Norton Internet Security WS.Reputation.1

By | 06.09.2019

This goes a long way. And no, it doesn’t have to be Verisign. This wiped out your known reputation.
Norton Internet Security WS.Reputation.1

Unable to Download TurboLaw Time and Billing (Symantec or Norton WS.Reputation.1 Alert)

adobe photoshop elements 12
Autodesk AutoCAD LT 2016
This goes a long way. And no, it doesn’t have to be Verisign. This wiped out your known reputation. Would have been acceptable if your binaries were signed Symantec is not out to squish the little guy.

Sometimes you do have a few more hoops that you are required to hop through. Symantec should have better transparency on how this process works, it’s something I pushed for pretty heavily but never had the power to get done. Don’t worry, you’re not alone. We weren’t able to get Mozilla to sign their beta or developer builds that are shared on multiple mirrors domains not related to mozilla.

We’d get lots of angry understandably reports of reputation issues on these builds. If anybody has any questions within reason, I’ll be glad to answer them. First of all, EVERY piece of desktop software my company delivers to users is signed via a known and trusted authority. We knew that would be important and took steps before ever releasing our first piece of desktop software.

It’s not clear why the software is being blocked, and in most cases the user just abandons the software instead of calling us to let us know there was an issue. When we finally did discover the issue, it wasn’t clear what to do.

It took us quite a while to figure out where that “false positive” link was, and we weren’t even sure that it was the right place to send it to.

Even worse, you claim that they “should” have the programs whitelisted within a few business days. This is patently false and never happens that quickly. It took a month before the executable we submitted was whitelisted and you know what?

It didn’t help one bit. Symantec seems to not take into account the fact that the executable will be updated, so by the time our first submission was whitelisted we had published 2 updates adding features and fixing bugs. Those updates were blocked even after the initial executable was whitelisted.

You may not be “out to squish the little guy” but honestly that doesn’t mean you haven’t done quite a bit of damage with your lack of clear messages to your users about why a piece of software is being blocked, and not allowing someone to easily choose to ignore your suggestion that something might not be safe just because symantec hasn’t seen it before. Antivirus customers are they type of users that are scared, they are typically users that don’t know what to trust.

I feel you, I really do. This was a huge peeve of mine, the form is pretty impossible to find unless you use a search engine. Normal turn around time is a few days, it shouldn’t take a month. Was this around Christmas? Were the files served via https? Are files unique between downloads? Were the files mirrored to different domains?

Did the team have actual executables to vet? I understand your frustration and I am sorry it feels like Symantec is working against you. Please continue to fill out false positive reports, the team takes those seriously.

With false positives, it shows the system is flawed and they’ll take a deeper look at fixing the fundamental problems, otherwise they think the system is working perfectly. We signed our software with a code signing cert from a reputable issuer DigiCert. We discovered that Norton was automatically quarantining the downloaded installer and most users had no idea how retrieve it from quarantine. We got whitelisted and then released a bug-fix update and voila the our app started getting quarantined again.

We are losing potential users and it have been damaging to our company! This seems a little high for someone who just, say, wants to make free utilities available to the world. In the case of Firefox, one would think it would be possible for you guys to do something about it on your end, because you’re the ones who added this reputation system that’s causing users grief.

Or just not default this feature on. At some point there was a big decision made to heavily bias the engine against “unknown” executables. I said it was a bad idea then, and I still think it is now. The only way it can “know” about an executable is via its source, or its signature, or if it is on other users machines.

This creates the obvious huge problem for “the little guy” distributing software. They actually think this is no big deal, and when it steps on toes, the distributor can just use their dispute system and eventually they will fix it. And if you don’t like it, you can just get your software signed. I was of the opinion that this was bad behavior and unreasonable.

They really liked what it did for review scores surprise, we detect everything! I lost. Create a harmless helloworld. Download and run it. If things haven’t changed since I left, it will get flagged as malware. What I can say is that this has nothing to do with trying to crush the little guy or malice. With some exceptions, there is a general attitude there of not caring, or caring about the wrong things.

Hanlon’s Razor a little bit. A Typical gamedev studio uses own executables, if not more. In between studios.

Norton AV detected WS.Reputation.1 threat in libfftw3f-3-3_upx.dll

site.uncleluber.rution.1 is a generic detection used by Norton Antivirus, Norton Internet Security and other antivirus products from Symantec for a file. One of Symantec’s recent additions to its Norton consumer security product WS .Reputation.1 is a detection for files that have a low reputation. Norton noted that the file contained the WS Reputation 1 Threat? Close all open programs and internet browsers. Double . AV: Norton Security Suite ( Disabled – Up to date) {53C7DE2-B95E-FAF32ECCDB}.

FAQ:My Antivirus tool blocks MakeHuman or Norton Antivirus reports WS.Reputation.1

If thats the case WS. Here are some information about WS. Because this detection is based on a reputation score, it does not represent a specific class of threat like adware or spyware, but instead applies to all threat categories. Heres the Link:

Navigation menu

Auto-deleting files based on their ‘reputation’ Using reputation data culled from Symantec users, Norton Insight starts randomly deleting a company’s software patch downloads What do you do when a widely used antivirus product reports a false positive on your new, valid, signed, virus-free software download — and then goes ahead without asking and terminates it with extreme prejudice? Stay up to date on the latest security developments with InfoWorld’s Security Central newsletter.

HOWTO: Symantec/Norton Products detecting site.uncleluber.rution.1

“site.uncleluber.rution.1 is a detection for files that have a low reputation Detections of this type are based on Symantec’s reputation-based security technology information Internet microsoft myphpsite norton online pc phpmysite. Products A-Z · Integrated Cyber Defense Integrated Cyber Defense .. WS. Reputation.1 is a detection for files that have a low reputation score Detections of this type are based on Symantec’s reputation-based security technology. To learn how to restore a file from quarantine using Norton products. Is site.uncleluber.rution.1 an actual threat? Please don’t complain that I use Norton,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *