Notification from Norton 360

[ClassyEnd]

First off, I know Im going to get pestered for using Norton 360 from Systematic, so lets just stop it right there. Now,

Earlier today I was scrolling through the "images" section on bing just looking at computer builds. I hadn't clicked on any of the weblinks, I was just looking at pictures and scrolling through them (like you can do on google images), and Norton notified me that I was getting traces of "Malicious Tracking Cookies" from a website coded, modaafoca.com , which seems to be a trustable Portugese tech website. I had never even been on the website before and Norton says that the cookies were blocked and no further action needs to be taken, however, I am very paranoid at this point.

 

I've ran malwarebytes and Norton and they both say that no traces of anything are found on my computer.

(I am a very cautious web-surfer, I don't click non-trusted links or look at dirty websites)

 

"Response No further action is required but you may wish to perform some of the following actions as a precautionary measure."

 

I really don't want to have to format and re-install windows

 

PS: Ive also seen Norton notify me of fake or non-threatening things, such as false flags and what not.

 

http://www.symantec.com/security_response/attacksignatures/detail.jsp?asid=24125

https://modaafoca.com

 

[slightlyjaded]

I figure at this stage you've got two choices. Fire up power eraser, or trust that norton is doing the job you pay them for.

[TJarsun]

Ok if you dont want us to say anithing about your choice for Norton, stop using Bing please!!!

 

Now: It could be a false positive but try a deep scan or with another antivirus, the included one with windows is OK!

[BOT Edward]

Norton is doing its job.

 

By even retrieving that image thumbnail you are accessing the site (which uses cookies, and has stored those cookies on your machine). Norton has said that there are "malicious tracking cookies" which is probably just the site wanting to know your location, much like Facebook does when you post.

 

It's really nothing to be alarmed about, Norton just hasn't been notified that the source was a trusted site (which will probably be updated in the latest definitions if it really is a trusted site).

[ClassyEnd]

Norton is doing its job.

 

By even retrieving that image thumbnail you are accessing the site (which uses cookies, and has stored those cookies on your machine). Norton has said that there are "malicious tracking cookies" which is probably just the site wanting to know your location, much like Facebook does when you post.

 

It's really nothing to be alarmed about, Norton just hasn't been notified that the source was a trusted site (which will probably be updated in the latest definitions if it really is a trusted site).

Edward, you don't even know how much your response calmed me. Thank you all for your time. Little things like this always bug me. Ive fired up deep system scans, malwarebytes, and done hours of research, so hopefully I think Im good

[BOT Edward]

Edward, you don't even know how much your response calmed me. Thank you all for your time. Little things like this always bug me. Ive fired up deep system scans, malwarebytes, and done hours of research, so hopefully I think Im good

 

For ease and peace of mind, next time you get worried run a bootable anti-virus (i.e. one of these: http://pcsupport.about.com/od/system-security/tp/free-bootable-antivirus-software.htm).

 

Provided you do monthly checks of new versions (although weekly is better), just run it when you are worried.

As for normal anti-virus, i'd use the norton removal tool and install something a little better (or less known for being a virus itself).

[TetraSky]

As for normal anti-virus, i'd use the norton removal tool and install something a little better (or less known for being a virus itself).

Like what? A resource hog like AVAST or AVG perhaps? AVG which is known for flagging essential Windows system files, rendering the whole OS inoperable?

Norton is perfectly fine, has been since at least 2009 when it underwent a complete code rewrite.

It's now extremely lightweight, use barely any resources and does it's job at keeping you safe.

All the hate Norton still gets today is based on outdated knowledge from before it underwent the complete code rewrite in the 2009 edition, or on people who had to clean up after others who didn't re-activate their license/get a new AV when it expired/are the ones who Excluded the viruses and got infected.

Also the fact that people are cheap, aren't willing to pay for protection anymore, even though the free solutions have proven multiple times to be a lot less reliable. So they bash the paid solutions because they believe the free ones are good enough.

He's also using malwarebyte, coupled with the active scans of Norton is more than enough protection.

 

Haters gonna hate, yes, but there's no such thing as a "better anti virus", they are all "good enough" as long as they are updated... Except MSE, that was only good in it's early days, now it barely even works.

No anti virus will protect someone who willingly install viruses. I've seen quite a few people like that who had other AV solutions, like Kaspersky, NOD32, bitdefender, avast, avg and many more, that were infected with a few dozens trojan, spywares, malwares, viruses... which malwarebyte also didn't all fully catch, requiring offline scans with rescue disks.

[SIGSEGV]

Just clear your cookies if it worries you

[colonel_mortis]

Tracking cookies aren't malicious, and won't harm your computer. Norton and some other antiviruses to detect them as malware sometimes, but the only reasonable explanation for them doing that is that they are trying to scare people into thinking that they need an antivirus by telling them that something has been detected one in a while.

A cookie is literally just a text file which is sent to the server when it's requested, and there's no way that they can be malicious because your browser controls what's stored in them. They do allow you to be tracked across the web if they're configured correctly, but that isn't an antivirus's job to deal with, and it generally just means that you get more relevant and therefore better adverts on the sites that you visit.

There's nothing to be worried about.

[BOT Edward]

Like what? A resource hog like AVAST or AVG perhaps? AVG which is known for flagging essential Windows system files, rendering the whole OS inoperable?

Norton is perfectly fine, has been since at least 2009 when it underwent a complete code rewrite.

It's now extremely lightweight, use barely any resources and does it's job at keeping you safe.

All the hate Norton still gets today is based on outdated knowledge from before it underwent the complete code rewrite in the 2009 edition, or on people who had to clean up after others who didn't re-activate their license/get a new AV when it expired/are the ones who Excluded the viruses and got infected.

Also the fact that people are cheap, aren't willing to pay for protection anymore, even though the free solutions have proven multiple times to be a lot less reliable. So they bash the paid solutions because they believe the free ones are good enough.

He's also using malwarebyte, coupled with the active scans of Norton is more than enough protection.

 

Haters gonna hate, yes, but there's no such thing as a "better anti virus", they are all "good enough" as long as they are updated... Except MSE, that was only good in it's early days, now it barely even works.

No anti virus will protect someone who willingly install viruses. I've seen quite a few people like that who had other AV solutions, like Kaspersky, NOD32, bitdefender, avast, avg and many more, that were infected with a few dozens trojan, spywares, malwares, viruses... which malwarebyte also didn't all fully catch, requiring offline scans with rescue disks.

 

Last time I checked (last year), Norton was notorious for not updating their definitions, leaving newer exploits un-patched for several weeks.

Malwayre Bytes Free edition doesn't use the real-time scanning that Norton uses so you can't even compare the two in that regards.

 

OP should settle with Malware bytes Pro edition, it's the paid version that includes a bunch of stuff like real-time protection and frequently updated definitions.

Norton is not by any means the greatest anti-virus software out there, it's actually far from it. There is a lot of other 'better' paid alternatives that run very light on resources and don't have annoying splash screens upon startup, the ones that just 'do their job'.

[TetraSky]

Last time I checked (last year), Norton was notorious for not updating their definitions, leaving newer exploits un-patched for several weeks.

Umm.... Norton has a new live update every few minutes... It's called Rapid Release, exactly to deal with newer exploits. And even if they didn't do so, their heuristic "sonar" will catch most unknown threat based on a reputation system. (which is where most false positive comes from, but mostly for "new" softwares with little to no users)

The Internet Security suite is the "better" options available, as it doesn't have the extra fluff of the 360 edition and has all the internet protections built in(firewall, anti phishing, etc..) that the regular edition lacks, the firewall help greatly against said unknown threat, telling you when something wants access to the internet and what not. (silent by default though, need to enable the option for it to tell ask your opinion on what can and cannot access the internet)

 

 

Norton is not by any means the greatest anti-virus software out there, it's actually far from it. There is a lot of other 'better' paid alternatives that run very light on resources and don't have annoying splash screens upon startup, the ones that just 'do their job'.

What splash screen... There's no splash screen on startup. Not sure what you were using, but NIS has zero splash screen. When booting the icon is in the systray, that's it. When opening it, it goes right to the main "basic" options screen that most users will want (current system info, update, scan and advanced options), no splash screen there either.

For $20~$30 a year, for 3PC, it's worth it to get the NIS edition. (goes on sale around the end of october here) That said I haven't paid for it in 2 years as I just refresh a 180 days trial.