How can I disable the "fix now" function when it wants to scan?

Norton Security | Norton Internet Security
21

Well... silent mode does nothing in regards to the "needs attention" status.  For that matter, silent mode doesn't seem to do anything at all that my settings don't already deal with--except extending the 20-minute delay a bit (but as mentioned, if I leave the laptop alone for that long, it's usually hibernating anyway).  The nuisance of turning silent mode on ("really?  are you sure you want to enable silent mode?  you won't change your mind?  ok, then, for how long?") really limits its value, as well.  (Why can't there be a single-click on/off?  I mean, come on, turning it on and then forgetting it isn't like, say, leaving the stove on, or leaving the car running in the garage--nothing bad will happen if you forget to turn silent mode back off again.  So why is Norton so *bleeping* paranoid about it?)

So... screw silent mode.  However, despite all the stupid things it does, XP was actually quite helpful in resolving my issue:  if you ignore the Norton "needs attention" exclamation mark for long enough, the icon becomes "inactive", and Windows hides it for you.  This is kind of special, as I have the normal (green checkmark) Norton icon set to "always show"; thanks to the same idiotic simple-mindedness that refuses to keep the wireless network icon hidden (each variation of wireless networks available seems to register as a different icon condition, in regards to the "hide inactive" function), if you have Norton (green checkmark) set to "always show", it still reverts to "hide when inactive" when it goes yellow exclamation on you.

 

So, the moral of the story is:  if you ignore the Norton "needs attention" status for long enough, it will go away (at least, in XP's task bar thingy--I don't know if it works for Vista/7 or Windows Tablet (ie., 8), and honestly, I couldn't care less).  Three cheers for apathy, and whatnot:  problem ignored = problem solved.

22

The safekeeping of data stored on your  PC is, in large part, entrusted to the security software you use.  Tampering with its basic operations and then circumventing its status alerts so that the program has no way of warning you about any problems does not really seem like a solution to me. 

23

"The safekeeping of data stored on your PC is, in large part, entrusted to the security software you use."

 

Sorry, but no.  That simply is not true.  It is my data, and it is my responsibility to keep it safe.  I may employ tools to help me do so, but whether or not the data's safety is "entrusted" to the security software depends entirely on whether or not the user *chooses* to blindly trust that software.  If other users don't want be responsible for their own data, that's their choice.

 

If the user is too lazy (or ignorant) to do his own maintenance, or to keep an eye on vital processes and data, then fine--trust Norton to do everything, and when it fails, bring your computer in for repairs.  Pay an "expert" hundreds of dollars to find the problem for you.  It's your computer, your money (your choice).  I choose to take responsibility for my own computer.  If I don't know how to do something myself, I ask for help on forums like this one.  I also change my own tire when I have a flat and clean the trap under my sink when it's clogged.  I once thought that that was "normal".

 

Now, again, my purpose in starting this string was to gain information on how to solve a problem.  I do not prevent Norton from alerting me when there is a problem; I specifically do *not* turn off (or try to disable) virus alerts.  I've mentioned this a few times, now, but in case somebody missed it, here it is again:  I use Norton to catch/stop viruses.  What I do NOT need from Norton is a baby sitter to tell me when to take a *bleep* on the potty.  I will run scans WHEN I CHOOSE TO.  That's really not so complicated, is it?

 

So:  in regards to the annoying "please sah, you must run virus scan NOW sah, really sah, you must not delay!", yes, the SOLUTION (at least on XP) is that if you ignore it for long enough, it will go away.  This does NOT prevent Norton from warning you when there really is a problem (like a virus or something).  If somebody comes up with a better solution (possible a registry fix, or a option in Norton to disable "run scan now" warnings), please do share; however, if all you have to offer is the company rhetoric about how "safety features are there for YOUR protection", then please feel free to keep it to yourself.  ;p  (There are enough MS toadies about--the last thing we need is sycophants for every other software developer.)

 

(No offense intended, of course.)

24

Stef, I've been following this thread with interest. The point with NIS, is that you can set it how you want it. It's there to give you protection, much the same as keeping your doors and windows locked.  You may not like those restrictions, but they are there to keep you safe.

25

"...they are there to keep you safe."  Um, yeah... but NO.  It is neither Norton's business nor right to impose safety regulations on the user.  NIS does allow the user to set certain features according to preference.  It does not, however, recognize that intelligent and intentional users are able keep themselves safe--and if Norton's target audience is idiot users who can't find the power button without tech support, then why bother with options at all?

If my car door locks when I go above 5km/h, it is because there is a valid concern for the safety of *other* people, not just the driver.  However, if my bedroom window should automatically close and lock every time I leave my room--despite the fact that I have installed bars over the window, and know that it is perfectly safe to leave open--then you can be sure that I would be disabling the automatic component of that mechanism.  So would anybody else who isn't afraid of fresh air, and isn't too lazy or incompetent to do something about it.  (Some people might choose to keep the automation for the sake of convenience, but that is their *choice*--it is not the right of the window manufacturers to mandate automatic locking.)

 

Again, the "they are there to keep you safe" line is a bit tired.  Thanks for the input, but I did not sign some EULA stating that Norton, and Norton alone, is responsible for my computing safety.  (What is wrong with this world, that nobody understands the concept of being responsible for your own stuff?)

26

I think your comment that NIS pisses you off less than the others, speaks volumes.

27

Cute comment, but no worries--I'm not going to go all "angry ginger"-y about this.  I expect people to do stupid things (after all, I'm human, and I do stupid things too); so, I find it a lot easier to be patient and tolerant with people.  With computers... I do have some trouble keeping my temper.  (I've been getting better, though.)  When Norton decides to interrupt some work I'm trying to get done (or even if it's just interrupting a game), I find it quite irritating.  Norton is *not* as bad about this as many other AV programs seem to be.  I do not hate Norton, nor Norton's programmers.  I *do* find it highly irritating (as in, it pisses me off) that Norton treats users like mentally-deficient juvenile simians who can't be trusted to scan their own computer on occasion.

 

Seriously, is that so unreasonable?  I'm not a complete moron.  I can find the "scan" button and press it all on my own.  I can do this without a constant reminder.  (In the morning, I can get dressed all by myself, too--I don't need an automated scheduler to help me remember to put my socks on before I put my shoes on.  Again, I used to think that this was fairly normal.  Now, I'm not so sure.)

28
StefCoulombe wrote:
...the last thing we need is sycophants for every other software developer.

No one is saying that frequent Quick Scans are the only way to insure protection.  But it is the method Norton uses.  Therefore, the advice you were given to allow the program to work as designed is still the best and most practical solution to your problem.  The program will work correctly and unobtrusively if left to do so.  While you seem not to appreciate the risks introduced by your workarounds, they do exist, nevertheless.

29

Sorry, but you seem to be misunderstanding the problem.  When a "security" program becomes too annoying, it stops being used. I would not be trying to "work around" the software if it were not being obtrusive; it would not be obtrusive, if Norton appreciated that not all users are incompetent or lazy--or, of course, if I had enough blind faith in Norton to just install it "out of the box".  I realize there are risks associated with working around Norton, but I have weighed those risks, and decided that they are not significant.  Whether *you* appreciate it or not, blindly trusting any security system--software, hardware or human--is an even greater risk.  Again, users who exhibit some measure of intelligence regarding the websites they visit and the files they open DO NOT NEED "frequent Quick Scans".  After I visit a "questionable" site, or after I access a suspicious disk, I run a scan; I don't expose my computer to those risks that often.  So, kindly stop spouting the line that "letting the program work as designed is the best solution".  Feel free to offer that advice to people who are asking for it--at the same time, you can push the MS mantra that "auto-update is the best way to ensure system stability".

 

The ideal solution for the problem would be to find security software which doesn't treat the user like a brainless idiot.  Unfortunately, I can't afford to hire a programmer to write it for me, nor do I have time to evaluate every AV program on the market.  For my purposes, Norton does the best job of the readily-available options; HOWEVER, it would do a better job if it gave experienced users other options, and until it does so, the "best and most practical solution" is to find workarounds for the features which I find most irritating.

 

Seriously, thanks for the advice and all, but kindly stop trying to redefine the problem for me.  You've said your piece; if you aren't going to add anything that I can use, don't feel obliged to keep repeating the "use as indicated" propaganda.  (I came to this forum to find an answer to my question, not to get preached at.  I already have a religion;  the "dark side of the Norton" has no power over me...)  ;p

30
StefCoulombe wrote:

Whether *you* appreciate it or not, blindly trusting any security system--software, hardware or human--is an even greater risk.  Again, users who exhibit some measure of intelligence regarding the websites they visit and the files they open DO NOT NEED "frequent Quick Scans".  After I visit a "questionable" site, or after I access a suspicious disk, I run a scan; I don't expose my computer to those risks that often.

I agree that the burden of securing a PC is on the user. However, the notion of avoiding "questionable" websites is no longer considered to be a meaningful recommendation, since you are actually more likely to be infected by visiting legitimate sites that have been compromised - as has happened notably to the New York Times and Kaspersky's download page, to name only two prominent victims.  Far more important than scanning after visiting a website, is what you are doing proactively with things like your browser's JavaScript permissions, Java and Adobe Reader settings, and application security patches. 

 

And can we please stop referring to unsophisticated users as lazy, incompetent or brainless idiots?  They are not.  Besides, the Quick Scan has nothing to do with compensating for user ineptitude, anyway.  The Quick Scan is specifically intended to check only for active threats that, because of their newness, would have been undetectable in any earlier scans.  It's a quick safety check to make sure that previously unknown malware is caught early, and it is geared to the timing of the release of new virus signatures, not some dismissive attitude about users' intelligence.

 

31

"And can we please stop referring to unsophisticated users as lazy, incompetent or brainless idiots?"

 

Fair enough.  Not all of them are--and perhaps even "most" of them are not.  It is, however, the consumer demand for idiot-proof security (and other) software that results software producers trying to make idiot-proof programs, which (in my experience) is what results in exactly this kind of problem.  If the "average(?)" user didn't need the reminder to scan, then the reminder wouldn't so often be hard-wired into the program (to the point where it "can not" be removed, "because it would compromise security").

 

My issue with the Quick Scan is NOT (I repeat, NOT) with the suggestion that it is helpful!  It is with the program's (and programmers') inability to comprehend that some users do not need to be nagged about doing it--and the nagging itself is counter-productive, as it is nothing more than crying "wolf", the vast majority of the time.  Norton has yet to catch a single virus on my laptop.  There have been a few cookies that it didn't like, but that's it.  When you keep going on about how the Quick Scan is so valuable for other users, you're still missing the point:  it does not help with the problem that I originally asked about.  You have some very good arguments, and maybe avoiding questionable websites isn't as helpful anymore, but my experience shows me that my methods are effective enough for me (I didn't bother bringing up other security measures, like the settings in my browser, in previous messages--sorry).  I really don't care if everybody else feels some peace of mind in letting Norton scan as it will--I don't.  As a result, I scan when I have time to supervise the scan.  Having Norton interrupt my work, or nagging me with its little yellow exlamation point, is counter-productive.  The Quick Scan is NOT that vital for my system.

 

So, fine:  not all users are stupid.  (However, the ones who basically run their programs "out of the box" without learning anything about the software or its options are a large part of the problem.  I have no problem with "new users"--even my parents are new users--but I wish that more of them, like my parents, would actually *learn* something about what they're doing.  I also wish that software developers would stop catering to the apathetic masses--if people actually *had* to think for themselves, perhaps more of them would.)

 

Also, fine:  there is a point in Quick Scanning after updating.  I have no problem with that.  Remind me *once* after each update, and I guess that's ok too.  Keep nagging me about it when I'm busy with more important things, though, and I going to try to find a workaround.  Again, I have to ask, is that really so unreasonable?

 

Now then:  does anybody have anything to offer regarding the problem I started this discussion about, or are we just going to argue about my opinion of "out of the box" users?  (And for the quick of finger, no, my opinion of those users is *not* the actual problem.)

 

Edit:

SendOfJive:  You do make excellent arguments, and perhaps I am a bit intolerant of careless users.  You clearly know what you are writing about, and you try to defend functions (and users) who you feel are being unfairly attacked.  I've done the same.  However, I am not going to your discussion board, or to a Norton comment blog, and randomly insulting the program or its users.  I started this discussion to try to find the solution for a problem, and it is really not at all helpful (and actually is rather irritating) that so many comments are completely ignoring my question, and instead are just repeating the "why use Norton if you're just going to disable it?" nonsense.  I'm sorry if I have offended you personally--but try looking at this from my point of view.

32

Perhaps it would be helpful to discuss why Norton is bugging you about scans.  Norton is designed to run a Quick Scan following every full signature update.  It is set up to do this only during idle time, so that the user is not interrupted.  If the user begins to use the PC while an idle time scan is in progress, the scan will be discontinued until the computer is again idle.  Now, Idle Time Quick Scans are considered to be a high priority item:  After a few days, if no scan has run Norton will run the scan in non-idle time or start prompting the user - and that is when it becomes annoying.

 

Here is where things go wrong:  Users intuitively set the Idle Time Out option to a value that is too high, assuming that a 30 minute setting versus a one minute setting will keep the scan at bay.  And it does.  Instead of immediately taking advantage of the idle time and getting the scan out of the way, Norton is forced to wait for half an hour before deciding that the computer is actually idle.  If the user always returns before 30 minutes is up, the scan never gets to run and the result is either dire warnings, or scans that run anyway while you are working.  By setting the Idle Time Out to a lower value, such as one minute, Norton can begin the scans almost immeditately and the user should never be bothered again.

 

Now, if you are opposed to allowing these scans to run under any circumstances - even when you are not using the computer - then the above suggestion is not going to be a suitable solution for you.  But the Idle Time Quick Scan is not user-configurable, and cannot be disabled (whether this is too pushy or not doesn't matter - this is the way it is, so if you use the program, you are going to be dealing with Quick Scans).  I am not advocating any Norton policy, I am simply trying to indicate that the most practical way not to be bothered by Quick Scans is to make sure that they are able to run while you are away.  You are perfectly within reason if you do not want a program running quick scans automatically, but Norton is a program that not only does exactly that, but also does not allow the user to disable them.  I am not arguing with your preferences.  But what can I tell you under the circumstances, besides offering suggestions on how to best get along with your security program, despite your philosophical differences?

 

33

"But what can I tell you under the circumstances, besides offering suggestions on how to best get along with your security program, despite your philosophical differences?"

 

I'm going to go ahead and quote from my original post:

 

"... what registry entry do I have to delete...?"

 

and

 

"I would appreciate any answers that do not include the phrases, "Run the scan", "Reboot now", or "Download the next version"..."

 

I appreciate that you think my letting Norton run its scans will solve my problem.  I understand that most inexperienced users should not be messing with the registry, and most professional users prefer not to share registry edits on the grounds that inexperienced users can really mess things up by messing with the registry.  I also realize, though, that registry solutions *can* be very quick and painless, and if all I'm doing is disabling a "scan now!" warning, or setting an idle time-out value to a higher-than-allowed number, then I am not "compromising" my system's security.

 

To recap: 

1)  I don't like the yellow "scan now" exclamation point (for various reasons--for example, I rely on that yellow icon to let me know when to update).  I scan often enough.

2)  Nobody has offered a registry fix, or any other workaround.

3)  Ignoring it for long enough makes it go away, which doesn't help with the updating, but at least stops it from annoying me.

4)  Until/Unless somebody has a better workaround, the problem is solved for me.

 

Just because Norton *is* that way (requiring quick scans), doesn't mean that Norton has to *stay* that way.  It's a program, and programs can be changed.  If nobody has a better workaround, fine; you never know, until you ask.  Which is what I did.  And I'm still getting the answer that I shouldn't be asking that question.  ;p

 

SendOfJive, I understand what you're saying (I actually got it the first several times), that the Quick Scan "can not" be disabled.  I appreciate what you're trying to tell me.  It doesn't answer my question, though.  There may not be an answer; perhaps nobody, not even Norton themselves, can "fix" the problem for me.  I know, however, that there are workarounds for other issues:  for example, if you want to shut Norton down *quickly* (for example, when you're not online, and say, watching a movie, and it keeps popping up with that "background tasks" window), then you can quick scan an archive (.rar, for example), and then use Task Manager to shut down the scanning task... yes, it's probably not "advised" to crash Norton, but it has the same (ultimate) effect as shutting Norton down--without restarting the computer, and IT WORKS.  (I have tried telling Norton about this "problem", as I figured they would want to "fix" it, but so far they haven't.)  So, my quest for a workaround for Norton's "scan now" is not some blind stab-in-the-dark, and I'm not giving up on finding a real solution.

 

Thanks again for your insight into the workings of the Norton machine.  If what you wrote isn't already in the Norton "help" file, it probably should be.  It is clear how you got so many "kudos" and solutions in this community--as I've said before, you know what you are writing about.  Even as a Norton Fighter, though, you can't win every battle; we'll just have to let the Evil Machine win this one, for now, and once we've found a suitable workaround, we'll rejoin the fray.  (Sorry, I might be over-working your "Norton Fighter" imagery.)

 

Cheers.

34

What you are characterizing as a problem is actually an intended behavior that the product does not allow to be modified.  The fix you are after would actually be a vulnerability in the software - the sort of thing that malware writers would exploit in order to disable an AV without alerting the user.  I don't think there is much place for you to go from here.  Anyway, I'm glad I was able to provide some useful perspective for you, even if the solution I offered was not what you were after.  Good luck to you.

35

"The fix you are after would actually be a vulnerability in the software - the sort of thing that malware writers would exploit in order to disable an AV without alerting the user."

 

Ok, now, give it up already.  You have your reasons for not liking my methods, fine; maybe I am looking for a "vulnerability" in Norton--but enough of them exist, so why shouldn't I hope that there's one that will let me do what I want?  And if there isn't one, then, hoorah for Norton, bully for you, and oh well for me--but you can drop the bloody condescension already.  Sheesh, I try to give you a way to gracefully drop the argument, and you just have to come back with the same old rhetoric!   "What you are characterizing as a problem is actually an intended behavior that the product does not allow to be modified."  Well, duh!  We've known that since the first posting, ok?  I KNOW THAT'S HOW NORTON WORKS.  I want to change how Norton works.  If Norton allowed it to be changed, then I wouldn't have to look for workarounds, now would I?  "What you are characterizing as a problem..."  What are you, some kind of political speech writer or something?  It IS a problem for me.  I am not "characterizing" it.  I know Norton wants to work that way.  I want to change how it works.

 

I'm glad you were able to provide perspective for our amused onlookers.  "I don't think there is much place for you to go from here."  So... you're like the admin for this community, and you're telling me that there's nothing more to be said on the matter?  In case you hadn't noticed, "from here" is the same place that you started.  Your basic premise all along has been "this is the way Norton works--don't (try to) change it".  So, again, you haven't been trying to help answer my question; you've been advising me not to ask it.  "It's not a problem, it's supposed to work that way."  Yeah.

 

Thanks anyway.

36

Stef,

 

There is no need to address in that way someone who has been patiently trying to help you when you want an answer that you cannot get.

 

Have you tried asking Microsoft how to get the START menu back in Windows 8 ... what the registry edit is to do what you want instead of what Microsoft wants?

 

I doubt if you would even get << Good luck to you. >> from them.

 

What SoJ says about Norton designing to prevent what they regard as essential features for protection of their customers happens to be absolutely correct and whether you like it or not is part of the design philosophy of all security applications of any value.

 

If it were possible and any of us actually knew how to do this do you think we would be around for long if we posted it? And if it were possible and we did do you not think that Norton would promptly block such a change in the program?

37

Look, I tried being patient and polite, and all I keep getting is the same reply--so don't give the "someone who was trying to help you" line.  I thought I made it abundantly clear, from the beginning, what I was looking for.  If Norton would boot you off its community for helping me find it, then say so--forgive me for believing this to be an open discussion.  I know how annoying MS is.  Spyware Doctor is polite, but just as unhelpful in the end.  Now, if the "Norton Fighter" designation is supposed to indicate actual Norton Tech Support, then you guys are polite and friendly and all, and I'm sure very helpful for users who can't find the help documentation, but just about as helpful *for me* as the all the others.  I have no problem with SendOfJive's comments being "correct"--but, it is not "helping" when you keep telling people things they already know, and insisting that what they seek is forbidden.

 

And as to Norton blocking such changes... they're good, but there are other legitimate concerns that they seem to be ignoring, so, no, I don't think they would promptly do so.

 

Now, if I had known that you would lose your position in this community for answering my question, I wouldn't have asked it.  (Well, I wouldn't have asked it *here*.)  And, if the simple answer were "it is not possible", then why the bleep couldn't the Norton Fighters just leave it at that, instead of insisting that my quest is "fraught with danger" and continually trying to insist that "Norton's way is the best way"?  You know, telling me that it "isn't a problem, it's part of the program" and all that?  FOR ME IT'S A PROBLEM.  Don't tell me that it isn't!

 

So:  if the Norton Gestapo would keep any real answer to my question from appearing here, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.   My apologies for the time that you and SendOfJive have put into it, and for any bruised feelings.  I would humbly recommend that next time something like this comes up, though, instead of repeating the company policy fifteen (or whatever) times, you guys say your piece once, maybe twice for emphasis, and then either find something new to say or let it go.

 

Oh, and if the answer to the question would be "illegal" in this community, make sure to mention it a bit sooner.  ;p

 

P.S.  The solution for the Windows 8 problem is to use XP.  Unfortunately, that doesn't work so well with AV programs, as they like to stop supporting older versions--if I could get virus definition updates for pre-auto-quick-scan versions of Norton, then that's what I'd be using.

38

Can someone close this thread, before it becomes the biggest in Norton's history ?  Some people just can't BE convinced......

39
StefCoulombe wrote:

"The fix you are after would actually be a vulnerability in the software - the sort of thing that malware writers would exploit in order to disable an AV without alerting the user."

 

Ok, now, give it up already.  You have your reasons for not liking my methods, fine; maybe I am looking for a "vulnerability" in Norton--but enough of them exist, so why shouldn't I hope that there's one that will let me do what I want?  And if there isn't one, then, hoorah for Norton, bully for you, and oh well for me--but you can drop the bloody condescension already.  Sheesh, I try to give you a way to gracefully drop the argument, and you just have to come back with the same old rhetoric!   "What you are characterizing as a problem is actually an intended behavior that the product does not allow to be modified."  Well, duh!  We've known that since the first posting, ok?  I KNOW THAT'S HOW NORTON WORKS.  I want to change how Norton works.  If Norton allowed it to be changed, then I wouldn't have to look for workarounds, now would I?  "What you are characterizing as a problem..."  What are you, some kind of political speech writer or something?  It IS a problem for me.  I am not "characterizing" it.  I know Norton wants to work that way.  I want to change how it works.

 

I'm glad you were able to provide perspective for our amused onlookers.  "I don't think there is much place for you to go from here."  So... you're like the admin for this community, and you're telling me that there's nothing more to be said on the matter?  In case you hadn't noticed, "from here" is the same place that you started.  Your basic premise all along has been .  So, again, you haven't been trying to help answer my question; you've been advising me not to ask it.  "It's not a problem, it's supposed to work that way."  Yeah.

 

Thanks anyway.

I have no idea how you came away with this interpretation of what I posted, or how I managed to provoke such an angry reaction.  Nothing remotely close to that was intended.  Regrettably, you have not really understood anything that I have said, if your summation of this thread is an indication of all that you got out of it.  You have the point of my comment about the registry fix completely wrong, but I am not even about to try to clarify it.  Again, I sincerely wish you good luck. 

40

Oh, come on.  Now you're suggesting that I haven't understood anything you've written.  Fine.  If you can't make somebody agree with you, then .... 

 

The "angry reaction" you refer to is my frustration that, regardless your comments suggesting that you're ok with my preferences, you keep telling me that the "solution" is to just do it Norton's way--and you do so in a way that implies my preferences are wrong (despite claiming that I'm free to have those preferences).

 

Maybe you really don't see it for yourself; maybe it is completely unintentional.  Let's leave it at that, then:  I don't understand you, you don't understand me, and this thread (whatever else it may do) is not going to help with the problem in the subject line.