Norton Safe Web giving a spurious warning about AskWoody

Topic

New Reply

Many years ago, I had the same problem. Norton Safe Web is saying that there is an Identity Threat / Phishing Attack in location/on page https://askwo
[See the full post at: Norton Safe Web giving a spurious warning about AskWoody]

6 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Myst, Elly, RDRguy, geekdom, Microfix

Reply | Quote

Replies

Yep sometimes this security stuff is more the problem then the solution.

4 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Myst, RDRguy, Microfix

Reply | Quote

On the one hand I’m surprised people are still using Norton, on the other hand my son has used it for years and has never had any problems. I used it among other paid for AV programs a long time ago and like all such programs at the time found it bloatware and prone to false positives.

Thanks for the information Woody.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Like your son, I’ve had it for years and until now haven’t had any issues with Norton. But I suspected this was something out of the blue in the way of fake and continued on to Woody’s site.

MacOS iPadOS and sometimes SOS

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

? says:
yeah, yeah i know:
https://www.symantec.com/en/sg/partners/programs/global-systems-integrator/microsoft

Reply | Quote

I have used Norton for almost a decade and have never had any real problems. Was almost 100% sure “askwoody” was OK. Thanks Woody.

3 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Myst, RDRguy

Reply | Quote

I use Norton because I get it free from Comcast and have never had a problem with it.

I always pay attention to what Woody says, but if I don t use Norton what Anti  virus should I use with Windows 7?

I really don t want to use anything Microsoft unless I have to.  The only thing I use Microsoft for is Windows 7 .

Reply | Quote

I use Microsoft Security Essentials, for two reasons.

First, it’s effective and never produces false positives or interferes with anything else.

Second, to address your particular concern, because it’s from Microsoft and therefore likely to be highly compatible with Windows and other MS products.

I also use MBAM free version 2.x for manual malware scans.

3 users thanked author for this post.

RDRguy, jburk07, woody

Reply | Quote

@Seff  a third reason could possibly be that it’s not bloated for W7

Windows - commercial by definition and now function...

Reply | Quote

Agreed. I should have made that clearer in my “doesn’t interfere with anything else” comment.

Reply | Quote

If you have W7 , I`ve been using Microsoft Security Essentials for free for years, plus the free ADWCleaner.  No problems.

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, jburk07

Reply | Quote

I have been using ‘Barkly’ and absolutely LOVE it. (I’ve been using it for about 6 months now).

It’s still learning my environments so I do get some false positives, but it’s very easy to teach it when there are false positives.

The Barkly software is basically a smart scanner that sits between the subsystem and OS.

It’s hard to explain the way it works simply, so here’s a little snippet from their website:

The protection dynamically combines machine-learning-powered attribute models and behavior indicators to identify and block malicious techniques and intent in real-time. Barkly’s Rapidvisor has the deepest visibility of any endpoint agent, monitoring processes across user space, the OS, and the CPU to see and block more attacks.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Two weeks is three months in dog years or forever in computer years.

On permanent hiatus {with backup and coffee}
offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1992 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox116.0b3 MicrosoftDefender

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

@Woody ‘UPDATE: The re-evaluation instructions say it’ll take two weeks. Oh boy.’

Heads-up Note: in two weeks the site certificate would have expired (14th July 2018)

Windows - commercial by definition and now function...

5 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, satrow, rontpxz81, woody, RDRguy

Reply | Quote

woody wrote:

Norton Safe Web is saying that there is an

Identity Threat / Phishing Attack in location/on page
https://askwoody.com/2018/hotmail-outlook-pop-server-switcheroo

which is preposterous. A quick glance at the page shows a handful of links to Microsoft sites.

Norton’s warning is a classic false positive, generated by an aberrant algorithm.

As the Askwoody page being reported is obviously clean, it’s possible the triggering event that generated the warning was a bad ad that made it through the ad network. But even if true, seems like this one is still on Norton, for a couple of reasons:

1) if a bad ad is served–in good faith by an established site through a legitimate ad network–sure, blackhole the bad ad & associated domains/ip addresses/redirects/downloads/etc, but maybe NOT the established site acting in good faith.

2) if you do s***w up and throw a false positive on a pretty-obviously-NOT-malicious site, maybe don’t take _two weeks_ to correct the false positive! Fwiw, took me ~30 seconds on virustotal(.com) to double-check Askwoody.com (good news, woody, virustotal shows _NO_ scan engines (0/68) having any problems with your site–all show GREEN & CLEAN)!

4 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, jburk07, Elly, RDRguy

Reply | Quote

Once had such a thing going on with Kaspersky, was solved within an hour. Probably Norton has an intimate relationship with Microsoft…? Old boys network, last of the Mohikans, crewmates of the Titanic etc.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Hi Woody:

Just a warning that the automated review process for site re-evaluations for Norton Safe Web stopped working 2 years ago and AFAIK it still isn’t working.  See floplot’s 07-Jul-2016 post in the thread Rise in Requests for Norton Safe Web Site Rating Appeals.

Site owners requiring a re-evaluation are currently posting requests in the Norton Toolbar / Norton Identity Safe board at https://community.norton.com/en/forums/norton-toolbar-norton-identity-safe and floplot and Symantec employee Console_Ops (a member of the Norton Safe Web team) are monitoring that board for requests from site owners to have their site re-evaluated.
————
32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * FF ESR v52.9.0 * Norton Security v22.14.2.13

3 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, bjm, RDRguy

Reply | Quote

Oh boy.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

I’m getting fed up with Norton. I have a paid version that I took off Automatic Renewal. Now I keep getting notices to my home that I better sign up for Automatic Renewal blah blah blah. I find these weekly reminders very annoying. What is your opinion of just having Malwarebytes? (I know some people here think Norton and Malwarebytes don’t play well together but it’s been years and I have no problems.) Anyone feel safe just using Malwarebytes? Thanks!

Reply | Quote

For many years I’ve recommended Microsoft Security Essentials, with manual runs of Malwarebytes from time to time.

5 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, RDRguy, Myst, jburk07

Reply | Quote

I live in California; yesterday I tripped across a news item about a new law that became effective July 1, 2018. Among other things, if one subscribes online, one must be able to unsubscribe or cancel online.

On Google News you can get multiple hits: search [ California cancel subscription ].
Direct link to the Bill Text:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB313

Reply | Quote

Maybe not exactly on topic, but close: I had Norton Antivirus for several years, and finally got rid of it because of the following:

(1) Too slow. Took more than half an hour to scan my PC every time, even when I had used it to scan the day before. So, being a lazy busy person, I would scan maybe once a week. I replaced it with Webroot, that takes some 5 minutes, so now I scan the PC twice daily every day. Judging from Woody’s cover story, maybe “slow” is a Norton defining attribute?

(2) Conflicts with other commonly used software, some of which I had on the PC, and many people complaining about it online.

(3) For a while, people were also complaining that not only they were having all these conflicts as in (2) but that when they tried to quit using Norton they could not stop being charged through Automatic Renewal, even when they had already asked, repeatedly, for that to stop.

By the time I decided to use it no longer, Norton was providing a simple way to discontinue those renewals through the user’s account. Maybe some of the other problems have been resolved as well. But once burned, twice shy, as they say.

As to an email filter algorithm glitch being the reason for Woody’s “blacklisting”: that is not an common experience, unfortunately. For years it was touch and go if my ISP’s algorithm was going to allow the delivery of the emails from some friends and colleagues in Japan. Same with emails from people I know and have been collaborating with for years at a university in Barcelona, Spain, that have recently started to be classified as “phishing”. And now and then, at randoms intervals, some of their emails get blocked and I receive this notice from the ISP that this has happened since the senders have been blacklisted because of whatever.

Eventually, having also a second account with Gmail and a third one at NASA, sharing those with the afflicted parties has provided a solution of sorts to such problems. A solution, I’m afraid, that is not available to Woody’s.

 

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

With respect, a few thoughts:

– Scan speed is not the same as scan effectiveness. And of the two, we can probably agree that scan effectiveness is more important.

– For a long time now, many many years, norton security scan engines have had the option of performing two types of scans: a “Quick Scan”, which is, well, quick (checks current key “commonly infected areas and startup files”, and probably takes 5 min or so to run) – and a “Full System Scan” (that’s the long one that examines the entire system/device).

– For a long time now, many many years, yes – Norton has provided a way to discontinue automatic renewals through a user’s online account.

– Yes, certainly, there was a time when Norton’s offerings developed a bad reputation for bloat and poor performance, but that time was 10+ years ago. My experience with Norton over the past decade has been quite similar to Demeter, who mentioned above that he has “used Norton for almost a decade and have never had any real problems.”

– Yes, woody has good reason to be upset with the Norton Safe Web folks (as noted above in anon post 201657), but we should probably try to remember that Norton’s Safe Web operation is only part of what they do, and many people have been using their software/security products successfully – and rather uneventfully – for many years.

(Ok, Norton haters, I’ve said my piece – now do your duty & chop me into pieces… )

1 user thanked author for this post.

RDRguy

Reply | Quote

anonymous wrote:

– For a long time now, many many years, yes – Norton has provided a way to discontinue automatic renewals through a user’s online account

Last year I found it a little awkward to manage to turn off automatic renewals — but I accomplished it. Now every week I get a threatening letter to my home saying: “Important: You are receiving this notice because your Norton subscription will no longer be automatically renewed each year. This puts you at risk of losing your Norton Security protection. Please turn on the auto renewal feature for your Norton subscription now.”

On the outside of the letter it says: URGENT ACTION REQUESTED ON YOUR ACCOUNT.

I wouldn’t mind receiving this once but I’m getting the letter every week to my home. My expiration date is February 2018 so I expect many more letters. I think this is just wrong. They have a phone number to call but it looks like it’s to turn on the auto renewal so I don’t dare call it to tell them to stop sending letters.

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, jburk07

Reply | Quote

Peacelady wrote:

Now every week I get a threatening letter to my home saying…

I wouldn’t mind receiving this once but I’m getting the letter every week…

Wow, seriously?

I could see Norton sending periodic email messages, and maybe even an occasional alert via snail mail (companies want to keep a paying customer – think magazine subscription renewal requests), but A LETTER EVERY WEEK??? WOW! That’s crazy!

If I was getting a letter every week from Norton (or any other company) regarding a subscription renewal, I know I’d be, er, quite peeved (unfortunately, lounge rules prevent me from sharing my initial unedited thoughts on the matter). And, yes, if you’re receiving a letter from Norton every week, then you certainly have good reason to be upset with them.

They have a phone number to call but it looks like it’s to turn on the auto renewal so I don’t dare call it to tell them to stop sending letters.

Sorry I can’t do more, but here maybe I can help. It’s very likely that the phone number on the letter you received is just a general phone number for Norton Support (e.g., maybe 855-815-2726 ?), so you should be able to call it to report your problem and express your displeasure, without worrying that your call will automatically reactivate auto renewal. As long as you clearly express to those you speak with that you want auto renewal to stay OFF, then it should stay off.

Hope this helps, if only a little bit.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Reply | Quote

anonymous wrote:

Support (e.g., maybe 855-815-2726 ?), so you should be able to call it to report your problem and express your displeasure, without worrying that your call will automatically reactivate auto renewal.

Yes – that’s the number on the letter.  Thanks for this info – I will call and tell them to take me off their reminder letter list.

Reply | Quote

I think in today’s world to stay competitive with the other guys & maintain sales, you can’t be slow at scanning using lots of system resources to stay protected while the other guys give you essentially the same protection with quicker file/item risk evaluation using less resources. If this were still the case, I think Symantec and/or Norton would have been out of business a long time ago. After all, it wasn’t/isn’t free like Windows 10.

Like you, I also believe in and like Symantec but I use a Symantec all-in-one enterprise product on all my home PC systems.

Though I’ve used several Norton products over the years, about 12-13 years ago I switched over to their “enterprise” level security products. At 1st I used “Symantec Client Security” (SCS). When it went EOL, I transitioned to its replacement “Symantec Endpoint Security” (SEP), current 12 version 12.1.6 MP10 which has a local install definitions database.

My personal experience with SCS & SEP began at work as many big corporations as well as the US Government DOD use it. (I know, DOD got hacked but that also happens to businesses and/or other Gov entities that don’t use Symantec/Norton products too)

I think you get better Symantec support with their enterprise products, they provide many more features than their consumer versions and to be honest, their cost isn’t really that much more than the Norton consumer products.

A couple of years ago they came out with a Cloud based version currently at 14.2 in which mainly the definitions can either be installed locally or for a smaller footprint can remain on the cloud. This may be a good idea if your always connected or not but, I personally like to have the defs available off-line for times when I’m transferring files to/from/between off-line systems.

If anyone’s curious, my previous posts about SEP are here & here.

Win7 - PRO & Ultimate, x64 & x86
Win8.1 - PRO, x64 & x86
Groups A, B & ABS

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

Anonymous  #201842 : “Ok, Norton haters, I’ve said my piece – now do your duty & chop me into pieces…”

Nah! We’ll just ignore you (smiley face).

Fortunately, I now use a different anti malware product that scans in a few (5 – 7) minutes the whole 750 GB hard disk, of which some 350 GB are already occupied by files of the OS, mine and who knows whose. Which I do twice a day: once when I am done looking at, or for things on the Web and  ready to start doing some work; and twice around just before calling it a day. This product speed is the result of the search for malicious bugs not being done on my machine but on a server in the Cloud. Thus is not as terribly unsafe as it may sound, because no actual files, but file hashes are sent for examination at the anti malware makers’ server. It also means that the search is always against the latest malware information in that company’s servers, so the only thing that gets updated in my machine is the occasional patch or upgrade of the malware utility application. So far I have been happily problem-free on the malware infestation front (that I know). Or, at lest, my bank and credit card accounts have not been looted yet and no outstanding warrants for my arrest for crimes I was not aware of having committed have been issued.

But I am giving serious thought to getting another malware application to do a separate scan with it maybe once a week, just in case.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

@woody & MVPs

Confirmed, Askwoody.com isn’t working if you’re using Norton ConnectSafe as your DNS server. However, I don’t think they’re blocking it as being a bad site or linking to a bad site.

I think they’ve either lost or corrupted your site’s security certificate or your site’s certificate turned to toast on your end. Firefox (v61.0.1) w/ router setup using Norton ConnectSafe DNS addresses 199.85.126.30 / 199.85.127.30 results in pic shown below:

If they were blocking it, it should look something like this: (and no, I’m not visiting a porn site)

Trying all of Norton ConnectSafe DNS addresses results in the same “Your connection is not secure” indication. Using OpenDNS server addresses 208.67.222.222 / 208.67.220.220 – things return to normal.

For others referencing Norton AntiVirus or Anti-Malware products, Norton ConnectSafe is neither an AntiVirus nor Anti-Malware program or anything else like it.

Notron ConnectSafe here is their free DNS server like OpenDNS here and others that help block your web activity from being sent to known bad websites hosting Malware, Porn, Drugs, etc. Though I’m no expert, if you’re trying to get to the “Dark Web” you probably don’t want to use any of these.

For those that may be interested, more info about NortonConnectSafe & router config here, Windows PC config here & Mac PC config here. If you have young children, this option might be something to consider.

I myself have been using the router config DNS addresses 199.85.126.30 / 199.85.127.30 / 208.85.222.222 for several years and until now, have never had any issues though maybe now & then I do get the “blocked due to malware hosting” pop-up by clicking on something I probably shouldn’t have.

Win7 - PRO & Ultimate, x64 & x86
Win8.1 - PRO, x64 & x86
Groups A, B & ABS

4 users thanked author for this post.

lmacri, Cybertooth, woody, Elly

Reply | Quote

They should stick with building motorcycles, Oh that’s a different Norton, me bad

Dell, W10 Professional, 64-bit, Intel Core i7 Quad, Group A

HP, W7 Home Premium, 64-bit, AMD Phenom II, Group A

Reply | Quote

It looks like Norton has used a very blunt instrument to pick out a lot of the “pop server” comments and partial server urls and as a result thought “uh-oh phishing”. It isn’t a particularly good service if it is fooled so easily and even worse if you have to jump through hoops to get the damage undone.

Reply | Quote

If your spouse is spending way too much time on Askwoody.com and not getting enough done around the house nor spending enough quality time with you …

FREE … and for a “limited time only” … Norton ConnectSafe DNS

Norton ConnectSafe DNS server will block that “pesky” Askwoody.com website and prevent those sleepless “up at all hours” nights listening to your spouse’s “click-ity clack” worn-out keyboard

Win7 - PRO & Ultimate, x64 & x86
Win8.1 - PRO, x64 & x86
Groups A, B & ABS

2 users thanked author for this post.

Myst, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

Not that anyone should like Norton Safe Web, but one could make the point that links to anything on microsoft.com really are phishing links…

… especially links to the Windows Update Catalog.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

I was a died in the wool advocate for Norton Antivirus for years and years. All of my clients had to use it. Then Symantec decided to discontinue their AV product in favour a vastly more expensive “security” product. One that includes many components that do nothing good for a system and provide numerous problems. I put up with its frequent failures and learned how to cope with them.

Then I wend investigating and found BitDefender Antivirus. My now 130 clients have been using BD now for nearly 4 years. There has not been a single problem infection or malware on a one of these systems in all that time, the software is vastly less resource needy, quite un-intrusive and completely effective. To cap all that quite reasonably priced.

CT

5 users thanked author for this post.

mulletback, lmacri, jburk07, Microfix

Reply | Quote

+1 for BitDefender (even the free version which I’ve been using on W8.1, I’ll eventually buy it but as of now, the free version suits my needs without being intrusive)

Windows - commercial by definition and now function...

2 users thanked author for this post.

jburk07

Reply | Quote

I strongly encourage use of the AntiVirus product, not the Security product. It can be had for a very reasonable price: https://www.bitdefender.com/solutions/antivirus.html

CT

6 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, jburk07, mulletback, Kirsty, Microfix

Reply | Quote

Thanks everyone for your BitDefender recommendations.  I am going to delete Norton and get the BitDefender Antivirus.   The separate browser for online banking sounds like it  is a real plus for me – I’ve been using Firefox, do you think the BitDefender one is safer?  Thanks again — I am so glad I found Woody’s — so much valuable information shared by you wonderful people.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Kirsty

Reply | Quote

Canadian Tech wrote:

I was a died in the wool advocate for Norton Antivirus for years and years. All of my clients had to use it. Then Symantec decided to discontinue their AV product

Apparently enough people were unhappy with that decision for Norton to rethink and reverse it. Fyi from Norton website:

Norton AntiVirus Basic (just AV, no Firewall)
$29.99 for 1 PC (first year price, $20 discount)
https://us.norton.com/norton-antivirus

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Canadian Tech

Reply | Quote

I appreciate that heads up. I was not aware of this. Obviously, they are seeing the mistake that I so avidly went on about back then. Shame. I would still be using their product had they not done that stupid move. However, since I found a substitute, I discovered a vastly better product.

CT

1 user thanked author for this post.

Kirsty

Reply | Quote

I was a Norton user for many years until I decided not to update to their very next version; it was exceedingly buggy.  For a time, Symantec remediated Norton AV’s known security exposures in the version I was using and in the buggy version.  Then they made a policy decision to stop fixing security exposures in anything other than their latest bug-ridden version,  exposing all who shunned the update to exploits.  I wrote-off the remainder of my paid subscription and moved to MSE. I never looked back once.

Reply | Quote

Norton products used to have a beautiful (IMO) interface, using a black and gold theme. Very snazzy.

Over the last several years they have transitioned to a blinding, all-white interface that I can hardly stand to look at, I have to turn down the screen brightness and then turn it back up when I’m done working on Norton. I have actually considered switching to a different AV product because of this, but have kept it on because of the anti-spam filter for Outlook and the network monitor.

More recently, they eliminated the network monitor (probably to drive sales of the home router product that they introduced shortly afterward), so I have one less reason to stay with Norton.

 

Keep Running Windows 7 Safely for Years to Come  
Make Windows 10 look and work like Windows 7

Reply | Quote

Folks, being a support person donating my time on the Norton support forums, I find it absurd to just tell the community “to just not use Norton”. I do however respect all opinions. Having used Norton products since the early days and providing product support on the Norton USA site I can attest without reservation not all issues with Norton are the result of a faulty product. The end user plays a role as well, most times, we find only after the fact there are things the end user wishes to remain hidden. Cracked software, product and/or system configurations that are so weird they will make your head spin. An occasional false positive is to be had with most A/V solutions out there so for me it doesn’t break the bank. I personally had rather have a occasional false positive than the opposite. Cheers!!

Reply | Quote

Well Woody,your annoyance is understandable and fully justified,

however as you probably wish for Norton to get this site evaluated as soon as possible,

may get them to not be as helpful as they would otherwise be,if your suggestion to all to ‘ get

rid of Norton entirely ‘ catches their attention..:) No ?

Windows 7,Home Premium 64 bit - Lenovo laptop
Group A - Intel (R)Core i7 Processors -

ASUS Chromebook C213 12.5 inch
64GB memory .

iphone 6,need to upgrade soon,bugger !

Reeder M7 Go 2019 Tablet !

Reply | Quote

All: I have posted to the Norton forums for Norton to have a look at this ASAP. Safe Web/Bluecoat on Core has been an issue for some time now that REALLY needs professional attention. I have also sent info to my contact who deals with Safe Web directly to get a swift resolution.

Cheers

6 users thanked author for this post.

RDRguy, jburk07, Myst, woody, Cybertooth, satrow

Reply | Quote

Tell them heuristics = guesswork, 15 characters of descriptive text does not make a virus/phishing attempt/whatever. Any FPs are costly and very bad news for everyone involved, suggest they use humans for testing busier sites with hitherto clean reputations before allowing those heuristic ‘detections’ to make it to the next blocklist update.

They’ve been guilty of doing this for well over a decade to my knowledge, time to stop resting on whatever rotting laurels remain and come clean do the job properly.

Reply | Quote

Thank you!

Reply | Quote

I like Norton and am not going to get into debate about security software.

However, this Norton Safeweb warning is making it difficult to navigate this site- pops up for every topic selected, even sign in.

I followed link in warning and posted user review as no problems with website, does little good.

Up to Woody to resolve this problem with Symantec!

Reply | Quote

What gets me is that Norton is declaring askwoody.com to be a “known dangerous web page.” “Known” to be dangerous–yeah, right.

This is lowering my trust in the quality of Norton’s assessments.

A former Symantec CEO is the chairman of the Microsoft board of directors and led the search that culminated in the selection of Satya Nadella. Now consider the ongoing critique of  Windows 10 around here. Hmm…

 

Keep Running Windows 7 Safely for Years to Come  
Make Windows 10 look and work like Windows 7

1 user thanked author for this post.

rontpxz81

Reply | Quote

If you do not own the website, you cannot submit the website to Norton Safe Web for evaluation. However, you can write a review for that particular website, share your experiences and also rate the website which can help other users.

https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/kb20090410134005EN_EndUserProfile_en_us

You may Sign In and post review for askwoody.com here:
https://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=askwoody.com

2 users thanked author for this post.

RDRguy, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

For many years I used Norton and have done volunteer support to the forums, but now use Kaspersky for the last couple of years.

It installs/uninstalls easily, and I have never had an issue with it. NO FPs, either !

Symantec preferably need to employ its coders AFTER they leave school, not while they’re still in junior high…………..

Reply | Quote

RDRguy,

I also receive confirmation “Thank you for your submission” email and then nada.
Happy to read Symantec Enterprise Channel works for your submissions.
My experience reflects  #202106.

2 users thanked author for this post.

rontpxz81, RDRguy

Reply | Quote

You’d know better than me regarding Symantec support & SEP.
https://community.norton.com/en/forums/unblocking-website-2

1 user thanked author for this post.

RDRguy

Reply | Quote

Respectfully, 202097 does not work by my experience, by Norton documentation and by Norton Community user reports for A4 > B5 > C7 submissions.

Regards w Respect

Reply | Quote