Atomic Scribbler Home · SmartEdit Home · Help

Download & AV issues


#1

Darren, Just to let you know, that the Beta download version (1.04) was removed by Norton AV after download. I know that Norton has the screws sometimes too tight and this is safe.

However, maybe you should get in touch with Symantec to solve this for future issues. Some time ago, Jutoh’s developer had to do the same thing. :slight_smile:

Hans


#2

Hi Hans,

The Norton behaviour is expected. Norton blacklists any software it’s not familiar with or any version it’s not familiar with. As the beta release has had 4 new releases in the space of two weeks, we never bothered with white listing them with Norton (so much time involved in that, it would slow the beta process down).

We’ll be white listing the release version when it goes live, but even that will take a number of days. My advice to Norton users is always the same: Windows Defender is better, and it’s free. Of course, corporate environments are often outside our control.


#3

Hi Darren,

Sorry for not replying right away. Some technical issues were the reason. Well, tomorrow we [finally] get Fiber Optic installed. :slight_smile:

Thanks for your quick reply. I understand that to white list those interim versions is useless. Yet, when it comes to Norton AV or a firewall, I have a deep sitting mistrust about MS’ build-in security tools. It might be sort of legacy from the old days of Windows, but I learned not to trust MS blindfolded.

I’m a loyal MS user since I work with computers, but I always had (still have) a separate AV as well as a separate firewall. My firewall is ZoneAlarm (pure firewall) while Norton is my AV [again]. They began offering a pure AV again last year. Many users asked for this version again and again, but I’m sure you know the market by heart. :slight_smile:

I started in the 80ties with MacAffee, and since then switched to Norton as well as a few others manufacturers of a pure AV. I never believed in those ‘one pack for everything’ suites. Always picked separate brands for AV and Firewall. Anyway, I don’t have to stick to corporate regulations anymore for quite a few years. Just base my own decisions on research and the always changing market.

Hans


#4

My beef with Norton is that they’re the only AV company who blacklist be default, which means small software companies are constantly jumping through hoops just for them. On the plus side, their user base outside corporate I think is dwindling, thanks to more robust built-in tools in Windows.

The current release flow for Atomic is a good example of the problems they bring — the version 1.1 release was submitted to them on Thursday for whitelisting, and I might hear back from them tomorrow or Wednesday. But by then I’ll have rolled out a new release with some minor changes (later this morning).

I’ll probably end up with a “Latest Norton” page somewhere, where Norton users can download old versions that they’ve approved of. But I won’t be adjusting the release cycle to accommodate them. Life is too short for that, and I honestly think their days will soon be numbered.


#5

I can totally understand the pains you’re going through at the developer’s side, Darren. Yet, there is a workaround on the user’s side, and it’s just a few mouse clicks away. First of all, there is no real need to have a special Norton page with older [white listed] versions. It’s much simpler. For example, let’s take the last two AtomicScribbler versions (Beta 1.04 & official 1.1).

Norton AV monitors the download. Shortly after the download it delivers the message that the file is suspicious, and it removed it from the download folder. Booom! So, that’s annoying but not the end of the world.

Here’s what users can do as long as they are sure that this is a false positive. The latter can be assumed when you provide a new version for download. Norton is set up in a way that those downloaded files are placed in quarantine.

At the same time Norton offers a link about details. One click and it shows me the file together with the assumed reason. At the same time it offers me to ‘restore’ the file again. Clicking on it, it asks me whether I really want to do this. Confirming the restore, Norton puts it back into the defined download folder on my hard disk.

There you go. Just three mouse clicks and the file is back to where it was in the first place. Closing all open programs, and taking Norton’s ‘Auto-Protect’ down for installation is a standard procedure used for any new program installation.

Next is running the [downloaded] installer, then enabling Norton again, and everything is just fine. In addition, I usually restart Windows, but that’s just a behavior I have from the early days to make sure that Win reads the registry again. From then on everything is just peachy. :slight_smile: Norton AV offers me even to white list the program on my PC, but I didn’t have to do this. Your neat PageFour successor works just fine after restarting Windows.

Same procedure might be needed with each of your newer versions (minor or major updates) since Norton is so slow with white listing. It’s a little bit of a hassle for the user, but actually just three (3) additional mouse clicks after the download disappears. So, in my opinion there is no need for you to create a dedicated Norton page for these particular issues. Educating Norton users on what to do is much easier. :slight_smile:

Hans


#6

Thanks for the detailed breakdown Hans. I’ll be sending any Norton users to this post from here on. What I’ll probably do in the future is only take the time to whitelist a version when it’s settled — a week or so after the first release — as quick fixes are quite common after a large release.