I'm not sure how others feel, but I'm a bit concerned about the number of users in this forum being advised to add a Signature Exclusion in their settings (e.g., AntiVirus and SONAR Exclusions | Signatures to Exclude from All Detections | Configure [+] | Add) just to resolve a possible false positive detection. This seems like a dangerous workaround to me since every excluded signature (e.g. Trojan.Gen, Backdoor.Nibu, Suspicious.Cloud.9, etc.) leaves the user's system exposed to future attacks by legitimate threats.
Something as simple as manually running the Norton Insight task (Performance | Norton Tasks) to refresh the reputation of a newly released file can sometimes solve a false positive detection, but here's a suggested approach for handling suspected false positives:
In most cases, users should be able to submit a false positive report and wait a few days for Symantec to report on the safety of the file. If they can't wait for that analysis, ask them to post details of their detection (History | Resolved Security Risks | More Details | Copy to Clipboard) so that you can see where the file was downloaded from, the name of the threat signature (e.g., Trojan.Gen.2) and SHA hash of the suspicious file. If you can't recommend a safe download location like a direct link to the manufacturer's site then provide instructions on how to submit the file and/or SHA hash (if the file has been deleted) to VirusTotal and interpret the scan results - or even better, submit the SHA hash yourself. If you are confident the file is safe then provide instructions on how to create scan exclusions in the AntiVirus and SONAR Exclusions settings (Items to Exclude from Scan | Configure [+] and Items to Exclude from Auto-Protect, SONAR and Download Intelligence | Configure [+]) while they're waiting for the results of Symantec's false positive analysis. If they insist on creating scan exclusions without any evidence that the file is actually safe, make sure they're aware of the risks.
Not all users require that level of direction, but I'm guessing that there are very few instances where software would require a Signature Exclusion to function properly. Please post back if you have an alternate point of view or other suggestions for handling false positives.
------------
32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * Firefox 40.0.2 * NIS 2014 v. 21.7.0.11 * MBAM Premium 2.1.8