08-23-2011 04:25 PM - last edited on 08-23-2011 05:30 PM by shannons
I just have to complain about Norton's NAV2011 LiveUpdate which installs whatever it wants to and in some instances, merely lists one update as "NAV Product Update", ie; absolutely no means whatsoever is afforded users finding out anything about what this/these undisclosed update(s) are. I used NAV's update history to pin down its name, then clicked more info on it and there was none. So then I went and drilled Norton's website to try and corrolate my recent updates. Even that seems to be a bit of a chinese fire-drill (as not only is there no notices of a "NAV Product Update", worse yet, my history's listed definitions updates are re-named at Norton's updates website (instead of definitions, they listed as "Noton Anti-Virus Security Update ###". I'm so mad at Norton's refusal to provide support, I could just spit. Even when I have every indication of a NAV bug, in my last bout of bug encounterment, Norton support refused to escalate it to a second level, ie; inspect a suspicious file and provide a fix, if the file's was found safe). Heck they wouldn't as i recall, even accept a file for examination. Now we're left to manually drilling Norton's website for updates and only installing what one's they choose to disclose what they are. I say that as most should recall Microsoft's 'undisclosed' software, the only one they ever reportedly had an outside party design, ie; Software Distribution Service, aka SDS 2.0. That backdoor software supposedly was MS's latest answer for preventing malware from getting onto our systems, when in fact it silently (with no record whatsoever) downloaded it's update every 2nd Tuesday at 3:00 AM and in that process, it locked users out of their restore points that preceded that 'update'. Wouldn't surprize me at all if this "NAV2011 Product Update" might well be doing something like SDS 2.0 did. But then at least users back then were able to sort out to a minimal extent, what and where SDS 2.0 came from (some Russian named guy in San Francisco) and even though MS provided no uninstaller for it, user figured out how to do that.
Solved! Go to Solution.
08-23-2011 03:46 PM - last edited on 08-23-2011 04:14 PM by shannons
Sorry as this forum seems to be somewhat poorly visited and of no help. I never got support from Symantec when I found its 'intelligent download' (aka 'file insight') which was for about atwo months (everytime I opened IE8's browser), before I could use the browser, I was forced to deal with an unidentified pop-up rather suspiciously said 'a new toolbar was available, would I like to install it' (clicking 'no' apparently invoked NAV's 'intelligent downloader and it's 'file insight' (which is why I had to deal with NAV before I could go ahead and use the browser (every time I opened it). Finally I discovered what the new update was, but only by using Symantec's file info feature, ie; it notifies you of new software notifications via a sys tray pop-up balloon that says if its safe of not, And only when I used that pop-up's 'more' link and then the 'locate file' link, only then was I able to see what the IE8's toolbar 'the damned pop-ups were for (it was my video capturing software, ie; ant downloader's). Long of the short of it was that NAV2011's 'file inght' absolutely refused to follow up on and set the file as trusted (which I repeatedly and uselessly opted for it to do). The file turned out to be Ant Downloader's (my video capturing software) and either IE8's or NAV's unidentified pop-up left me even more suspicious about the 'new software' (for what, I still didn't know), but eventually, only through my manually drilling through NAV's new software 'notification' feature was I able to identify that the unindetified 'new update' was, it was an ever new "uninstaller" file that Ant Downloader forces on its users (every time the user opens their IE8 browser (and absolutely no means to stop Ant from doing that). Basically what I'm illustrating here is that Symantec provides no real support unless you pay for it (as for weeks I wrestled with Symantec chats, email support requests, phones calls, request/demands that support escalate the issue/bug in "file insight" which refused to allow me to "trust" the Ant Downloader uninstaller (which forced me to either uninstall Ant and not use it, or every time I opened IE8, NAV forced me to drill into the settings and uselessly set 'file insight' to "trust" the uninstaller, in order for NAV to free up and allow me to use my IE8.browser. In that Symantec refused to escalate it and for a couple of months I tediously went through the useless motions of accessing my browser (hoping that eventually Symantec would provide a fix in one of the miriad of updates), but no such luck, I even tried uninstalling NAV2011, re-installing it, even installing a more current cersion of NAV, but the only thing that fixed the issue was uninstalling IE8 and using Firefox. So there you have it, little to no real support from Symantec (but of course that's common knowledge).
08-23-2011 04:49 PM
Is there a question in there? Are you looking for help? Or is this just a complaint?
I'll assume it's just a rant based upon your opening statement:
"Sorry as this forum seems to be somewhat poorly visited and of no help."
Norton 360 • Norton Internet Security • Norton Zone | XP SP3 • Windows 7 Professional SP1 x64
• PLEASE, BACKUP or EXPORT your Identity Safe Data on a regular basis •
08-23-2011 05:41 PM
This makes two messages and still no indication of what sort of help you are requesting. If you only want to rant and rave, feel free, we can take it. Most all of us are users who volunteer here.
08-23-2011 06:17 PM - edited 08-23-2011 06:24 PM
My intent was to have posted a reply to another post's lack of receiving but one reply (asking for system details and then when the poster, replied back, nobody ever got back with the poor soul). As for my demeanor, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't see my sympathsising with the unanswered posts and a lack of legitimate Norton Support being expounded on as ranting and raving (informative and supportive of my view, yes). And aside from the post (mine here) and your reply, I do see that the moderator seems to me as being overtly sensitive (or maybe he/she works for Symantec)? As for my post, if you do work for Norton, I would have hoped you'd have either used your influence to forward the issue (or at least sympathise with the obvious disatisfaction that the situation understandably leaves Norton users disatisfied).
08-23-2011 09:50 PM
Actually I am quite sure we could have helped you with the problem you were having. This forum solves a lot of different types of problems for a lot of users.
Sorry that you had trouble but it seems that most of your posts follow the same theme which really does appear to be more of a rant than asking for help.
It is all about the approach one takes.
08-23-2011 11:39 PM
I think yourweld's problem stems from this post which was put into Product Suggestions and no one seems to have replied to it back to the time when it was originally posted. Perhaps it was put into the wrong section originally.
Success always occurs in private and failure in full view.
08-24-2011 07:44 AM
If you actually clearly presented the problem and asked for suggestions, we would be more than happy to assist. Many of us don't have the time to go through a long post just to come up with only a vague idea of what is wrong.
The Mods are not overly sensitive. They handle people abusing Symantec and us quite well.
If you can manage to get the downloader file on your system, you can forward it here so that Symantec can update their definitions. Simply complaining about it won't fly. They have to have the actual file.
Hopefully this will help you out. If you can't get the file to forward it, then it is up to the developers of the file to clean it up. They will need to submit it to Symantec and get it whitelisted. If Symantec simply allowed every poorly written piece of software to run on our machines, they would not be offering much security.
08-24-2011 09:46 AM
Please see your previous thread for suggestions, yourweld.
There seems to be some confusion as mentioned by floplot as to where your posts go. This slows down response from us if we don't know what kind of help you require. Clarity and brevity go far.
08-24-2011 05:40 PM - edited 08-24-2011 05:41 PM
Regarding your comment about the lack of information regarding Product Updates delivered via LiveUpdate, I've learned from past experience to always go to the main page of the NIS/NAV board here every time I get one of these requests to re-boot my PC after a LiveUpdate. There's usually a post by Tim Lopez or one of the forum administrators pinned at the top of that page explaining what the product update was for. The last product update released 16-Aug-2011, for example, was for a pacth for NAV and NIS to make the Norton Toolbar and Symantec IPS add-ons compatible with Firefox 6.0 (see Tim's post here).
There is a setting in NIS (and I presume in NAV) to disable delivery of new versions of your software (Settings | Miscellaneous | Download of New Versions | OFF). Unfortunately, this will only prevent delivery of major upgrades (e.g., from NAV 2011 to NAV 2012) and will not stop LiveUpdate from automatically delivering intermediate updates and patches (e.g., from v. 22.214.171.124 to 126.96.36.199). Several people posting in this forum have complained about the lack of control over how these product updates and patches are delivered (see one lively debate here) and several have also posted suggestions about this in the Product Suggestion board (myself included - see here). Symantec apparently has these suggestions under consideraton.
I generally find that the technical support provided by fellow users in this forum is far superior to Symantec's Customer Support via chat or e-mail. However, I share your concerns about the odd instance where some problems posted in the forum occasionally fall through the cracks and I posted my concerns about bug reporting in the Forum Feedback board here just last week .
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * NIS 2011 v. 188.8.131.52 * IE 9.0 * Firefox 6.0
HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS