigate further and come to a final resolution. I will send you a PM with further details.
05-02-2011 01:39 PM
Yes there is a note on the top of the forum, but I didn't see it. I doubt most people read it either.
It's a small point but understand how you might feel if you've typed out a long post to complain why a company is treating your software like a virus, it then looses all of your post.
PS. On your argument the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico last year wasn't BP's fault, it was its contractor!
05-02-2011 01:52 PM
Jeff, I have repsonded to the questions you asked via PM.
Ref your comment on communicaton being unclear. Err, what communication?
You say that the work you did last week should have prevented recurring issues? Do you mean anything that is downloaded from FSopen, anything I write from FSopen or particular software from FSopen?
05-03-2011 02:48 PM
Jeff has fixed the latest problem. He says quote "
To avoid future FPs, we updated our system last week to factor knowledge of your site into the final file rating. This should prevent future FPs for users who download from fsopen.co.uk. For all of your users, I am confident that that the FP situation has already been resolved (and have verified this with testing on my end). However, since you are compiling and running the file on your system before testing the download, the reputation rating does NOT have a chance to factor the file origin into the final result. In the future, you may see additional warnings when testing on the system where you compiled. However, when the download is distributed to users (or tested on a different system), you will always see a green toaster.
This will probably not be an issue, but just a word of warning - this is not a permanent free pass. We have systems in place to monitor for abuse, and if we see fsopen.co.uk distributing malware, then it can be removed. Again, probably not an issue for you."
So my assumption is that Norton can and does take into accoount where a file is downloaded from, and I'm assuming , downloading from fsopen.co.uk is now scored more favourably then it was. I'm still puzzled how my apps got downgraded in the first place though. I've asked Jeff for an explanation and will post reply here.