I was Browsing on the Images on Google and came across a "Caution" and an "Un-Safe" Web Site, and Norton did not Block either; the only thing that happened was the icon on the Norton Tool Bar changed, with no Notification, which dis-appointed me. Is anyone else getting this as well? I thought N.I.S. 2010 was meant to display a Page wrning of of these Web Sites, advising that you do not continue, but giving you the option to "continue anyway..."?
Message Edited by Floating_Red on 09-09-2009 10:43 PM
If I recall NIS 2009 will only physically block you from going into a site if it detects phishing or possibly a major threat to your computer. The safeweb ratings are not integrated with the norton products so that you are warned before entering a site marked caution or un-safe. Perhaps symantec feels the ratings are warning enough?
In my opinion though if this feature hasn't been added to NIS 2010 symantec should seriously consider it. What if you accidentally click on a site marked as un-safe? What about when you are searching for other things besides straight up web pages (i.e. pictures, videos, news articles etc) or are using a link posted on a site? I for one would love it if NIS could stop me from accidentally visiting un-safe sites, especially when you see some marked with like 5 of each type of threat.
At the moment the only way I now of getting this feature in the norton products is if you do all of your searching through safesearch, and even then you are not covered against links posted on individual sites.
The smart screen filter in IE8 has this feature. If Microsoft can provide the feature for free than norton should definitely be able to provide it to paying customers.
This is what I would like to see: I would like to see symantec providing the Warning they did in Norton 2008 Products, whereby it displayed a full-Page Notification whenever you went to a Fake or Annoyance Web Site, or you went to a Suspicious Web Site, which would Block the Web Site, advising you to not visit the Web Site, but giving the option of going there anyway. I would also like to see this Warning on Web Sites that are Un-Tested. I don't understand why symantec took this away because the number of Fake Web Sites is increasing everyday, and I think that the Full-Screen Notifications provided excellent Protection; since symantec took this away, I don't feel as safe, compared to when it was there.
I completely agree with you floatingred. Of course to make sure the feature isn’t too intrusive to the every day user un-safe sites should be physically blocked always and the user should have the option of whether or not to physically block suspicious and un-tested sites.
Phil: I encountered an "Un-Safe" Web Site, and a "Caution" Web Site, and N.I.S. 2009 and N.I.S. 2010 did not Block either, while doing an Image Search.
I would also like to see Norton Safe Web Ratings on Images' Search Results, and not just the Web Results; this would further increase Protection and from getting Infected.
From what I can tell your copy of NIS blocked that webpage because it detected that it was fraudulant or a phishing scam. What floatingred and I want to see implemented are screens like that one (but with the option to continue to the site) put up whenever users navigate to sites designated with a red x by safeweb. Red x sites would be physically blocked automatically but the user would have the option to have the same feature implemented with site rated as caution or untested.
This is particularly helpful when visiting sites posted juist as links on various sites. Currently, to ensure a site is at least rated as safe before I visit it, I would have to either go to google or norton.safeweb.com to type in the site's name and see the safeweb rating.
Thank you for the valuable feedback - the concepts are totally understandable. I just wanted to confirm that the current NIS 2010 design is the same type of "early warning" behavior like Khanh described back in April 09 for NIS 2009.
We will continue internal analysis of your suggestions to include a user-controllable option to provide block page behavior for "unsafe" websites known to SafeWeb.
What was the reason for symantec taking the Full-Screen Block out of Norton Products, which was in Norton 2008 Products? All this does is give the customer less Protection, if one should Click on a Fake Web Site; and am not just referring to Google, am taking about e-mails, Legitimate Web Site hosting a Bad Web Link, and so on. Also, the Norton Safe Web does not support Images' Searches, and this is something that I would like to see being introduced to Norton Products. Norton Safe Web is an excellent idea/Component, by the way, and all Norton Products should have this Component in future Versions.
Message Edited by Floating_Red on 09-22-2009 10:22 PM
I am not familiar with any decision to remove full-screen blocking from a shipping product - it has always been there for phishing page protection since NIS2007.
I do not recall the details at the moment, but it is possible that a particular beta release had full-page blocking for SafeWeb "red" sites.
The current thinking is that an "early warning" type of design for Safe Web is more suitable for alerting users of risky websites. Consider also that our browser protection performs well in blocking active drive-by-download type of threats on specific malicious pages within a website.
I don't think just having an "'early warning'" system for Un-Safe Web Sites is good enough in Today's Threat landscape; for example, what happens if the Notification did not appear? What would happen if a user Downloaded a Fake "Anti-Virus Product" from that Web Site? And also, if symantec was not aware of a recent, un-disclosed Attack, and no Signatures covered that Attack. I think it would provide better security if all "Un-Safe" and "Caution" Web Sites were Blocked via the Full-Page Block that was in Norton 2007 Products, regardless if it is via a Google Search or through e-mail; I don't see any reason why that should be taken out because you still had the option to "Continue to the Web site anyway...". Also in Norton 2007, it would Block any Suspicous or Fake Web Site. Also, symantec Security Response are not going to get every Fake Web Site. That is why I'd like to see this feature put back in; "better safe than sorry"...
Yes, I do know that your Intrusion Prevention is excellent and I'm very happy to see that this was dramatically improved in Norton 2009 Products; I even saw, in tests, that it got a 100% Blocks. Excellent work, symantec!
I read you loud and clear regarding the desire to have Safe Web perform the full-page blocking
I am just respectfully trying to point out that regarding full-page blocking for phishing pages, it has always been there with the same basic design from NIS2007 onward.
Other readers may be getting the impression that we downgraded some full-page blocking design over our product releases. I do not believe we have changed any full-page blocking behavior in our shipping products - suspected and known phishing pages have always received full-page block messages.
Thanks, Matt; I understand what you're pointing out. But as the Image (above) shows, there is no Full-Page Block, and I have not gotten any Full-Page Block when I've come across Un-Safe Web Sites, and am guessing it wasn't a Phishing Web Site since the Norton Product did not Block the Web Page. While I respect symantec's choice, I believe that letting all Un-Safe, Caution and Suspicious Web Sites being fully-Loaded should not be allowed, and I expect that customers expect Un-Safe, Caution and Suspicious Web Sites to be fully-blocked. For the safety and security of Norton users, I hope that symantec changes the way Norton Products handle such Web Sites in Norton 2011 Products to the way they did in Norton Internet Security 2007, as I've already explained, Blocked all Fake or Suspicious Web Sites.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for taking the time to respond to this Thread; it is much appreciated.
The option to totally block unsafe pages should be included, but as a modifiable option only. You have to consider kids’ propensity to explore in unsafe areas, but some people don’t have kids and know how safe it is to explore those areas without getting zapped. The example I gave is perfect for this.
