Bring Back Safeweb Icons for Google Search in Firefox - Please Reply

SoulAsylum:

Hello CurrentR, welcome to the forums. I believe this article should assist you with your issue.

https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v124328498_EndUserProfile_en_us

Cheers

Sorry, but this document reeks of deception, especially if site ratings for Google searches still work in Chrome -- and my understanding is they do. (I don't currently use Chrome myself.)

Firstly, I -- like many others who want to squeeze another seven months out of their Firefox legacy icons before they go "poof!" -- have switched for now to the usually business-targeted Firefox 52esr. It receives all the Firefox security updates, but modifies/updates features and interface more slowly than "regular" Firefox.   We already know that the Norton site ratings in Google search worked in "regular" Firefox 52, and there is no reason this feature had to be taken away with Firefox 52esr.

Secondly, even for those who have moved onto FF 57, the Norton document is feeding them poppycock in multiple ways.  Norton acts as if Safe Web is a new add-on newly designed to be compatible with Firefox's new "Webextensions" API, when in fact Safe Web has already been available as a Firefox add-on for years!   Maybe it looks a little different now, but it is that same "you only get site ratings if you search with Ask so that we get revenue-sharing!" nonsense that paying customers shouldn't be forced into.

And the worst deception of all is Norton claiming they had to get rid of site ratings in Google search results as a result of Firefox's switch to the Webextensions API in FF 57.  Hello??  Webextensions is very similar to the JavaScript and HTML-based extension API that Chrome uses for its extensions!  So if you can still get site icons for Google searches in Chrome, Norton's claim that Firefox's version 57+ add-on standards prevent them from providing the same in Firefox 57+  is deceptive, an excuse to lure you into using Ask instead of Google.

So Norton's "explanations" for the  devaluation of the product I, and so many other Firefox users, pay Norton for has "shameless spin" written all over it.  Forget all those excuses, the real reason Firefox users can no longer have site ratings in Google search is that Norton is trying to add revenue or reduce costs (which could be in several forms, including dedicating resources to other things).  I've posted intermittently to this forum for years, with plenty of praise for Norton and also some criticism.  But I've never accused Symantec of outright deception.  Until now.

SoulAsylum,

Sorry I don't buy it at all, no matter how well you recite the Norton talking points.  No conspiracy suggested here, just the same corporate spin/deception we often see (but until now, not so much from Norton).

If the WOT (Web of Trust) add-on can still add their red and green site-safety icons to Google search results in Firefox 57, I have to believe Norton could too -- if they wanted to, but they clearly don't.  They just want to pretend it's Mozilla that won't let them retain the old convenience of tagging Google search results.

(BTW, where I said "legacy icons" near the top of my first post, I obviously meant "legacy add-ons.")

I'd also like to weigh in on this issue, please return the checkmarks to google search.  Not interested in using ask.com

OnThePike:

I happen to be among the last Windows Vista 32-bit users, running Firefox version 52.0.2 ESR.

For me, and those like me, a simple solution is to downgrade to the last version where both the toolbar and Google search results icons last worked (exactly as I have just done with my secondary add-on "MyWOT: Web of Trust, where all red/yellow/green/grey search result icons once again display properly beside each Google result shown."), before you updated to the version FF demands due to the restructuring of the add-on system....

Hi OnThePike:

I use 32-bit Vista SP2 with FF ESR v52.5.2 and there is no need to downgrade to an older version of WOT - Web of Trust.  The latest WOT v20171020 (released 23-Oct-2017) is compatible with both FF ESR v52.5.x and FF v57.x

Bitdefender TrafficLight is another browser extension that provides similar functionality and works with both FF ESR v52.5.x and FF v57.x.

Please post the link to the last Norton Safe Search/Web FF version add-on that last worked with FF 52.0 which will fix my issue until I buy a new PC sometime next year.

Unfortunately, the last version of Norton Safe Web for Firefox to display site rating icons in Google search results was bundled with the Norton Security Toolbar v2017.11.0.1 for Firefox, and this browser toolbar was discontinued when Norton was updated from v22.11.0.41 to v22.11.2.7 - see the Feature Changes section of Norton 22.11.2 Product Update Available Now posted in the Product Update Announcements blog.  Even if you downgrade to an earlier version of Norton v22.x to get the legacy toolbar back and working with an earlier version of Firefox you'll loose the toolbar again as soon as LiveUpdate automatically patches you to Norton v22.11.2.7.

The new Norton Safe Web v2.3.0.24 for Firefox is compatible with both FF ESR v52.5.x and FF v57.x, but you will only see Safe Web site rating icons in your search results if you use the bundled Norton Safe Search (i.e. the Ask.com search engine).  See ALF60's thread Firefox 57 Release Overview in the Tech Outpost board for more information.

---------------
32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * Firefox ESR v52.5.2 * NS Premium v22.11.2.7 * MB Premium v3.3.1

lmacri:

Bitdefender TrafficLight is another browser extension that provides similar functionality and works with both FF ESR v52.5.x and FF v57.x.

Thanks for that tip!!  I've already installed the add-on to Firefox.  And now I again have site-safety icons from an established anti-malware organization in Google Search results!  I had searched and searched for such an add-on, but couldn't find one.

The watchout seems to be that, based on reviews and my own brief initial testing, it warns against fewer sites than Norton does.  (I am doing my comparisons to the same Google searches in IE, where Norton has not -- yet? -- come up with an excuse to stop adding site-safety icons.)  But BitDefender's flagging will likely become more robust as they get more users, no doubt including Norton Firefox users who don't want to be forced to use Ask to see the safety icons (or have to ridiculously wait until they've already visited the site).

Do you think that keeping the Norton Safe Web add-on enabled for its other functions, at the same time as the BitDefender add-on, could create conflicts?

BTW, A few weeks ago, as an experiment, I used Sandboxied IE to visit a site that Norton flagged red in its IE Google search results (I typed the url).  And found it a little unnerving that Norton didn't try to prevent me from going to the page, or give me any kind of warning.

FWIW ~ I've observed McAfee WebAdvisor work with Firefox ESR & Chrome.  YMMV
 

Does McAfee WebAdvisor show site rating icons in Google search results? 

lmacri:

Ardmore:

...Do you think that keeping the Norton Safe Web add-on enabled for its other functions, at the same time as the BitDefender add-on, could create conflicts?

 Hi Ardmore:

I don't know if running a second site ratings extension like WOT or Bitdefender TrafficLight at the same time as Norton Safe Web might compromise safety.

A few years ago I had to disable the legacy Norton Toolbar v2014 (i.e., the old NIS v21.x version with the built-in Norton Safe Search that worked with Google searches) because the Norton Toolbar v2014 was constantly crashing my Firefox v41 browser (see phat monkey's 2015 thread Norton 360 Toolbar is Crashing Firefox on Close).  I ran Norton Safe Search and WOT - Web of Trust together for about a week just to make sure the site ratings in my Google search results were similar for both extensions (they matched quite closely) and I remember that my Norton Safe Web rating icons seemed to lag for a second or two before they appeared in my Google results.  Based on that old test, I suppose there's always a danger that site blocking with new Norton Safe Web extension could be a bit slow if you visited a malicious site while WOT or Bitdefender TrafficLight were simultaneously analyzing the site.

Thanks for this and lots of other helpful observations in your post. 

When I asked about potential conflicts, I was thinking more about conflicts in functions *other than* site-safety icons.  But maybe I am thinking back to the old Firefox Norton IPS (Intrusion Protection System) add-on, as -- when I take another look at it -- Safe Web's *only* function seems to be site reputation rating.  Or maybe the Identity Safe add-on?  I never paid much attention to the latter because I never used identity-protection features, but wasn't that the add-on that -- at least for awhile -- was installed by the toolbar and provided the site-safety ratings?  It's hard for me to keep track...I just want dependable safety ratings back in my Google searches, and I'll be happy.  (Of course you have raised those questions about whether the Safe Web ratings are working properly at all as of now, completely aside from the issue of how results are presented.)

BTW, I also did the WOT comparison to Norton site ratings a few years back, and found that it matched reasonably well, although Norton seemed to flag more sites for malware/phishing suspicion than WOT did, while WOT had many sites flagged yellow or red based on their subjective assessment of content truthfulness or suitability for children.  (Even when I agree with one of their subjective content assessments, that's not what I'm seeking  in site-safety ratings...I want to to know about malware or phishing, etc.)

But recently, since WOT returned -- after a period of removal from Firefox because of issues over safeguarding of users' surfing information -- it seems like the great majority of sites are simply rated "safety unknown" (grey).

Ardmore: [..] But what I did see is some questions on whether it is working properly with Firefox 57. [..] I'm definitely going to give it a try.

I've only observed McAfee WebAdvisor work with Firefox ESR & Chrome.  

watch for pre-checked box which I chose to uncheckand I had to choose second option

_bjm, by "I've only observed McAfee WebAdvisor work with Firefox ESR & Chrome," do you mean that you haven't tried it in Firefox 57, or that you did and it didn't work?  It sounds more like the latter, but I wanted to make sure.

And thanks for providing those WebAdvisor watchouts!

Ardmore: _bjm, by "I've only observed McAfee WebAdvisor work with Firefox ESR & Chrome," do you mean that you haven't tried it in Firefox 57, or that you did and it didn't work?  It sounds more like the latter, but I wanted to make sure.

I haven't tried with Firefox 57.  

Also, doesn't Norton block suspicious sites even without an add-on?

Nope.  Norton will not block anything, except malicious downloads in Edge and doesn't block anything in Cyberfox unless you install Safe Web.  It will scan any file you downloaded as you execute it though.

Ardmore:...

Also, doesn't Norton block suspicious sites even without an add-on?  And if so, will they do it based strictly on reputation?  I've always been unclear about that point...

Just a reminder that Firefox also has its own built-in protection for blocking malicious web sites.  See the Mozilla support article How does built-in Phishing and Malware Protection work? and well as the discussion Q: Firefox built-in Phishing and Malware Protection in the Norton Tech Outpost about how this technology works.

---------------
32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * Firefox ESR v52.5.2 * NS v22.11.2.7 * Norton Safe Web v2.3.0.24

Krusty13:

Also, doesn't Norton block suspicious sites even without an add-on?

Nope.  Norton will not block anything, except malicious downloads in Edge and doesn't block anything in Cyberfox unless you install Safe Web.  It will scan any file you downloaded as you execute it though.

Which brings up something else I've wondered about...In a case like this one (Intrusion Protection, not SafeWeb site blocking), does Norton's warning and action mean that  the Fake Tech Support site was already attempting to inject or  execute malicious code?  Or was blocking traffic from it possibly a "pre-emptive strike", e.g. a situation where the page would not do harm unless I clicked on something in it?

bjm_:

Ardmore: [..] But what I did see is some questions on whether it is working properly with Firefox 57. [..] I'm definitely going to give it a try.

I've only observed McAfee WebAdvisor work with Firefox ESR & Chrome.  

---

watch for pre-checked box which I chose to uncheckand I had to choose second option

I tried installing this.  And while the first box (with the red) shows up, where did you see the Search Results options box?  I don't see it.  In fact, I don't see a WebAdvisor program folder, tray icon, desktop shortcut, or anything other than than the Firefox add-on (which has no options).  Windows 7, Firefox 52.5esr.  Thanks.

Thanks.  As I was starting to surmise just before your reply appeared, that icon was probably in one of the toolbars I have hidden in Firefox.  I've already uninstalled McAfee WA and done a System Restore (and Firefox profile restore), but I'll re-install later.

I've now got the McAfee WebAdviser giving me site safety rating icons in Firefox Google Searches.  And I've spent some time comparing results between WebAdvisor's ratings in Firefox, and the Norton Google Search ratings in IE.

The results are a little unnerving, in that -- at least in my particular searches -- there seems to be a lot more disagreement than agreement on which sites are dangerous or questionable.  Without going into detail, I will say that the Norton ratings give me more confidence.  There were even three sites where Google warned that "this site may be hacked," and McAfee gave all three a Green "safe" rating while Norton gave them all a Red X warning.  Also, Norton provides detail on exactly what malware was found -- even a count of the number of threats, and in some cases a rundown on the known-malicious-site links included in the red-flagged site.

I guess I'm not surprised Norton seems to "win" this one, but I'm still tempted to stick with McAfee SiteAdvisor so I can have the Firefox Google Search safety icons Norton took away.  Meanwhile I will leave the Norton SafeWeb addon enabled, to block me from entering a "bad" site that McAfee WA missed (as well as, per _bjm's post, blocking at least some downloads).  But I won't be pushed into using Ask.  If there's a case where I really want the Norton rating I'll replicate the Google search in another browser.  And if Norton ends up removing the site ratings from Google Search in other browsers, I still won't use Ask.

ETA:  For the record, using a Sandboxied Firefox I just went to a site that McAfee WA showed as Unsafe but that Norton SS showed as Safe (via Googling in IE).  As soon as I did, Norton reported it had blocked an intrusion attempt.