FAQ....Anti Virus stating Virus with Bit Che??

[peacefulguy]

I had the same problem and this was resolved by switching off Nortons and reinstalling bit che, then switch Nortons back on and add bit che to Nortons exclusions.

Hope this helps

Peacefulguy 

[esee]

For some reason my BitChe.exe is/was deleted.  Even when I try to reinstall the exe file is deleted before it is copied into the programs folder.  My antivirus sees it as a  heuristic virus threat and started deleting it.  This is what it says:
Discovered: December 16, 2008
Updated: December 16, 2008 6:02:29 PM
Type: Trojan, Virus
Systems Affected: Windows 98, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Me, Windows Vista, Windows NT, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000

Suspicious.MH690 is a detection technology designed to detect entirely new malware threats without traditional signatures. This technology is aimed at detecting malicious software that has been intentionally mutated or morphed by attackers.
I removed the file as a threat but I still can't install.  Any ideas???

[fuzzytomcat]

For some reason my BitChe.exe is/was deleted.  Even when I try to reinstall the exe file is deleted before it is copied into the programs folder.  My antivirus sees it as a  heuristic virus threat and started deleting it.  This is what it says:
Discovered: December 16, 2008
Updated: December 16, 2008 6:02:29 PM
Type: Trojan, Virus
Systems Affected: Windows 98, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Me, Windows Vista, Windows NT, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000

Suspicious.MH690 is a detection technology designed to detect entirely new malware threats without traditional signatures. This technology is aimed at detecting malicious software that has been intentionally mutated or morphed by attackers.
I removed the file as a threat but I still can't install.  Any ideas???

Hi esee,

Some automatic Anti Virus software depending on the manufacture like "NORTON" the updates can remove Bit Che from your computer. What anti Virus do you use ??

Try starting all over by deleting Bit Che "totally" from your computer clean up your file system with a register cleaner if you have one, hopefully you do "TURN OFF" your anti virus software, reinstall Bit Che, and then "Turn back On" your anti virus software.

This should work, if not re-post what happened and well go from there !

Fuzzy
 

P.S. a good "Free" registry cleaner http://www.iobit.com/advancedwindowscareper.html?Str=download

[ColimaSantiago]

Software developers crack me up. Norton AntiVirus (rightly or wrongly) is accusing Bit Che of suspicious content / behavior and rendering Bit Che inoperative. What do the Bit Che folks do? Contact Symantec and take some initiative to get their product removed or exempted from whatever criteria are implicating it? Issue a patch release to Bit Che that doesn't exhibit the characteristics that raise NAV's suspicions?

No. They put the onus on the end-user 1) to figure out how to report a false-positive and 2) to figure out how to make Bit Che an exception (and that feature seem to be broken in NAV 16.2.0.7). And then they suggest that I discard NAV (which cost me money) and try some other anti-virus (one of which, Avast!, at some point in the past has identified Bit Che as a trojan.)

Since it comes pre-installed on so many PCs, I think NAV probably still has about 50% market share. By ignoring the problems associated with it, Convivea is drastically reducing the value of Bit Che to a fair chunk of its potential market. Is there any "adult supervision" at that company or do the developers just do whatever they like independent of the business implications?

It's a pity since Bit Che is still best of breed as near as I can tell. Has anyone found something else that does what Bit Che does but that doesn't look suspicious to NAV? Torrent Harvester seems to have just quietly died.

[MinLo]

Whoa! Controversial first post 

Software developers crack me up. Norton AntiVirus (rightly or wrongly) is accusing Bit Che of suspicious content / behavior and rendering Bit Che inoperative. What do the Bit Che folks do? Contact Symantec and take some initiative to get their product removed or exempted from whatever criteria are implicating it? Issue a patch release to Bit Che that doesn't exhibit the characteristics that raise NAV's suspicions?

Bit Che folks? There is one person who made Bit Che.......Chip
There is a couple of people that help with making scripts......Bovski, Chip, and I can't think of others off hand......
Besides Chip, admin here are volunteers helping out since they appreciate Chip's work.......
There isn't any other folks besides a couple of long time members who help Chip keep the forum entertaining and organized.

No. They put the onus on the end-user 1) to figure out how to report a false-positive and 2) to figure out how to make Bit Che an exception (and that feature seem to be broken in NAV 16.2.0.7). And then they suggest that I discard NAV (which cost me money) and try some other anti-virus (one of which, Avast!, at some point in the past has identified Bit Che as a trojan.)

Let me also remind you that Bit Che is freeware.......Chip does what he can with Bit Che, he also has a life to maintain........So because Norton makes a mistake and identifys Bit Che's packaging installer as a virus, Chip is supposed to stop the rest of his normal life to protect his hobby that he shares free with other Bit-torrent users?? 
To top it off how do you know if Chip has or hasn't requested Norton to have it removed or exempt from it showing it has a virus  You don't and your making yourself look lke an a$$ by making assumptions that you have no knowledge about 
The solution that has been given out is a temporary solution til time can be made to handle it permanently.....
There is no viirus within Bit Che and most users that have followed Chips work know and understand that......Besides you, every other person who were given this suggestion has had no problem with the temp resolution 

Since it comes pre-installed on so many PCs, I think NAV probably still has about 50% market share. By ignoring the problems associated with it, Convivea is drastically reducing the value of Bit Che to a fair chunk of its potential market. Is there any "adult supervision" at that company or do the developers just do whatever they like independent of the business implications?

The reason it was stated to get rid of Norton is because Norton is horrible compared to similarly priced anti viruses programs....Free AV's are better than Norton  ....Nobody said that was the only option........

Its funny that you pointed out above that a Nav feature is broken in version 16.2.0.7....You only help our statement of getting rid of Norton....You pay for something that is a standard within the AV industry and it doesn't work......So if you spent money on Norton, you obviously already wasted money by purchasing it......If my mind serves me correct, that is a fairly common feature within AV's.....Have you contacted Nav about that being broken?? ....
Most of the stuff computers come preinstalled with are junk anyways......

Avast was recognizing it as a trojan until Chip got that fixed by the process you stated in first paragraph......

Value and freeware sorda condescend each other........Since Bit Che is free it doesn't really have value in terms of supporting a market........The people who do find Bit Che valuable, Admin and mods try to help and fix the problem as quickly as possible..........Nobody makes money from Bit Che, not even Chip if you consider how much time he has put in to his project.........But Bit Che has saved time for it's users free of charge 

It's a pity since Bit Che is still best of breed as near as I can tell. Has anyone found something else that does what Bit Che does but that doesn't look suspicious to NAV? Torrent Harvester seems to have just quietly died.

You tried above to make yourself look and feel like a genius above and now your asking for help .....OMG ROFL 
If your as smart as you tried to make yourself look above, then make your own program! Or do your own google search to find a torrent search program!
But maybe searching google or authoring your own program will be too hard because you couldn't even make your own thread here.....You decided to put your uneducated rant within another users thread 
I mean that is something that is common sense among forum boards......Should I rant???

I didn't mean to insult you so harshly but since most of your statements are garbage and you held no restraint while trying to spout your frustration with this minor inconvenience, I felt it was necessary .........Besides  Billy and Tex  , most users here would say I'm pretty nice and helpful.......It normally takes alot to piss me off and you pissed me off 

But either way, I doubt you will even come back 
And if you do maybe apologize or at least make an educated post 

[ramsteentje]

I had the same problem but with the the help of the post by MinLo aboveI could fix it. Of course it is a shame that I'd to find out my self. The website of Symantec doesn't give you any information on this. But there is this forum, thank god Thanks al lot

[ColimaSantiago]

Mr. MinLo:

Here are just a few comments then I'll quit cluttering your forum:

Bit Che is a useful program and it seems to be generally well-done. Congratulations and thanks to the author. It is unfortunate that he’s not making any money from it.

NAV’s complaint about Bit Che is not with the package installer. The complaint is with c:\program files\bit che\bit_che.exe. The specific alert is "Suspicious.MH690". If you intend to do anything about it, that might be useful information.

I am encouraged to hear that Convivea may be pursuing a resolution to this problem beyond excluding Bit Che from the scrutiny of the virus defenses or replacing NAV with another anti-virus program. That is what I would have expected from a professional development organization and I (evidently mistakenly) believed that Convivea was just that, professionals rather than hobbyists. I’m a little surprised (but relieved) to learn that the recommended changes to the virus defenses are just a temporary work-around. I didn’t see any indication in the original post that any further effort was planned.

Like you, am no great fan of NAV but it seems that your assessment of it (“horrible”) is inconsistent with some well-respected authorities. ArsTechnica and AppScout rate it ahead of Kapersky and AVG and PCMag rates it ahead of those two and NOD32 as well. I’ve included some links to their evaluations, in case you’re interested. NAV is one of several that I use on various machines. It happened to be on the machine that I was runing Bit Che on.

I disagree with your contrast of “free” and “valuable”. Air, for example, is free, but, for those of us who breathe it, it’s pretty valuable. I found a $5 bill on the sidewalk the other day. It was free to pick up but it did have value. (Its value was exactly $5.)

It is very generous for Convivea to release the program as freeware, but I suggest that, even though it is free, it has considerable value. I assume that the author released it because he wants people to use it and people will use it when they perceive that it has value. When the program mysteriously stops working because the executable silently disappears (that’s what happens with NAV), I think that reduces its value. I, for one, didn’t consider the time it took to reinstall it several times a “minor inconvenience”.

And one last thing … my last post may have been arrogant or smug or snarky or even passive-aggressive, but it wasn't uneducated.

Cheers,
CS

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070607-report-little-known-av-packages-outdo-those-of-symantec-mcafee-microsoft.html
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2135092,00.asp
http://www.appscout.com/2007/06/antivirus_shootout_in_innsbruc.php

[Bovski]

I can't tell you how to add bit che to NAV's exclusion list as I would have to install the NAV malware onto my machine to work out how to.

Yes NAV is malware it deliberately leaves part of itself behind when un-installing to stop some other AV's from working.

[fuzzytomcat]

Mr. MinLo:

Here are just a few comments ...........

Bit Che is a useful program and it seems to be generally well-done. Congratulations and thanks to the author. It is unfortunate that he’s not making any money from it.

I didn’t see any indication in the original post that I, for one, didn’t consider the time it took to reinstall it several times a “minor inconvenience”.

And one last thing … my last post may have been arrogant or smug or snarky or even passive-aggressive, but it wasn't uneducated.

Cheers,
CS

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070607-report-little-known-av-packages-outdo-those-of-symantec-mcafee-microsoft.html
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2135092,00.asp
http://www.appscout.com/2007/06/antivirus_shootout_in_innsbruc.php

Hi ColimaSantiago,

I'm not here to smack you around or cause any trouble but many of the staff here at "Convivea" has heard over and over that a "Anti Virus" program did ........ and ......... did......... and we are always glad for the input just in case something is really wrong or our software may have been hijacked.

I think what we see is that "Bit Che" build 59 was made prior to January 2007 and last update to "Bit Che" 1.0 build 60 was in March 2008 and has always had a c:\program files\bit che\bit_che.exe. file now for "over" two years. Yet many "Anti Virus" programs fail to update there files to except "Bit Che" a software program and .exe file thats not new by any means.

Thats why we alway say check out your "Anti Virus" program because 99.999999999% of the time thats what the problem is, and I'm positive Chip would thank you, for your kind words about his software he has worked on so hard for nothing but "Donations" ....

2 cents,
Fuzzy
 

[MinLo]

Mr. MinLo:

Here are just a few comments then I'll quit cluttering your forum:

It's not the cluttering part I'm worried about......It's the fact you posted disrespectfully.......If you had issues with the way it has been handle so far then make your own topic......
If you would of had been more respectful and understanding within your comments about the procedure we have temp put in place, you probably would of gotten a better response.....You were obnoxious and purposely rude because of a minor inconvenience from a freeware program that Chip provides for you to use......

Bit Che is a useful program and it seems to be generally well-done. Congratulations and thanks to the author. It is unfortunate that he’s not making any money from it.

If you believe its an useful program then show more appreciation to the author/support members than trying to slam him/them when something minor goes wrong with the program he made for you to use....It's funny that it took you 3 paragraphs to actually post a respectable statement ....The only problem I have now is that it seems that now your just saying to be a smarta$$, especially if you read the rest of what you posted below......

It's really not that unfortunate that he doesn't make money from it......He enjoys making programs.....If he wanted to charge money he could, it's not the route he has chosen to take........I'm sure if he felt it was burden to move along BitChe, he wouldn't of made it in the first place.....

NAV’s complaint about Bit Che is not with the package installer. The complaint is with c:\program files\bit che\bit_che.exe. The specific alert is "Suspicious.MH690". If you intend to do anything about it, that might be useful information.

This information is already known.......If you noticed the OP posted it in the title and is also in his 1st post.....If you would of read the thread you posted in, it shouldn't of been that hard to miss 
If you do a simple google search you'll find that more than just Bit Che has had problems with AV's marking programs that are legit
I found aimp2c.exe in 10 seconds of searching.....
Did your virus prompt give you a warning to chose if you wanted to quarantine the possible virus......
Did norton send you to webpage to get extra info?
Is Norton rushing to fix it newly problem of false detections?
I don't have Norton but from the five or so help topics caused by Norton here would lead me to believe the answer is NO
I did aditional searching and I found this though.......
A norton security forum even gives pretty much the same advice that was given here
http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?board.id=nis_feedback&message.id=27492
I guess their not professional 

hello everyone..  this is definitely a FALSE POSITIVE detection. Bit Che is NOT infected.

i use a file packer to keep the file size down and also to ensure that Bit Che can't be infected with a virus. the file packer checks itself to see if bit_che.exe has been modified (by a virus or anything else) and will not start up if it has been modified.

the problem is that from time to time, virus creators themselves will use similar file packers and then AntiVirus companies do their best to determine what is actually a virus and what isnt. in this case, the latest AVG updates are detecting Bit Che as infected with a virus that it IS NOT. this is actually more common than you would think with AntiVirus companies.

This is the post back when Bit Che had problems with past false positives......Making an assumption it could be same problem would be a fair assessment

I am encouraged to hear that Convivea may be pursuing a resolution to this problem beyond excluding Bit Che from the scrutiny of the virus defenses or replacing NAV with another anti-virus program. That is what I would have expected from a professional development organization and I (evidently mistakenly) believed that Convivea was just that, professionals rather than hobbyists. I’m a little surprised (but relieved) to learn that the recommended changes to the virus defenses are just a temporary work-around. I didn’t see any indication in the original post that any further effort was planned.

This is what I was talking about being a smarta$$......You go from complimenting in your first paragraph to being disrespectful once again........Just because we here have other things in life to take care of doesn't make the developer just a hobbyist nor does it make people helping support other users in using BitChe hobbyists....
To me you make it sound as if being a hobbyist is a bad thing......

I would actually use both words you used to describe Chip's current work, a professional hobbyist software developer, I do understand that describing Chip as such would consist of two antonyms though.....But it is hard to describe in my own words and your words were easier to use quickly ...

Most freeware programs are produced by authors striving to make their projects more than just hobbies.....
Or they are just making freeware to make it.........
If an author doesn't put their whole life into making a program, it doesn't make the author anything less of a developer
Especially if their projects are worthwhile for a good quantity of the users......
I could see if you paid money for Bit Che to come with this tone you have brought within your post's but you didn't pay, contribute, etc. etc,........The only thing you have brought to the table is a highly critical rant......
If you took in software developing you couldn't do half as good as you are expecting from Convivea......

It sounds like you already have a hobby of trying to rip others for stuff that they created for you to use free........
 

Like you, am no great fan of NAV but it seems that your assessment of it (“horrible”) is inconsistent with some well-respected authorities. ArsTechnica and AppScout rate it ahead of Kapersky and AVG and PCMag rates it ahead of those two and NOD32 as well. I’ve included some links to their evaluations, in case you’re interested. NAV is one of several that I use on various machines. It happened to be on the machine that I was runing Bit Che on.

My assesment is my opinion.......
It's so happens that my opinion is shared with other users here at Convivea
I appreciate the links but the links are outdated

1) http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070607-report-little-known-av-packages-outdo-those-of-symantec-mcafee-microsoft.html
Published: June 07, 2007 - 10:55PM CT
It also states the test were ran by the following process:
"The test looked at 17 different products, including offerings from Symantec, McAfee, AVG, Kaspersky, and Microsoft, and tested how well releases dated February 2 (with no updates) fared against a swath of new malware—viruses, scripts, trojans, and other nasties—that were discovered between February 2 and May 2.

No updates is the keyword here so it doesn't really prove much besides if a person didn't update their AV, this is what the results would of been back in Feb 2007.....
Well it is Jan 17, 2009.......
It also stated
"The more well-known commercial products fared more poorly. Norton Antivirus and McAfee tied at a mere 24 percent"
"Overall, the tests seem to indicate that for dealing with malware, the two leading programs (McAfee and Norton) are quite firmly in the middle of the pack in terms of effectiveness"
Besides the test being absolutely useless for a person who updates their AV programs, it's sorda comical that the industry leader is in the middle of the pack
FAIL

2) http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2135092,00.asp
05.22.07
This test also from a year and a half ago......Outdated
Within the table you can see the two most recommended freeware AV's still close to Norton.....
The freeware's lost by 1-2% to Norton....
FAIL

3)http://www.appscout.com/2007/06/antivirus_shootout_in_innsbruc.php
Friday June 1, 2007
Do I need to say, test ran a year and a half ago....
It states:
"Clementi points out that a low score on the current test doesn't mean the product won't protect you. If you keep your antivirus definitions current, you're generally in good shape."
at the end it reiterates
"Again, this test does not measure the overall efficacy of an antivirus product. It's very specifically designed to test how well the product handles zero-day threats - threats for which no signature yet exists."
It also states:
"McAfee had few false positives and Norton had none"
Well obviously in a year and a half things can change........
FAIL

I disagree with your contrast of “free” and “valuable”. Air, for example, is free, but, for those of us who breathe it, it’s pretty valuable. I found a $5 bill on the sidewalk the other day. It was free to pick up but it did have value. (Its value was exactly $5.)

You disagree with my contrast and then compare it with oxygen...... OMG 
Air is a necessity, Bit Che is not (well maybe some may view it as necessity because of how good of a program it is).....
Your original post was value with market........
I replied "Since Bit Che is free it doesn't really have value in terms of supporting a market"
No where in my statement did I insinuate freeware has no value......
Congrats on the free $5..........

If you look up market you'll find something resembling this definition given by WIKI:
"In mainstream economics, the concept of a market is any structure that allows buyers and sellers to exchange any type of goods, services and information. The exchange of goods or services for money is a transaction. Market participants consist of all the buyers and sellers of a good who influences its price"

There isn't any exchange with freeware.......There isn't a buyer and seller......The most comparable contrast would be a creator and user.....You download and use it as you wish without having to give/exchange etc.
The value is determined by the user with no obligation to the creator....
That is why I stated "Value and freeware sorda condescend each other", which obviously doesn't make sense to you but oh well

Your twisting your new statement with a purpose to manipulate your original opinion but I'll work with it
Can you market the value of Earth's abundant free air supply? Probably not
Can you influence other humans to see value in a plastic bag held in your hand that is filled with air while their breathing air that you have no control over? Probably not
Even if you take something like free tv stations.....
Sure they market their free shows but there is a market......The market is commercials which tv networks make their money off of.......
We'll be happy the more people that use BitChe but it isn't a market....
It's simply the userbase of our freeware program.....
Chip and others get to feel proud of that but it's impossible to put a value on the feeling of being proud

It is very generous for Convivea to release the program as freeware, but I suggest that, even though it is free, it has considerable value. I assume that the author released it because he wants people to use it and people will use it when they perceive that it has value. When the program mysteriously stops working because the executable silently disappears (that’s what happens with NAV), I think that reduces its value. I, for one, didn’t consider the time it took to reinstall it several times a “minor inconvenience”.

Again I said value and market which you had stated......
Again I never stated Bit Che didn't have value, I actually stated "The people who do find Bit Che valuable, Admin and mods try to help and fix the problem as quickly as possible"
Chip is currently or will be working on the problem as soon as possible......

When BitChe stops working for people and they come to the support part of the forum we try to alleviate the problem as quickly as possible....
Considering this problem isn't Chips fault rather it is the AV's problem of false detection, I would definitely say it is a minor inconvenience....
Also how long did it take you to reinstall? 10 minutes at the most?
I can definitely state Chip isn't happy that Norton wasted ten minutes of your life because it is falsely stating BitChe has a virus......
I can state that I feel bad for users having to deal with this......
I'm just trying to be proactive and find a temp approach until we can permanently fix it.......
Like Bovoski stated:
"Yes NAV is malware it deliberately leaves part of itself behind when un-installing to stop some other AV's from working."
I would say that is a more of an inconvenience than the issue at hand

And one last thing … my last post may have been arrogant or smug or snarky or even passive-aggressive, but it wasn't uneducated.

Your two posts have been full of arrogance, smugness, and blatantly disrespectful comments/assumptions
That is exactly why I labeled your 1st post as uneducated.....Now it's two posts
Did you think that by coming off as a harda$$ that it would make the frustration that you are having this problem any better for you to deal with?
Did you think it would help to get this problem get fixed faster?

Anyhoo this maybe one of the longest posts at Convivea......
I had a couple of long ones at DK, so what do you expect......
If your next post has any disrespectful tone, I'll recommend you to be banned.....
Have a great day! 

[solidius212]

Hi there i too am having the same problems as others here with norton .Not here to moan about it but just to say that i have tried the possible fix of turning norton off getting rid of bit che then running the registery cleaner.Reinstalling bitche adding it to norton exceptions .But the moment norton goes back on it remove bitche.

Ive used bit che for so long i cant do witout it if anyone else has any other ideas ill be greatefull i know i could get rid of norton but rather not but its looking likely may be the only option.

Anyway keep up good work when nortons not restricting it the program works a dream

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi there i too am having the same problems as others here with norton .Not here to moan about it but just to say that i have tried the possible fix of turning norton off getting rid of bit che then running the registery cleaner.Reinstalling bitche adding it to norton exceptions .But the moment norton goes back on it remove bitche.

Ive used bit che for so long i cant do witout it if anyone else has any other ideas ill be greatefull i know i could get rid of norton but rather not but its looking likely may be the only option.

Anyway keep up good work when nortons not restricting it the program works a dream

Hi solidius212,

Could you please tell us your,

1) Operating system version
2) You regestry cleaner software manufacture
3) What version of Norton do you have

And well see what we can do !!

Fuzzy
 

[dmc3000]

i am having the same problem,

i have windows xp pro
norton internet security 2009
winaso reg software..
please help. 

[solidius212]

Hi there i too am having the same problems as others here with norton .Not here to moan about it but just to say that i have tried the possible fix of turning norton off getting rid of bit che then running the registery cleaner.Reinstalling bitche adding it to norton exceptions .But the moment norton goes back on it remove bitche.

Ive used bit che for so long i cant do witout it if anyone else has any other ideas ill be greatefull i know i could get rid of norton but rather not but its looking likely may be the only option.

Anyway keep up good work when nortons not restricting it the program works a dream

Hi solidius212,

Could you please tell us your,

1) Operating system version
2) You regestry cleaner software manufacture
3) What version of Norton do you have

And well see what we can do !!

Fuzzy
 

hey windows xp home
reg cure

norton 2009 (last norton was never a problem lol)

[MinLo]

In case Chip hasn't submitted anything to Norton, I just did.....
After making the False positive submission I was given this message:

False Positive Submission

CONFIRMATION
Your submission has been sent Sat Jan 17 14:29:24 2009

To make another submission, click on False Positive Form

Sincerely,
Symantec Security Response"

I also recieved an email after stating:

Thank you for your submission.

We have received your recent inquiry to Symantec's Detection Review database. Complete submissions with all necessary information will be processed immediately. Once a determination has been made regarding your submission you will be notified via e-mail as to the decision made and the next steps, if any. For False Positive dispute submissions, Symantec will target a response of our final determination within 2 working days (Mon - Fri). This timeframe is subject to Symantec being supplied with all the necessary information to allow for a proper determination. Submission of incomplete information may result in a delay of the final determination. Any request for additional information regarding your submission will be sent to the contact email address you provided at the time of submission.

Sincerely,

Symantec Security Response
http://securityresponse.symantec.com"

I will respond with more information once I receive anything from Norton's end.........
I used this form from a google search
https://submit.symantec.com/false_positive/index.html
So if anyone else wants to report it here is where I believe you can......
If anyone has another link of where to respond, please enlighten me 

!!!Merging all topics related to the problem with norton into the FAQ!!!