09-18-2010 11:43 AM
First of all I'd like to say "Thank you" to yourself as well as everyone else who've been involved in this discussion, even from the beginning. I've learned so much from you guys. Even though your knowledge far surpasses my own, you're showing great patience and while remaining level-headed. (Which is a not common between techs and novices.) This type of open dialogue, helps people like myself learn through simple discussions. Through this, I'm learning how to better articulate what it is I'm trying to get across. For instance, I never meant to say that CIB had a broader scope of use than what it actually does. I was not trying to imply that it blocks stored data- or at least not on purpose. (And thank you for bringing that to my attention, SOJ. But, aren't cookies considered as "stored data" as well?) However , I still feel it serves a purpose- to "us" that is. I guess it could be considered as "training wheels" for us while you guys are on Harleys. At least CIB should be kept as an optional feature or optional app add-on- considering that it's low/no maintenance for Norton. Again, thank you.
09-18-2010 12:44 PM
LanaK - Would the CIB program work as a standalone program or does it require a parent program, like NIS, to operate? Since the AOP will not work with NIS/NAV 2011, I guess CIB would need a parent program. If there only seems to be the three or four of us that would like to keep the CIB program, it wouldn't be worth the effort on Norton's part to change the program. I was hoping the CIB program would become available like the old Norton Utilities or Norton PC Checkup programs.
I'd like to thank everyone for their help in the discussion.
09-19-2010 10:44 AM
thanks all for participating in the discussion. As SendofJive noted, many of things that Marcus thought he was getting from AOP is actually provided in other parts of NIS/other technologies.
That's why I want to know what the ask is, and really drill into that so I can talk to the brainy people over here and see how/what we can do/already do to defend against it.
Also, to be clear there is considerable maintenance for AOP. We had to release a new AOP with each version of the product. AOP 4.7 needed to be released when NIS 2010 put out a 17.7 patch because NIS 17.7 doesn't work with AOP 4.5 (the previous version). In other words, newer releases of NIS required newer releases of AOP. It didn't magically work. Add to that each year of the product (2008, 2009, etc) and you get a lot of AOP work and maintenance, even if the product feature didn't evolve in the last few years. It's a lot to ask for an already small and dwindling user base, especially when we have NOF waiting in the wings. this is the big obstacle in continuing support for even the single CIB feature. Right now, AOP needs a parent program, and I don' t have any way to get that changed.
In addition, you get URL block lists that are updated for the web pages concerned parents want filtered for their kids. these are released in weekly Liveupdate patches, taking resource time and energy for patch creation and testing.
Ultimately, I think we should take this thread to NOF and I'll have the PM for NOF look at it, to see what can be offered for feature creation to address the need expressed in this thread. Even though this discussion has been lively, I see the greater need being addressed presently through other NIS technologies already. If the CIB notify feature of NOF isn't what users want, then NOF should account for that. If the experience is lacking according to bigron, then it should be revamped.
09-19-2010 01:52 PM
At least one area of protection covered by CIB can also be provided by the Firefox browser. Firefox can be set to popup a warning whenever information is about to be sent without encryption. So any data entered into a form, not just user-specified private data, will prompt an alert if an attempt is made to submit it to an insecure web page.
09-20-2010 12:14 AM
Once again SendOfJive, you caused my thinking cap to light-up. And LanaK the CIB topic has dwindled. Now the parental controls...is it really that tedious like BigRon's example? If so how is that's more improved compared to what's in the AOP? Again, if that's more improved, then the older PCs would be more convenient to configure, user-friendly, and seemingly universal. What if a user is trying to do something and their PC info is in another user account sign-in? They'd have to log-off/sign-in. So if that example is true, the convenience goes out-the-window. Would that be considered digression? And thank you LanaK for being patient with us novice, average users. All is well and done with CIB I think. And I'm also glad you gave use an idea as to what it takes to make and add-on compatible with future versions. Thank you all for schooling me on this topic matter.
09-23-2010 12:38 PM
Hello again all,
I've been testing the CIB for the past couple of days. Instead of putting in 5-6 digits like what's suggested in the instructions, I used all the numbers(as in SS#, phone#s, CC#, BA#, and routing number). When all the numbers are entered, I absolutely 0 flags. How ever the email address is a different story. Does the NOF offer the options: Allow once, Allow always, and to block permanently? That dynamic would be warranted in instances of unsubscribing from unwanted mail so as not to even get the in your spam folder. In order to unsubscribe one would have to at least "allow once" their e-mail address to unsubscribe. Other than that and the convenience of the PCs in AOP, I'm near fully convinced as to the reason for ending CIB services.
09-24-2010 03:10 AM
I've only just spotted this.
In previous versions of NIS I entered a small section of my Credit and Debit card numbers and occasionally I was warned that this sequence of numbers was just about to be transmitted and do I want to allow or deny the transmission.
Do I now assume that this protection is now gone ?
09-24-2010 08:41 AM
You seem to have some of the same concerns I used to have. Through this convo, I learned about the "string" concept. For example: The CIB instructions deems it only necessary to enter the last 5-6 digits of the number(Social Security number, Credit Card number, etc.) you're trying to flag/protect. If you're wanting to protect 123456789 and you only enter 56789/456789, any "string" that just so happens to comes up with numbers in those particular sequences would be flagged. (i.e. Social Security number, Credit Card number, Phone number, etc., etc.) So hypothetically if the string consist of 918356789/372456789, then it's going to be flagged. I've tested this theory and found it to be true. You could also test it by entering the enter string of number(s) you're trying to protect. Hope this helps.
Now the only thing's left is to resolve the issue with NOF's PCs and to incorporate the AOP's flagging use of the email address.
09-25-2010 02:24 PM
Dang, I'm now confused.
Some says that the privacy control is just to keep someone at the keyboard from typing personal info and not to block any site from trying to take the info while your online. If this is the case in the past why did Norton warn me that some site was trying to get my personal info???
I like many don't need the parental control but want the privacy control as its one of the reason why I'm using NIS.
I would like to know if I can still have the privacy control and disable the parental control in NIS2011 like I could in 2010? and will it work the same with 2011 as 2010???
Like I said Norton privacy control has alerted me of sites that was constantly kept on trying to get info from my computer and I never went back to those sites.
09-25-2010 02:51 PM - edited 09-25-2010 03:40 PM
You are under the same misconception about Private Information protection that was discussed earlier. Online communications involve a lot of numbers. If I tell Norton to always alert when my credit card number, 1234, is about to be sent, Norton will dutifully block any transmission of that number, not just the ones involving my credit card. If I send an email to my friend John1234@xxx.net, Norton blocks it. If the number 1234 is sent as part of an IP address or URL, Norton blocks it. In this latter case, it might appear that the website is trying to steal your credit card number, because you didn't enter it and yet you got an alert. The alert actually had nothing to do with your credit card. Oh, the number 1234 was about to be sent alright - but in this case is was actually part of the parameter in a website's URL. All of these false positives make it appear that something sneaky from out of nowhere has found your credit card number (which probably wouldn't even be on your computer, if you hadn't entered it into Norton's Privacy data) and is attempting to steal it. In fact, it's just a number that coincidentally matches the number you told Norton to always block. The only time Norton Confidential Information Blocking blocks your actual credit card number is when you enter it into an online form and attempt to send it out yourself.