I had thought of the Idea od a PUP class of detection, after a PC in front of me couldn't get past the "Welcome" screen on startup and I found a conflict between the AV installed and the 7 PUP's installed (yes 7)
I used Safe Mode to uninstall the AV then back in Normal Mode, although still slow going, I removed the 7 PUP's, with all objects.
A PUP grouping, For example,
PUP.babylon
PUP.conduit
PUP.ilivid
PUP.Freeze.com
PUP.mywebsearch_funwebproducts
...........................................
If Norton detects a PUP.[Program name] Norton pops up a dialog box telling the user Norton has detected PUP.[Program name]installed on the system (or being installed) and would you like
(2 buttons)
a) No I want the program installed on my system
b) Yes, have Norton remove the program.
The a) option if click then has Norton also not detect that PUP.[Program name] again in future
The b) option click then means Norton goes about removing the objects belonging to the PUP.[Program name] in question including Drivers, Services, Files Folders,, Registry Keys (including uninstall keys) and so on, It could even be like Adwcleaner and reset the browser settings for search enging and homepage etc. as long as the browser is supported by Norton.
being a program (PUP) it is easy to remove the entries You could say basically Norton is uninstalling the PUP like Adwcleaner does.
I would add that Norton should launch the uninstaller for that program (if applicable) first before doing any cleanup. Personally, I prefer to remove PUPs with their own uninstaller first then use other programs to clean up the remnants.
Great suggestion about PUP. Could these PUPs be another way to gain unauthorized access to a system without being detected if a person allows them to be installed? If that is the case, then this idea would help greatly.
I came in here to suggest this very thing. Other AV solutions detect PUA/PUP, Norton should too.
Webroot even has a check box for detecting them in options! I've been waffling between Norton and them for a while now, weighing the pros/cons of each for my elderly parents who seem to click on every OK INFECT ME! SURE! GO AHEAD! pop up that comes up on their screen.
PUP/PUA detection would be a major headache reducer if Norton implemented this.
I understand that, but I like your suggestion better. There should be a more proactive approach to all PUA's that present a challenge to remove and make sweeping changes to browser/homepage/searches.
If a PUA is as simple as using add/remove and that undoes everything it did, then I'm OK with Norton skipping it.
One of the sad facts of computing life today is that no single security program can protect you 100% of the time from 100% of the threats being released by the thousands daily. That said, using one active scanner and one on demand scanner can improve protection. The other side of the coin is tha infection is a 'when' not an 'if'.
Because PUPs can generally be avoided by simply paying attention to the installation screens whenever you download a new program or update an existing one, I would not make PUP detection a primary consideration when choosing a security program. If Norton's overall protection is superior to a competitor's, I certainly would not settle for the lesser security for the sake of allowing me to neglect my own oversight responsibility when adding or updating software. Remember too, that PUPs are legitimate programs, albeit annoying and sometimes sneaky. These companies pay to have their programs bundled with other software, and that income helps to keep many programs free. Symantec cannot disrupt the business partnerships of legitimate companies by blocking the downloads, just because users who aren't paying attention may end up with an obnoxious toolbar or something similarly irritating but non-destructive. As Quads points out, Norton does block those PUAs that cross the line from grayware to malware.
You make a good point Jive, but in this time of elderly relatives and children online, there has to be much less expectation for "over-sight responsibility". Symantec's need to "protect" its business relationships would seem to incur an obligation to choose wisely rather than allow all and sundry. After all, 90% of this stuff is garbage. We are not talking about a McAfee scan embedded with a Flash download.
Because PUPs can generally be avoided by simply paying attention to the installation screens whenever you download a new program or update an existing one, I would not make PUP detection a primary consideration when choosing a security program. If Norton's overall protection is superior to a competitor's, I certainly would not settle for the lesser security for the sake of allowing me to neglect my own oversight responsibility when adding or updating software. Remember too, that PUPs are legitimate programs, albeit annoying and sometimes sneaky. These companies pay to have their programs bundled with other software, and that income helps to keep many programs free. Symantec cannot disrupt the business partnerships of legitimate companies by blocking the downloads, just because users who aren't paying attention may end up with an obnoxious toolbar or something similarly irritating but non-destructive. As Quads points out, Norton does block those PUAs that cross the line from grayware to malware.
I did suggest a mechanism that Symantec could potentially implement that would address this "business partnership" dilemma here:
I may be covering topics already covered in other replys but this is my contribution.
Programs would come into this category if they:
1. Do not provide an uninstall procedure that completely removes all trace.
2. Do not show as installed processes.
3. If they just pop up again if uninstalled or are stopped.
4. If they are so well hidden that they are almost impossible to find.
5. If they change the status on the folder to hidden or perform other acts to disguise their presence.
Surely any program that does any of the above and is not a genuine part of the OS should be considered as invasive and a potential invasion of privacy. There is clearly an attempt on the part of the authors to prevent their program from being removed. This is not ethical business practice and they should be treated in the same way as malware.
Giving the option for people to keep Addware/PUPware if they want it is a good idea.
Targeted Adds are one thing but for my part I do not want adds popping up everywhere for products that I do not want, nor do I want flying saucer games or casino games appearing randomly on the screen most with no way of closing them down.
If this cannot be achieved then at least there should be an industry board/web site that lists all of the known PUPs and known methods of removing them.
If one has to jump through all of these hoops to remove a PUP (or PUS - Potentially Unwanted Software), how much happier would the Norton user be who could be warned ahead of time while downloading/installing such a program?
i would like to see PUP option in norton even if its not turned on by default most other respected security providers offer protection against PUP also i would like to see surf protection Privacy risks -Hosts that are used for advertising or tracking purposes to be able to block them like a certain company has implemented into there suite.