• All Community
    • All Community
    • Forums
    • Ideas
    • Blogs
Advanced

Not what you are looking for? Ask the experts!

Kudos14 Stats

Symantec, Please Explain

I would like to hear from Symantec why they chose to remove the local ID Safe.

In Beta testing Tim_Lopez posted this  -

All,

 

The plan at this point is to have the local vault be removed from the product and have the online vault be the only option. 

 

If you would like to voice your concern about this, please do so in this thread and let us know why you disagree with this decision. We value your feedback so please give us detailed feedback as to why you prefer local vaults if this change is undesired on your part. 

Cheers,
Tim Lopez
Norton Forums Administrator
Symantec Corporation http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-360-2013-Norton-Internet/What-happened-to-ID-Safe-local-vault/m-p/774634/highlight/true#M2755 We were told that Symantec "valued' our feedback.  It was and is obvious that the majority of people are in favour of keeping the local ID Safe. Please return it permanently in the 2013 and above products,  or at the very least,  please explain why this decision was made. I would also like to hear Symantec's take on the controversial "Share" button and why we can't disable it. Eagerly waiting a reply, Thank you.Dave
A little bit of knowledge is... well a little bit of knowledge.

Replies

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


dconn wrote:

Hi All,

Sorry for using unclear terminology. There will be a number of updates to the 2013 product before 2014 comes out next year. The first of these updates which will be out very shortly will not have the configurability of the Share feature but it most likely will be in the following update. I used the term "planned"  just to distinguish these updates from an unplanned release that theoretically could be put together very quickly and released in response to a major in field issue.

Dermot.


Hi Dermot,

Do you now have a timeframe on when this update will be approximately available?

Thanks.

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


cesararocha wrote:
Well, some friends from here mentioned I could have kept my local vault, since I was upgrading my Norton 360. The issue is that I had problems with my Norton 360's upgrade and, at the end of the process, had to install a clear new copy, erasing old data. Now I'm a "new user". Regarding the "online version" there are SEVERAL issues, one of them, for example, being the fact that you can't have two different profiles in the same account, one for personal and another for commercial use...besides that, if you share your protection among different PCs (and users) you also will have problems with sharing your personal data...or I'm wrong? Again, I still can not understand why Norton had created a nice feature (the local vault) and them (like many tracking-to-live companies) had decided not to offer any other possibility than storing it all ONLINE. Unfortunately, after having been using Norton programs since the "very beginning" of the Internet (remeber DOS and Windows 3.1?), I think one cycle is ending for me... hope to be positively surprised by product managers from Norton, but it seems it won't happen....

Hi cesararocha,

Welcome to the Norton Community. Reference highlighted part above. While I agree with you about desiring a Local vault, you do NOT have to share your vault or data among different users.

Any other user in your household (sharing you Norton subscription) can create their own Norton Account and have their own personal ID Safe vault. The Norton Account used for someone else's vault does not have to be tied to the one which is used for the subscription.

Each and every person can have their own Norton Account.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes.

Allen

Windows 7 Ultimate SP 1, 64 bit, 32 GB * NIS Vers. 21.6.0.32* Ghost 15 * IE 9, Firefox, Safari. Test laptop with W7 Home Premium 64 bit * NIS Vers. 21.6.0.32
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

My hard drive died recently and I had to recover my local Norton Identity Safe database from a Norton Ghost backup with the assistance of Norton Support.  They were *very* helpful, but to say the least I was *very* alarmed when discovering that all of my login information would be stored IN THE CLOUD which I abosolutely LOATHE!  I have used Norton products for decades, but I am now looking for a competitive product that will allow local storage and I will be leaving Norton Internet Security (but keeping Norton Ghost) as soon as I am able!  It is astonishing to me that Norton won't simply provide the option.  This is not difficult.  Give people a choice!  If they think online is the better choice for most people, make it the default, but give us the option to use local if we want it!

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

One additional comment: ever since the change, every so often I cannot access the vault.  When I click it, it says 'System Restart Required'.  This NEVER happened before the online option.

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Thanks for your tip, Allen. So things are not as bad as I thought, despite being bad... At the present moment I had uninstalled Norton 360 from one of my PCs (my laptop, in fact) and I'm testing an alternative product, that gives me the option of storing my password information locally and creating safe vaults for other sensitive data (besides passwords). It's also a complete suite (like Norton's one), let's see how well (or bad) it performs... It's amazing how satisfactory is to the user to have options to choose from. The error Symantec is commiting here (forcing the online vault) reminds me the moment when they decided NOT TO ALLOW users to backup network drivers using their backup module (from 360) and (at the same time) deciding to FORCE the users to use their ONLINE backup, not giving an option of a local (or networked) backup. This insanity has passed, now they're giving us the same options the market gives... but now, again, we're facing another "forced option" hassle, the "Identify Safe" one. I'm gonna keep tracking the evolution on this new issue (since I've been a Norton user since their beginning), but, to be strictly honest, I'm just loving all the options the product I'm testing now is giving me. Totally configurable, does not force me anything. I can backup locally, on network or online, store passwords locally, configure local encrypted vaults, etc... as I always say, giving users options is always a good idea.
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


tmadoc wrote:

My hard drive died recently and I had to recover my local Norton Identity Safe database from a Norton Ghost backup with the assistance of Norton Support.  They were *very* helpful, but to say the least I was *very* alarmed when discovering that all of my login information would be stored IN THE CLOUD which I abosolutely LOATHE!  I have used Norton products for decades, but I am now looking for a competitive product that will allow local storage and I will be leaving Norton Internet Security (but keeping Norton Ghost) as soon as I am able!  It is astonishing to me that Norton won't simply provide the option.  This is not difficult.  Give people a choice!  If they think online is the better choice for most people, make it the default, but give us the option to use local if we want it!


Hi tmadoc,

 

You can use local ID Safe in the current version, but you have to do an 'over the top' upgrade from 2012. Or roll back to 2012, create local ID Safe, then do the 'over the top' upgrade. More and more, the possible hoops and loops involved with that seem to not always be worth it, especially if something goes wrong during the upgrade and you have to start over, just trying to keep your information local.

 

Visit the thread below in Tech Outpost. It's the direction many of us will go instead. I will keep using Norton Internet Security because I find the protection to be top notch. (Currently using NIS 2012), but at the end of my subscription, I will switch to another password manager in place of ID Safe, one that keeps your information at home.

 

Good/Best Replacement for Local ID Safe

 

 

 

Ed

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Thanks Ed. I was aware that an over the top upgrade would preseve the local cache, but as I indicated my old hard drive crashed so that wasn't an option :(.  Thanks for the link to the other thread.  I will check out the RoboForm tool.

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


tmadoc wrote:

Thanks Ed. I was aware that an over the top upgrade would preseve the local cache, but as I indicated my old hard drive crashed so that wasn't an option :(.  Thanks for the link to the other thread.  I will check out the RoboForm tool.


Actually it is still an option, though perhaps more trouble than it's worth...  

Getting back the local vault and remaining on Norton 2013 entails -

1) Exporting your online IDSafe to a local .CSV file.

2) Uninstalling your 2013 product.

3) Installing the most recent downloadable 2012 version of your product. (the link will be provided if you ask the forum)

4) Recreating your local vault using the 2012 product.

5) Importing your vault data (from the local .CSV file).

6) Using the "Check for New Version" option in 2012 to return you to the 2013 version.

These steps will leave you with a local vault plus the option to use the online vault you were forced to create by the previous 2013 installation.

And if I've missed something in the outline above, another forum member will chime in and correct my oversight...  

Kind Regards,

John

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Question regarding going back to 2012 and then to 2013.  You say to use the Check for New Version option in 2012.  Have looked thru 2013 and don't see a check for new version link??  Where in 2012 do I find that option and can I just go to the Norton Upgrade Center and let that check out my version and update me to 2013 and keep the local vault??

Thanks,

Dave

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Hi David,

Right click the icon in the system tray and select Check for New Version.

Dave

A little bit of knowledge is... well a little bit of knowledge.
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Thanks, works and found that if I clicked the heip link in the program I get the same choice.  Didn't come up before I asked but, did after?????

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


avjohnnie wrote:

tmadoc wrote:

Thanks Ed. I was aware that an over the top upgrade would preseve the local cache, but as I indicated my old hard drive crashed so that wasn't an option :(.  Thanks for the link to the other thread.  I will check out the RoboForm tool.


Actually it is still an option, though perhaps more trouble than it's worth...  

Getting back the local vault and remaining on Norton 2013 entails -

1) Exporting your online IDSafe to a local .CSV file.

2) Uninstalling your 2013 product.

3) Installing the most recent downloadable 2012 version of your product. (the link will be provided if you ask the forum)

4) Recreating your local vault using the 2012 product.

5) Importing your vault data (from the local .CSV file).

6) Using the "Check for New Version" option in 2012 to return you to the 2013 version.

These steps will leave you with a local vault plus the option to use the online vault you were forced to create by the previous 2013 installation.

And if I've missed something in the outline above, another forum member will chime in and correct my oversight...  

Kind Regards,

John


I did a slightly different version to that which will work if you have a dat file of logins from 2013 & can't access the logins to backup to a csv file. To keep the local vault in 2013, I installed 2012, entered my norton account details, recreated the local vault & installed the 2013 update then logged into the local vault again & imported the dat file backup.

Virginia/Twilight Princess. Windows 10 Pro 64bit, iPhone X, iPad Pro 9.7".
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


Doctor9fan wrote:

I did a slightly different version to that which will work if you have a dat file of logins from 2013 & can't access the logins to backup to a csv file. To keep the local vault in 2013, I installed 2012, entered my norton account details, recreated the local vault & installed the 2013 update then logged into the local vault again & imported the dat file backup.


I haven't tried it that way round, but I might as a test as I just received my new HP Graphics Workstation Laptop and it came pre-loaded with a 6 month NIS2013... Yikes!  

Heck, I might even try (again) the online vault to see if the same issues that I had the last time that I tried it (again) a few months ago continue to persist...

I know, I know - Gluten for punishment - especially  when I already know that at this point it's pretty much a given that the demons will rear their heads... ) but my curiosity does get the better of me every once in a while...  

Kind Regards,

John

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

AvJohnnie and Dr9Fan,

Thanks!!  I didn't know there were any options.  Of course I have to have te time to do all this but if I can find the time I will try it.  Where do I find the CSV file?

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Heres a strange one, tried to go back to Norton 360 2012 so as to have a local vault and then upgrade to 2013.  Went to the Norton site and downloaded what I thought was 360 2012.  v 20.01.0.24 and then did all the live updates and ended back where I started with 20.2.0.19.

Can someone pleas provide a link ot a download for Norton 360 2012 which has the local vault so  I can try again.

Thanks,

Dave

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

A little bit of knowledge is... well a little bit of knowledge.
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


tmadoc wrote:

AvJohnnie and Dr9Fan,

Thanks!!  I didn't know there were any options.  Of course I have to have te time to do all this but if I can find the time I will try it.  Where do I find the CSV file?


You have to create the CSV file by doing a backup/export of your Identity Safe data.

Click on the Vault Open button on your Norton Toolbar. Click on Settings - Export. Then choose the file format, DAT or CSV. The reason for using CSV is there is no way to use a DAT file from a 2013 product to import to a previous version. ie 2012

Things happen. Export/Backup your Norton Password Manager data.
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Hi Hugh

I was meaning the whole vault issue,online and offline vault.I would have thought the beta testing stage would have been the best time to bring it up.....about  the vault being removed or kept.By what I have read it was not mentioned during beta.

This is a hot topic ,I don't like you guys being slandered.My concern is the removal of choice...I liked the vault feature...it had its own issues but I still liked it.I don't see why we can't have both..I am not a software designer so I may not understand how hard it is to acheive having both features in the product.An online solution is not safe in my eyes so I would not consider using this feature or see it as a bonus in the product NIS ...however having said that I am sure many new users out there would not care less and still purchase Norton.

I like having a product that does not change every year or try to reinvent itself. I just want it to secure my PC.

Cheers Mo Windows 7 64 bit, NIS2013
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

The Local Vault was removed duing Beta testing about a Month before 2013 went final and a lot of the Beta testers were very upset and said so. But Symantec had made the decision and won't go back. I won't be doing  anymore Beta testing for these guys as they don't want to hear our opinions.

Jim

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

PhoneMan is right. During my researchs about this theme I found a thread here that had tons of complaints about they eliminating the local vault and those complaints were made at the right time, by people who were spending their time to help Symantec to develop a better product. It seems Product Managers believed that could convince the users "online is better", because after the discussiong got hot there were online "communications" stating it wouldn't be there anymore, despite the fact almost ALL users from beta complained A LOT about the lack of the local vault. I did not participate in this beta test, but if I had, I would be still more disappointed with the company not bringing up what was suggested. If this is the outcome for a beta, why should they put it into public beta? Would be better to develop alone. I hope they still get things back on track. This is a huge error, like those commited with the backup module in the past...
Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

When you say "Early Adopters" who the hell are you referring to? I never wanted any of my information in the cloud because I know for a fact that it is NOT SECURE!!! If it were there would be no need for security products such as firewalls, antispyware, anti-virus, etc.. Apparently, despite the claims by Symantec, beta testers may as well be corresponding with the moon or the Andromeda galaxy since suggestions, bugs and reccomendations are all ignored anyway. The Symantec agenda will always be first and foremost and that is now apparently driven solely by $$$ and not logic or anything else of intellectual value. All the useful features of NIS have now been removed - local vault, windows gadget - and made the program as useless as an udder (had to use this word to avoid the **bleep** but you know the real expression) on a bull.

Just as is the case with Microsoft, testers are wasting there time reporting anything because the company already has their apparently narrow minds already meade up. With Microsoft the most common bug report response is "Closed. Not reproducable". It would seem in Symantec's case, no matter what you the customer or tester say or do, it's a "their way or no way" mentality.

I've been an IT pro for over 30 years and have watched the whole industry go down the drain because of issues like this. Tech support has been seemingly reduced to unknowledgable screen readers that barely speak English because it is outsourced to India, China or the Phillipines. I'd hate to be a regular user having to deal with these screen prompt idiots that call themselves Tech Support and nearly always want remote access to your machine(s). Sorry, but my machine has classified information that I cannot risk some idiot in some foreign country may access, Just because they claim yo ucan see everything they do doesn't mean you actually can. A lot of malware can be installed during the handshake process between the machines but they (tech support) will NEVER tell you about that.

Maybe what the whole world needs is what happened in the new NBC show Revolution to actually happen. As a black hat I'm fairly certain that with a few clicks of a mouse it could. Of course, if the Mayans were correct with their calendar it won't matter much longer anyway.

Unfortunately, I neglected to turn off the auto-renew feature or I would have dropped all Norton products already. To those that are looking for a good security program, check out the PC World Editors recommendation: G-Data InternetSecurity 2012

Main PC: Windows 7 Ultimate (64 bit) - AMD FX-4130 3.8 GHz - 16 GB DDR3 1600 - NIS 2013 (21.1.0.18) - NU 16 - IE11, Firefox, Safari, Chrome 31
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


Krusty13 wrote:

Standard Edition of v6

Premium Edition of v6


Thanks Krusty13  A few issues trying to set up my local vault as the cloud vault showed up in 2012 but, wouldn;t work.  Upgraded to 2013, using the local vault and am very happy now.

Wondering how or if I can delete all my passwords still in my online vault in the clouds??  Perhaps I should leave them there if I somehow lose my logins on my local vault??

Thanks again for all the advice from the volunteers and hope Symantec comes to their senses regarding cloud vaults and keeps its word to continue to support local vaults from upgraders on future versions of Norton and NIS.

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Hi Mo,

I gather that it did come up about a month before the end of the beta; testers did not like it and said so but Norton did not change it's mind.

It's a fact of life that beta testing is not intended to be a voting process but a process by which Norton, in this case, gathers information. As to what determines their final decision only they know but it it their product and their decision.

It is important to bear in mind that the number of beta testers and/or the number of voices here is a tiny percentage of the total number of users and that it is in a sense ironic that there are complaints about using the Identity Safe because it it in the cloud when it is used to access data that is itself in the cloud .... <s>

Hugh
Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

It's a sad day when a company does not listen to the customer,but it seems that is the modern way,It may be only a few voicing their concern openly but from what I know there is generally the silent majority who sits in judgement. Word of mouth comes to mind as well...I used to put NIS forward as an option for security but this has made me think twice.

I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence about accessing the data in the cloud? The fact I am a little savvy but not a lot when it comes to PCs...

Cheers Mo Windows 7 64 bit, NIS2013
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

I have been a beta tester with every version except the last two versions.  The reason I stopped was that they stopped listening.  I have been a alpha and beta tester for many companies over the years and Norton is probably the worst for ignoring the beta testers.  If I didn't believe that Norton provides the best AV protection I would have stopped using it.  With that said,  after this, I may be switching due to the fact that the vault is cloud, family protection is qwirky, the lack of communication from Norton, and the lack of timely fixes.

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Mo,

Norton certainly listens to customers (See the Share button fix coming) but it cannot, any more than any business, always follow what some would like.

My last bit about the cloud -- the storage of information not on the user's PC but on systems elsewhere -- was that I imagine most people use the Identity Safe to log into sites like their bank and credit accounts where the data they are accessing is stored on just the same kind of servers as is used by Norton to save the user's Identity Safe data. Despite a few possible exceptions I'd bet that Bank and Credit Card servers are hacked very many times more frequently than those of Norton!

Hugh
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

FWIW: Not all institutions are the same when it comes to their customer relations presumptions.  My bank affords me the option of specifying whether or not my account functionality/access is to be internet accessible and the act of changing that (operational mode) requires a personal face-2-face visit with a banking official.  It's the main reason I choose to be a customer of the bank.

Kind Regards,

John

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


huwyngr wrote:

Mo,

Norton certainly listens to customers (See the Share button fix coming) but it cannot, any more than any business, always follow what some would like.

My last bit about the cloud -- the storage of information not on the user's PC but on systems elsewhere -- was that I imagine most people use the Identity Safe to log into sites like their bank and credit accounts where the data they are accessing is stored on just the same kind of servers as is used by Norton to save the user's Identity Safe data. Despite a few possible exceptions I'd bet that Bank and Credit Card servers are hacked very many times more frequently than those of Norton!


The point is that ALL my login information is not at one bank or one credit card company and hacking one does not jeapodise all my accounts. With the Norton online vault ALL my logins can be had with just one breach. Makes a big difference. Besides look at all the problems with the online vault where customers can't access their accounts. Norton is doing a bad job with their online vault and expect me to trust their system. No thanks.

Jim

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Jim,

I am not aware that any of us are in a position to judge the violability of the Norton Servers but if you don't want to use a tool that uses "the cloud" then don't use Identity Safe ... there are plenty of others.

<< With the Norton online vault ALL my logins can be had with just one breach.  >>

If you keep your log in information not in the cloud but in a tool on your PC then one hack equally violates all and your (and my) PC is going to be much more vulnerable than Norton's Servers.

If you don't want to keep your log in data in one tool then don't ....

And as has been pointed out a hacker has to:

  1. hack the Norton Servers in general;
  2. hack your password to your vault to access your personal files
  3. and de-encrypt the contents to get your log in data .....

Has it happened yet?

Hugh
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

John,

If your comment was in reply to my comment to Mo about the cloud that is not what I was referring to -- you have no choice over the fact that your bank account details are kept "on the cloud" -- they are on the bank's servers, not written down in books any more, and can be hacked regardless of whether you can access them via the internet.

Hugh
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


huwyngr wrote:

Jim,

I am not aware that any of us are in a position to judge the violability of the Norton Servers but if you don't want to use a tool that uses "the cloud" then don't use Identity Safe ... there are plenty of others.

<< With the Norton online vault ALL my logins can be had with just one breach.  >>

If you keep your log in information not in the cloud but in a tool on your PC then one hack equally violates all and your (and my) PC is going to be much more vulnerable than Norton's Servers.


Not true because if you have it on your PC it's not going to be on 24/7 so its exposure will be much less.  In addition you normally will be using it and know when something unusual is happening.

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


Msradell wrote:

huwyngr wrote:

Jim,

I am not aware that any of us are in a position to judge the violability of the Norton Servers but if you don't want to use a tool that uses "the cloud" then don't use Identity Safe ... there are plenty of others.

<< With the Norton online vault ALL my logins can be had with just one breach.  >>

If you keep your log in information not in the cloud but in a tool on your PC then one hack equally violates all and your (and my) PC is going to be much more vulnerable than Norton's Servers.


Not true because if you have it on your PC it's not going to be on 24/7 so its exposure will be much less.  In addition you normally will be using it and know when something unusual is happening.


You have no idea how Norton protects its servers compared with any of us protecting our computers! It is incredible, believe me.

Your computer only has to be on for seconds to be invaded and by the time you "know something unusual is happening" it is going to be too late.

Hugh
Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


huwyngr wrote:

John,

If your comment was in reply to my comment to Mo about the cloud that is not what I was referring to -- you have no choice over the fact that your bank account details are kept "on the cloud" -- they are on the bank's servers, not written down in books any more, and can be hacked regardless of whether you can access them via the internet.


Hi Hugh,

Yes - It was in reference to your post to Mo - Sorry I should have quoted but too late to do so now.

And yes, I’m aware that my bank and potentially my account therein can be hacked regardless of whether or not I have authorized a direct web access enablement for my specific account.

However, as I see it, the main difference between my bank and Symantec is that my bank indemnifies my account against any such breech, electronic or otherwise.  I’ve yet to see stated by Symantec any policy regarding indemnification regarding their cloud storage services – ID-Safe, Online Backup, or anything else cloud-based they may offer.

Kind Regards,

John

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


avjohnnie wrote:
Hi Hugh,

Yes - It was in reference to your post to Mo - Sorry I should have quoted but too late to do so now.

And yes, I’m aware that my bank and potentially my account therein can be hacked regardless of whether or not I have authorized a direct web access enablement for my specific account.

However, as I see it, the main difference between my bank and Symantec is that my bank indemnifies my account against any such breech, electronic or otherwise.  I’ve yet to see stated by Symantec any policy regarding indemnification regarding their cloud storage services – ID-Safe, Online Backup, or anything else cloud-based they may offer.

Kind Regards,

John



I'm not aware that they indemnified anyone when the local vault still existed so that is not really relevant to the absence of the local vault which is what people are complaining about.

If security is your problem then don't keep your login data records on your computer if it accesses the internet ....

Hugh
Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


huwyngr wrote:

avjohnnie wrote:
Hi Hugh,

Yes - It was in reference to your post to Mo - Sorry I should have quoted but too late to do so now.

And yes, I’m aware that my bank and potentially my account therein can be hacked regardless of whether or not I have authorized a direct web access enablement for my specific account.

However, as I see it, the main difference between my bank and Symantec is that my bank indemnifies my account against any such breech, electronic or otherwise.  I’ve yet to see stated by Symantec any policy regarding indemnification regarding their cloud storage services – ID-Safe, Online Backup, or anything else cloud-based they may offer.

Kind Regards,

John



I'm not aware that they indemnified anyone when the local vault still existed so that is not really relevant to the absence of the local vault which is what people are complaining about.

If security is your problem then don't keep your login data records on your computer if it accesses the internet ....


You're certainly correct that nobody covers your losses if information is stolen from your computer but it's in your possession into the if your responsibility like it should be.  That's why the local vault is wanted by everybody.  In this case Norton is storing the information but taking no responsibility if it's stolen that we're aware of.

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

If all one wants is local storage why bother with the Identity Safe and fear hacking?

Hugh
Kudos3 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

here's why storing credentials in the Norton Cloud may not be the best idea:


Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Jon,

Just experienced the same with my bank this afternoon ...

http://www.wistv.com/story/15613646/bank-of-america-website-outage-persists-sporadically 

Hugh
Kudos5 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

I have been a Norton user for over 10 years.  Ever since McAfee went down the road Symantec is taking right now.  That is, not using an ounce of common sense + not listening to your base.

1. For those of you who are on the band wagon that "Norton is a security company and have super duper reinforced secure severs that store our online data"...well, I have a couple of companies to toss your way...Bank of America (mandated under federal law to protect user information) Breached.  RSA (developers of cryptographic login and cryptographic keys) Breached.  The list goes on.  There is no such thing as a fully secure system.

2. The ID login freezes and lockups.  I work with systems developers that deal with secure systems.  If they turned out a product that had as muany issues as the Norton ID vault has had, there would eb hell to pay.  If it does not work before you deploy it, why would you deploy it?  Why would you not test it properly?  Duh.

3. Cloud based storage is inherently insecure.  What?  You think it is because it hides behind multiple routers, firewalls and switches?  Hmm...how is it that there are national federal databases that are being hacked then?  Do you really think Norton has a more secure network than defense departments?  No, they all have the same weak points, humans.  Thus, by using cloud storage, you are entrusting your data not only to yourself but also someone else.  You just added a level of mandatory trust you did not need before.  In other words, you just opened yourself to an additional source of attack on your information.

I assume (at least hope) that everyone is still keeping a note of your logins and passwords should you not have access to the "easily accessed always available" online cloud ID vault...that is not always available.  Either way, you still have that threat to your info...unless you memorize ally our passwords (super smart), use one password for all logins (dumb) or rely on Norton to do your thinking for you (dumb dumb).  The ID vault is meant to be a tool for efficiency and ease of use, not a total replacement for your brain.

Sorry if I have offended anyone, I am simply a candid person.  The above remarks are not innacurate and are not false.  No one from Norton will say any of these are wrong because I am basing my information from industry best practices, historic occurences and government/industry standards.  They are simply factual.  I know this because I am paid to know this and write policies and processes based on those standards.

Finally, as the argument has been brought up, Norton is not liable should your information be illegaly hacked, stolen or otherwise abused (unless it were by Norton employees or related contractors).  You agreed to that when you installed the software (look it up in the End User Agreement/License).

Thus, in short, since Norton has decided to go the way of the cloud I must decide to render my long standing history with them null and no longer utilize thier products.  Yes, I registered this community account to make this posting.  I hope others take a second to really think about the implications of Symantec's direction.  And by no means am I trying to tell anyone to not use Norton.  Not at all.  Norton has a very fine product.  The Anti-Virus and Firewall are very useful, effective and intuitive.  By all means, keep using it if the concerns I list above to not match yours.  This is my own personal choice.

However, if you are security conscious in this day and age of ID theft and fraud, you might do well to take a second and think about it.  All this over the switch from local to online vault storage.  Wow. I wonder how many others are out there sitting in my very same shoes.  For a company that is based on security, you could have at least let it be an option to choose whether you wanted cloud or local.  Then I would not have a glitchy and unfinished applet crashing my Internet Explorer, FireFox, Chrome and nearly every other browser whenever I try to use your product.

That is two strikes...not waiting around for three.  Gotta go.  I will probably check in a few times here just to see what kind of replies I get and see if I am alone or not...but beyond that, unless Symantec changes their course, I am going over to McAfee or another AV provider.  I have not used McAfee in a while so I will be doing some research.  Good timing I guess, my annual expires in Feb. so at least I am not losing a years worth of subscription.

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

LOL...funny thing, Norton does not like you deleting your passwords from the vault.  After 15 changes you get automatically logged off.  Then you get kicked after each deletion after that.  I can appreciate the security measure noticing massive changes but think it is funny all the same.  This stinks because I have a pretty long password and a lot of logins.  There is always CTRL+V.

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


immunetou wrote:
And by no means am I trying to tell anyone to not use Norton.  Not at all.  Norton has a very fine product.  The Anti-Virus and Firewall are very useful, effective and intuitive.  By all means, keep using it if the concerns I list above to not match yours.  This is my own personal choice.

Of course, you do not have to give up the entire suite just because you distrust online storage.  You could continue to use NIS or Norton 360 and simply use a different password manager in place of Identity Safe.

Kudos7 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

// SendOfJive:  Of course, you do not have to give up the entire suite just because you distrust online storage.  You could continue to use NIS or Norton 360 and simply use a different password manager in place of Identity Safe.   //

I completely agree with you and understand.  I am on the extreme end of the response, I do not deny.  Again, I am not pushing anyone to follow suit in any way.  That is for each to decide.

I am pulling out completely based on the path they (Symantec) appear to be on; which is a massive shift into cloud storage/computing/ID Vault/ etc...  Which, again, if you (anyone) support, by all means, continue to do business.  I am one who feels this massive push to clouded services is not in the best interest of the individual end user but instead is scoping everyone from the desktop into the overall cloud.  I follow this trend with interest based on the industry I am in and personally do not see it being a good thing.  Again, just me here.

Symantec has continued to force services into the cloud even though there is a large manjority who have spoken out against it, both personally and industry-based.  I cannot continue to fund a organization that is more interested in trusting an uncontrolled framework instead of providing individual services to end-users.  This reveals a contiued service to collective-based intiative and moves further away from the individual accounts that brought them to where they are.

Maybe this is the future of personal computing, who knows.  But I am simply not interested in this direction and will seek products who focus on individual users, not pulling individual users into the cloud-based strategy by force.

I simply do not see it ending at the ID vault but see it encompassing the remainder of their services.  I understand they are already working on cloud based-IDS services and AV scanning...no thank you.

But I really do appreciate your point, it is a good one.  Others take note.

**Edited to correct numerous fat-finger spelling errors

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


immunetou wrote:

I simply do not see it ending at the ID vault but see it encompassing the remainder of their services.  I understand they are already working on cloud based-IDS services and AV scanning...no thank you.

But I really do appreciate your point, it is a good one.  Others take note.

**Edited to correct numerous fat-finger spelling errors


Hi immunetou,

Just wanted to start by saying that I agree with you about removal of the local vault. I pushed hard against that myself in other venues, shall we say.

But mainly I just wanted to note that when it comes to the over-all protection, there are certain things like Reputation based scanning, among others that have been largely cloud based for some time. For things like this, leveraging cloud based services is the only viable way of maintaing protection of your computer. Remember the old days when ALL files had to be scanned EVERY time by your AV software? With the number of malware and other threats in today's world, if everything was scanned and checked ONLY locally, not only would it not be as safe but it would also pretty much take over your PC because it would hog the CPU much of the time.

Of course the cloud based things like Reputation based scanning and others don't put your personal information on a remote computer but I just mentioned it since you did bring it up.

Best wishes.

Allen

Windows 7 Ultimate SP 1, 64 bit, 32 GB * NIS Vers. 21.6.0.32* Ghost 15 * IE 9, Firefox, Safari. Test laptop with W7 Home Premium 64 bit * NIS Vers. 21.6.0.32
Kudos3 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Allen,

Again, I agree with you and understand.  I would be curious to know if Symantec uses agregators for searches and information that is gathered by users.  That I really have no clue on sinc eeI have never looked into it.  Where my concern begins to grow is, why not simply capitalize on efficiency increasing tools that have been pseudo-cloud based, as you mention, until recently.  Why the shift to move a large subset of tools into the cloud?  They struck a balance at that point but have not pushed beyond that balance.

Now, I move into suppositions here and this part is only based on experience and research done in other parts of industry and is not an accusation on Symantec...it may apply it might not.  But many cloud-based solutions are not stored within hardware owned by that offering organization.  Companies cannot afford their own hardware when it can be leased for so much less.  In example, a great deal of online backup companies do not own the hardware providing the cloud-based storage.   I would venture to guess that Symantec is part of that group but am not sure so don't take that as scripture.

Using SwitchNAP in Las Vegas for example.  They are one of the largest network bandwidth and storage providers in the United States.  They provide hardware, bandwidth and maintenance for hundreds (if not thousands by now) of companies.  While, legitimately, the data belongs to the companies, that data is hosted on hardware not belonging to them.  In a perfect world there would be no concern; and the facility is top notch with physical security that would put many of our nuclear power plants to shame.

But!  The key issue here is that my data is not my own in the cloud, regardless of assurances.  Take for example (a weak example I know but it is just as valid) Facebook.  Have you noticed the shift from when they started they served the individual user while now where they are serving advertisers and companies...individual user privacy is gone with Facebook.  At least in the past it was somewhat up to you what you shared.  Now they are making fortunes off of data you have marked not to be shared...legally.  We can use Google as well.  Goggle was once an ardent supporter of user privacy...now your emails are part an expanding email aggregation service.

The only thing that keeps your private info safe in the cloud is the CEO at the top of that provider food chain.  If they change their minds, no matter how reputable the company (i.e. Symantec), everything changes.  Not by firewalls, hacks and malware, but by a contract or user agreement change (Google does not even use the term End-User Agreement/License anymore because that was too restrictive for the direction they were going).

Thus, a furtherance (and a rambling and lengthy) response that supports my pull out from Symantec.  I simply do not like where they seem to be going...and their individual user investors have no say whatsoever.  The only option is to sell each other on how the service "may be bad here...but...not so much over here"  I choose not to have to play that game.  We don't have to...we are grown adults and can do whatever we want to!  :)  (figured I would throw some childish attitude in for good measure)

I am enjoying the discourse, truly.  It is nice to converse with others interested in thinking a little bit instead of the more common generalizations and accusations we see today.

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Jon and everyone concerned about losing contact with their online vault .....

I've had my memory jogged by one of the good guys and it might be worthwhile pointing out that if the Norton servers are unavailable you still have access to your data that is in the online vault as it is cached locally on your hard drive -- the only thing you can't do that I know of is to alter any of it in that cached data but you can use it.

This was covered much earlier in this thread but folks may be new to the discussion and I'd certainly forgotten about it.

Hugh
Kudos1 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


huwyngr wrote:

Jon and everyone concerned about losing contact with their online vault .....

I've had my memory jogged by one of the good guys and it might be worthwhile pointing out that if the Norton servers are unavailable you still have access to your data that is in the online vault as it is cached locally on your hard drive -- the only thing you can't do that I know of is to alter any of it in that cached data but you can use it.

This was covered much earlier in this thread but folks may be new to the discussion and I'd certainly forgotten about it.


Hugh,

If that were completely true, the message Jon posted earlier today ...

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Toolbar-Norton-Identity/Symantec-Please-Explain/m-p/853836#M6091

... would never occur.

And if it really does cache, why couldn't it also cache any changes the user wishes to make until such time that it can reconnect and sync with the Symantec cloud store?

Kind Regards,

John

Kudos2 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Normaly I don't do this whole forum thing as it usually is a waste of time but, having spoken to many tech in past few days Norton online vault, seems here to stay.

Now I didn't have the time to review all the previous texts so most I will probab;y be re-itterating .

Norton vault On-line is unsafe, and slow.

Why is the local vault so insecure ( as they say )

A good hacker with access to their systems will hack the data anyway, whereas a local vault they will get one person, and on-line vault they may get thousands or more.

Would have thought a local vault would be more secure, but hey what do I know except that In the  event that you do NOT have access to the online vault you can resort to the offline cache vault, so.. Wit.. what's the difference again.

Here's a thought.

Why not have an online AND and offline vault. Whoaaa, best of both worlds.

Offline vault could contain the most curent AND have a different password to the Online (Backup Vault) again with a different password. and wait, there is more, both could be synchronised. kinda like a compter backup.

As of 40 min ago, I was speaking to the super/supervisor of the suport and she admitted she was NOT privy to why notron/symantec were going this way with the online system.

Honestly, Why?

Why change a system that works. Change is meant to be for the better not the detrement of it's supscribers.

Personaly I have withdrawn my subscription from symantec and norton. This Is my personal  protest. I am NOT advisising other to do same.

But It would solidify the argument. Instead of activly posting, do something that hurts. Just so they take notice. Advice. not a demand.

Until they see fit or sense I will not advise clients or friends to purchase with the intention to use identity safe as I feel that is unsafe and liable to comprimise.

Kudos4 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

you probably know that you can scan your facebook page yes and also opt out of things using facebook.

Btw. Facebook is one of the biggest  mistakes in peoples lives.

TBH, I really don't know why people tend t tell everyone when they go on holiday and constant;y ost pictures of themselves and family and friends online. Talk about the goldmine for Idenity thieves.

Wise up people.

Norton cannot protect you from iditic behaviour

Kudos2 Stats

Re: Symantec, Please Explain

Spent  a while reading the complaints of other and have come to the conclussion that unless you are willing to ditch the whole thing as opposed to using something like roboform, then NOTHING will come from all this is-house **bleep**ing.

Sry just the way I see it.

Your are happy with the antivirus and the anti-malware but unhappy with the id.safe.

2 ways this could go and 1 symantec wants you to go.

1) Norton will do NOTHING abou the id-safe

2) Borton will introduce a new local And offline Vault , just for those users that want the security and of course they will charge for it

BTW, called them Borton cause they botched up and screwed with their consumer base.

I have used nortons for so many years I can't even remember.

I canceled my sub and will be severing all ties to them. Some may call it extreme. but who will get more attention.

a) people posting on forms which can be ignored

b) paying people, now NOT paying and going elsewhere.

Personally I think they shot themselves in the foot.

When was the last time any virus program told you you had a virus? (Apart from trainers for games and  illegal games distros).

I'm done until they amend their policies.

The rest can **bleep** all they want, without action nothing happens.

Here's a note to think about.

What constitutes a virus these days?

What's the diff between virus and malware?

Been in the business a lomg time. seen many nasty viruses. but most today are malware, because, a virus is designed to interupt and disorganise and demolish whereas malware is designed to stay hidden, not interfere..

Want proof, turn off antivius (not malware ) for 1 hour and surf the sites you do. then turn it on and virus check.

I've done this abut 20 times. nothing, enev gone to really dodgy sites.

In the end , all up to you.

32years of Exp.

22 as I.T

Kudos0

Re: Symantec, Please Explain


huwyngr wrote:

Jon and everyone concerned about losing contact with their online vault .....

I've had my memory jogged by one of the good guys and it might be worthwhile pointing out that if the Norton servers are unavailable you still have access to your data that is in the online vault as it is cached locally on your hard drive -- the only thing you can't do that I know of is to alter any of it in that cached data but you can use it.

This was covered much earlier in this thread but folks may be new to the discussion and I'd certainly forgotten about it.


Hugh,

In a previous post you stated that the On-Line vault was safer then having your login information stored on your local PC, as Norton has better security and a personal PC would be eaiser to hack. But if the information is cached on the local PC why is this not the same as using the Local vault? With Local vault it is stored only on my PC, but with On-Line vault it is stored at Norton and on the Local PC.

Jim

This thread is closed from further comment. Please visit the forum to start a new thread.