When I downloaded the new Swath version 1.9.5, my Norton Internet Security warned me that the file also included (WS.REPUTATION.1)

It was downloaded from www.darkmoon.se

Norton deleted the file, saying it represented a medium level threat and was untrustworthy and therefore not safe.

Any advice or comments would be appreciated.

Sage

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/What-is-WS-Reputation-1/td-p/228251/page/16

Looks like it might be that Norton is declaring it a false positive. I don't run Anti-Virus software so I never got any messages when installing so might have to wait on Stein on this one.

Right. WS Reputation 1 is a BS crowd heuristic that's more often wrong than right.

Linky:
WS.Reputation.1 is a detection for files that have a low reputation score based on analyzing data from Symantec’s community of users and therefore are likely to be security risks. Detections of this type are based on Symantec’s reputation-based security technology. 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.

The reputation-based system uses "the wisdom of crowds" (Symantec’s tens of millions of end users) connected to cloud-based intelligence to compute a reputation score for an application, and in the process identify malicious software in an entirely new way beyond traditional signatures and behavior-based detection techniques.

You might want to get an anti-virus software that actually works, rather than just relying on loose garbage classifications like this one.

As if that wasn't bad enough, once upon a time the norton command line scanner was considered a virus under the same classification. That's right, the AV scanner labeled itself a threat.

Linky:
http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-I ... light/true

Hilarious.

the wisdom of crowds" (Symantec’s tens of millions of end users) - I have yet to see any crowds with wisdom. Yeah, I know what they mean, but it is an odd phrase, and somewhat misleading.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

Personally, I think they say exactly what they mean. They want the "wisdom" of crowds, and since crowds rarely possess real wisdom, there will be plenty of false positives to make people feel that Norton is worth the subscription price.

Seriously though Sage (and anyone who runs Norton), some of the best computer advice you will ever get is to GET ALL NORTON SUITE SOFTWARE OFF OF YOUR MACHINES
It is a resource hog, it is over priced and does more eventual harm to your hard drives life span than any other virus program you could run.

I suggest running the free version of Avast and monthly running MalwareBytes (also free)

If you want the warm fuzzies that come from paying for your antivirus software, then pay for the premium version of Avast which works as well as Norton, is easier on your system and is much less of a headache.

By the way, keeping it because it is "free" and came with your computer is still a bad choice in my opinion.

I use the AVAST on any windows machines I load, wanna slow that computer down even more? Load McAfee on Win7 holy crap makes the computer Darn near unusable. Another decent choice is Microsoft Essentials for Vista/Win7 if you are looking to save money and use less resources. The days of Norton ruling the the AV world are long since gone.

I ran both SWATH.exe and the installation file through VirusTotal which checks using several virus tools.
They both turned out clean and here are the reports:

http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/rep ... 1282927186
http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/rep ... 1282927266

/Stein

I ran the install for 1.9.5 on my machine, with no virus issues. I am also using Avast, and have found it to be much more reliable than Norton and McAfee. As was already stated, McAfee and Norton are both major resource hogs. And after installing them, you will feel like you have a governor on your computer. Granted, Avast does not speed your computer up, but at the same time, there is almost no difference in performance with it, even when it is scanning.

The bad new is that in order to completely uninstall Norton, you will have to track down several files and registry entries and delete them yourself. Unless they have actually fixed their uninstall in recent years, which I doubt.

On a side note, at work, all of the maintenance associates have laptops for connecting to the PLC's and Robots. We were running with a Norton site license, since one of or former supervisors thought Norton was the god of A/V. Guess what, we ended up picking up a virus on one of our robots. (Darn memory sticks). Norton saw that it was on this guys laptop, but it couldn't do anything about it. To make a long story short, we ended up dumping the storage in the robot and when I installed my copy of Avast on this guys laptop, it immediately found and killed the virus.

Get Avast and get rid of Norton. You'll be glad you did.

One other thing, all of our networked computers at work are running Trend Microcillin a/v. If you want to discuss atrue memory and resource hog, this one has Norton and McAfee beat hands down. Why our IS department uses it is beyond me. Maintenance laptops are not allowed to connect to the LAN, since IS has no control over our laptops, so we also have at least 1 desktop in each area connected. LAG!!! My ancient laptop here at home that is still running Win98 is 10x faster than the Dual-core, 2GB RAM desktop I have in my area at work. Unless I unload the Trend software. Unfortunately, IS changed the unload password, so that is no longer an option. Trend makes Norton and McAfee look like they use no resources.

norton has been a worthless bloated pile of poo since i can remember. hated that software from the 90s...

Sounds like a polymorphic virus to me. laff

But Norton told me it was

Yea Sage I went there

for once i agree with you. lets say trend is steamy poo, norton is just poo