Not what you are looking for? Ask the experts!
Insight = malware?
I have been using NIS for some years now and have generally been very satisfied with it. I currently have NIS 2012 installed on both of my computers, which run Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit.
I am a self-employed software developer on a very small scale, and my applications, for pet boarding and grooming businesses, were first introduced about 11 years ago. There are currently two applications, which can be downloaded from my website at www.pet-base.co.uk, which is rated SAFE by Norton. The applications have been regularly updated over the years and the latest installation files, petBASE_720.exe and petBASE_720G.exe, were uploaded to my website on 15 August. Both files are digitally-signed via Comodo, using my full name, as I don't have a registered company.
After uploading these files, I did a test download and was rather disappointed to see that Insight was rating them as UNPROVEN, compared to the previous rating of GOOD. However, last Friday I did another test download and, in both cases, I was dismayed to see the Norton message THIS FILE IS NOT SAFE AND HAS BEEN REMOVED, having been assigned W.S. Reputation 1! This is despite them having been scanned by Internet Explorer 9 without problem.
I am at a loss as to how this rating can be justified, when:-
(1) The files originate from a website rated as safe by Norton.
(2) The files have been digitally-signed using an approved CA, a fact that is recorded in the Insight details.
In my opinion, the digital signature is the crucial point: this indicates that a file has been properly validated as coming from a known source. This fact alone should prevent Insight from giving it a poor rating and certainly gives no justification for removing it! By doing this, Symantec are interfering with potential customers' right to evaluate my software and are losing me potential business. Ironically, in this respect, one could argue that Insight could be classified as a form of malware! I'm sure that some form of law is being breached here, but I guess that Symantec are relying on people like me being unable to afford to challenge them.
I realize that I'm probably wasting my time posting this message, but is anyone from Symantec prepared to give a straight answer justifying why digitally-signed files should be treated in this way?
P.S. As a temporary measure, I've reluctantly converted these files to zip format on my download pages.