H
hjlbx
Thread author
Hello,
This is a mini-review of BitDefender Internet Security 2016.
Tested on Intel i7-4720HQ with SSD - so a fast system; not tested on low-end HDD (slow) system.
Pros:
Cons:
Now I understand why BD is not generally well-liked here at MT; it ranks dead-last with regards to the "toy factor." Well, Windows Defender really occupies that position, but you know what I mean.
I personally like BD's minimalistic approach.
Of all the AV I have used, BD comes the closest to the ideal of "maximum protection without user interaction."
As a general, all-purpose protection it is well-suited to those that want very little required AV interaction. Additionally, I would evaluate BD before purchasing a license to verify whether or not it will be "buggy" on your specific system.
If it works well on your specific system, then I would seriously consider using it.
The bottom line is that BD 2016 is signature-based detection. That's a problem, but it works best for the vast majority of typical home users so most AV vendors still use it. The Safe Pay feature seems worthwhile, but honestly it is difficult to test how secure it actually is.
Update:
Personally, I am surprised at the improvements from 2015 to 2016.
On my AMD system BD 2015 just didn't work. I think user will have better result on Intel system (I can confirm that BD works better on Intel system; as to the exact technical reasons why this is the case I do not know).
Initially I liked it quite a lot, but in the end 2015 was a bad experience. 2016 is much improved.
This is a mini-review of BitDefender Internet Security 2016.
Tested on Intel i7-4720HQ with SSD - so a fast system; not tested on low-end HDD (slow) system.
Pros:
- Top-tier signature-based upon testing against samples from MT Malware Hub.
- GUI is straight-forward and organized; minimalistic approach all the way around.
- Highly automated requiring very little user interaction; very well suited to "set-it-and-forget-it" novice.
- Notifications are clear, concise, unobtrusive but demand attention, and remain open long enough for user to respond if they so choose.
- Safe Pay isolated browser that is stable (NOTE: Not the same as Sandboxie).
- Only experienced one minor GUI bug and a few service crashes; BD auto-restarted and self-generated a bug report and submitted it.
Cons:
- System optimization tools are completely unnecessary.
- Since it is so highly automated, BD actions when protecting/cleaning system are not really all that clear (but maybe that is as it should be considering the intended audience).
- Some minor GUI quirks that may confuse inexperienced novice.
- Uses file rating/heuristics; lacks true Behavior Blocker.
- BD Rescue Disk does not support Secure Boot (BD notifies user).
- No firewall prompts from within which rules can be created; generic "Allow" autorules are created and editing is completely a manual affair.
- No means for user to manually add object to Quarantine.
- Navigation/info access is not always intuitive or convenient.
- Web-protection (HTTP scanner) can cause noticeable delay in web-page load... sometimes long/may have to close tab and re-open page.
- Using BD's sandboxed browser some plug-ins may mis-behave/show quirky behavior - e.g. LastPass.
- SSL scanning breaks a lot of pages and user has to create browser exceptions.
- 250+ MB RAM usage will be a problem for some users without sufficient memory.
Now I understand why BD is not generally well-liked here at MT; it ranks dead-last with regards to the "toy factor." Well, Windows Defender really occupies that position, but you know what I mean.
I personally like BD's minimalistic approach.
Of all the AV I have used, BD comes the closest to the ideal of "maximum protection without user interaction."
As a general, all-purpose protection it is well-suited to those that want very little required AV interaction. Additionally, I would evaluate BD before purchasing a license to verify whether or not it will be "buggy" on your specific system.
If it works well on your specific system, then I would seriously consider using it.
The bottom line is that BD 2016 is signature-based detection. That's a problem, but it works best for the vast majority of typical home users so most AV vendors still use it. The Safe Pay feature seems worthwhile, but honestly it is difficult to test how secure it actually is.
Update:
Personally, I am surprised at the improvements from 2015 to 2016.
On my AMD system BD 2015 just didn't work. I think user will have better result on Intel system (I can confirm that BD works better on Intel system; as to the exact technical reasons why this is the case I do not know).
Initially I liked it quite a lot, but in the end 2015 was a bad experience. 2016 is much improved.
Last edited by a moderator: