Software Review Bitdefender 2021 Review: Test vs Malware

[The Ordynary]

bitdefender still has problems detecting pups, I don't know when the company will pay attention to this.

 

[russ0408]

bitdefender still has problems detecting pups, I don't know when the company will pay attention to this.

A lot of other AV's have problems with pups, not just Bitdefender. Kaspersky sucks with pups also, this is why we use scanners such as Malwarebytes to detect pups that our AV's miss.

 

[The Ordynary]

A lot of other AV's have problems with pups, not just Bitdefender. Kaspersky sucks with pups also, this is why we use scanners such as Malwarebytes to detect pups that our AV's miss.

not really, kaspersky is great against pups, he used to be horrible but nowadays he is excellent.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

not really, kaspersky is great against pups, he used to be horrible but nowadays he is excellent.

Not sure if it's great but their pup detection has improved.
If I install for example Foxit Reader Kaspersky Security Cloud free changes the checkbox (and notify you) to not install the trial of Foxit PhantomPDF, Microsoft Defender's pup detection does nothing about that.

 

[mazskolnieces]

A lot of other AV's have problems with pups, not just Bitdefender. Kaspersky sucks with pups also, this is why we use scanners such as Malwarebytes to detect pups that our AV's miss.

Companies that publish PUPs just love to file law suits against security software vendors like Bitdefender and Kaspersky. The PUP publishers win such cases all the time and the security soft vendor is forced to remove the signatures or blocks on top of paying financial losses. Also, enough PUPs are borderline and Bitdefender and Kaspersky just don't want to make those judgment calls for the hassles that making such a judgment call creates.

That is why many security soft companies don't prioritize PUPs.

 

[The Ordynary]

Companies that publish PUPs just love to file law suits against security software vendors like Bitdefender and Kaspersky. The PUP publishers win such cases all the time and the security soft vendor is forced to remove the signatures or blocks on top of paying financial losses. Also, enough PUPs are borderline and Bitdefender and Kaspersky just don't want to make those judgment calls for the hassles that making such a judgment call creates.

That is why many security soft companies don't prioritize PUPs.

so malware bytes and ESET should already be broke, that doesn't make much sense.

 

[mazskolnieces]

so malware bytes and ESET should already be broke, that doesn't make much sense.

It's been like this for decades. PUP lawsuits don't usually get to trial. Just a threat of a law suit gets the vendor to remove the blocking.

Also, do your research and read what vendors officially state their policy towards PUPs are.

Lawsuits don't drive companies to go broke. Look at the unending law suits against Google and Microsoft. They've paid out billions upon billions in settlements. ESET could easily afford to pay out millions per year if it were compelled to do so.

 

[Balrog]

I understand that malware sample testing is done using a representative set of common and deadly. Obviously the average user is not usually in contact with the most lethal unless they have bad luck or lack common sense. Nor does the average user manipulate the settings of the product, only looking for the feeling of being protected by installing an antimalware product. In the end, no antimalware product is enough to rid the user of himself.

Many times I have heard from a user "accept because it did not let me continue" when browsing. Not long ago a user asked me for help because he lost $ 25,000 in an attack using malware that steals bank credentials. An assistant performed web searches for "baby names". In the results came infection. Where is the common sense?

 

[mazskolnieces]

The way Bitdefender's ransomware protection works, it would leave anybody with less than a passing malware testing experience with a mess. The feature does roll back file modifications but keeps encrypted ones there also. Your average user won't know what to do if there are problems.

A $5 USB flash drive is a decisively better solution to protect against ransomware.

But, you know, the security soft vendors like Bitdefender did have protected folders and you can see that they got rid of them because users were too lazy to move their files to-and-from the protected vaults. Users are astoundingly lazy. Their laziness is epic.