Serious Discussion Unboxing Symantec Browser Protection Privacy policy (finally after a year of perseverance)

LinuxFan58

Level 14
Thread author
Nov 30, 2025
650
2,341
1,267
Symantec Browser Protection extension.

Because it is fast and nearly blocks everything I throw at it (it rarely misses a new hosting location of a known payload, but blocks it within minutes after the initial connect) I like it very much. Sadly it refers to a generic Symantext Privacy Policy which more or less states they they comply with every legislation and store the (to Symantec) transmitted data as long as necessary.

Nearly a year I go I started my journey to find out how long "as long as necessary was and in what form" the full URL's were kept at Symantec central servers.

I started with the developer mentioned at the extension page in Chrome webstore. Got no reply on three mail's. So the next step was privacy team at broadcom, also got no reply after three mails. Then I mailed their dpo-office and you probably guessed that I got no answer either. So I wrote the dpo-office of Broadcom (in Ireland) a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt telling them I would file a complaint at my national GDPR office when they (Broadcom) would not asnwer my questions.

I got answers which were so general I still had not gotten answers, so I wrote back (thanking them for their insights :-) ) that I would like my personal data cleared providing proof of the removal by outlining their process and provide me a copy of the removed data. I got a reaction that my interpretation of the GDPR legislation was to narrow (incorrect) and that they could not supply all I asked, and that i could chat to support for further explanation.

This morning I chatted with Broadcom support and officially the only information they formally provide is that Broadcom complies with all laws and stores information send and telemetry as long as necessary to provide their services, but between the lines I understand that

1. Full URL's (at time of reputation check) are only kept as long as the cache lives, with some aggregated telemetry (depersonalized) for load balancing
2. Hits on badware classified domains are usually processed (but this can change any time)
3. Fulll URL and IP location are often kept for 30 days (they comply to law, because they are not strictly related to my device or IP address)
4. Aggregated telemetry is often kept for 100 days (no disclosure on what form but always according to law).
5. When IPS attack patterns are recognized, more detailed information is kept depending on the threat classification and this data is sometimes kept longer (for 6 months to a year), but always complying with all laws and legislation and heir own privacy policy and data protection standards.


Because the data is crucial to learn and respond to malware attacks, Broadcom uses the fluid "as long as necessary" data retention.
 
Last edited:
In my test Symantec provides overall best protection, only (very rarely) to beaten by Malwarebytes Browser Guard heuristics when an existing payload is delivered from a new website. But MBAM scores lower on phishing URL's, This is the reason that Bitdefender Traffic Light and Avira Browser Protection usually end up before MBAM but after Symantec Browser Protection. Bitdefender traffic light and Avira Browser Safety also do well.
 
In my test Symantec provides overall best protection, only (very rarely) to beaten by Malwarebytes Browser Guard heuristics when an existing payload is delivered from a new website. But MBAM scores lower on phishing URL's, This is the reason that Bitdefender Traffic Light and Avira Browser Protection usually end up before MBAM but after Symantec Browser Protection. Bitdefender traffic light and Avira Browser Safety also do well.
You may try Norton safe web; I consider it in the second place after Symantec, with less FPs.

 
You may try Norton safe web; I consider it in the second place after Symantec, with less FPs.

I thought Norton depreciated its safe web, That is why I used Avira (being from the same holding company with an really good privacy policy).
 
They get most of malicious and phishing URLs I through to on their website.

Thanks great for comparing, Norton would be a great combo with MBAM (Norton excellent phishing protection, MBAM good malware protection with excellent heuristics)
1776803532784.png
 
Last edited:
did folks here abandoned using that member created plug in that aggregated large portion of the URL checkers?
Didn't they remove most of the URL checkers because of take down requests rendering the plugin useless? Or am I thinking of something else? OSpray I think it was.
 
Is using security extensions such as Symantec browser protection during loggin in to banking account provide better security by detecting tampered website or may pose a risk of privacy invasion or data leak?
Save the bank's website link in a trusted password manager, then use it to open the site and enter your credentials in a private window with all other extensions disabled. This method is both more secure and more private, as the password manager won't enter your credentials if the link changes, or you're redirected to an unknown website.
 
did folks here abandoned using that member created plug in that aggregated large portion of the URL checkers?
It's Osprey. It's really effective at both phishing and malware compared to other extensions I've tested. I wouldn't be surprised if people abandon it because of the no-install-base/no-eyeballs problem. After all, many of us are trying to reduce exposure to extensions. There's also no discussion about dropping it—maybe because people don't want to lampoon the project.
 
Is using security extensions such as Symantec browser protection during loggin in to banking account provide better security by detecting tampered website or may pose a risk of privacy invasion or data leak?
MalwareBytes Browser Guard has some additional protections, which I have seen spring to action (skimmer protection and clipboard monitoring)