Serious Discussion Bitdefender - General Discussion

[IceMan7]

While I like the protection that Bitdefender provides, but I don't understand why it's developed to work this way, it still relies heavily on signatures while other antivirus software are now using the cloud to be lighter on resources.

Well, it's not based mainly on signatures. ATD is creating a virtual machine on the computer. Eset needs signatures more than BD, for example.

 

[IceMan7]

Tomorrow's work, so summary. There won't be time
At the beginning - I was wrong about Bitdefender. A lot has changed for the better.
Comparison to Eset because I had it before.

1. RAM
ESET - 5 processes. About 200MB. More during scanning (I forgot to measure). Device Manager in Windows showed up to 40% during scanning.
BD - 14 processes. About 1.1GB RAM. More during scanning, about 200MB. Device Manager in Windows shows 28-30% during scanning.

2. DISK
ESET - loads the disk more during scanning. SSD during scanning high speeds in Mb/s (mainly accelerates to 385Mb/s but at peak even over 500Mb/s). Windows shows load between 40 and 43%, at peak 45-51%. HDD - almost all the time 50-51%. Speed mainly 15-17 Mb/s, peak reaches 21.5Mb/s.
BD - during SSD scanning, disk load 2-3%, speeds usually (6.7-8Mb/s). Peak 22% and 55Mb/s
HDD - 50-52%, most of the time as from the ruler 50%. Most of the time 6-8Mb/s, quite often jumps to 17Mb/s. Peak up to 24Mb/s.

3. Processor.
During normal work both usually below 0.5%.
Eset - during scanning max 75%, BD can up to 95%. Generally BD uses more processor during scanning but at peak. During most of the work time it does not go higher than 50%. Eset takes more, because it does not go down from 50% mainly.

4. Enabling Firefox browser, similar speed. Slightly longer on BD but minimally. Browsing websites - no difference. Blocking dangerous websites - no difference in speed. Only in my opinion, when I was browsing certain websites, BD is more sensitive and that makes you feel safer.
5. Turning the computer on and off - no difference.
6. Getting up with Eset and BD. BD is slightly faster.
7. Everyday work. Let me remind you that I have 16GB RAM. I don't see a difference. I don't feel any slowdown compared to Eset. And I haven't set the Scan only new and modified files option in BD yet.
8. SafePay is just as safe and useful for me as Banking Protection in Eset. However, I prefer SafePay, because when I go to the bank's website, a window to run pops up. Eset doesn't have that. (Yes, I know, the browser is still safe in Eset because it's their "sandbox" but it's convenient for me when I feel that when I go to the bank, I have an additional function). But both solutions are not Fsecure Banking Protection.
9. Downloading files from the Internet faster on BD than on Eset.
10. Scanning the computer in both cases in terms of time - similar. With a slight indication of Eset.
11. General security. I feel better with BD on the computer than Eset.
12. BD is easier to use. Fewer settings. Logical settings. You will always find what you want to find. Searching in Eset settings is like being in a maze. Lots of settings and sometimes it is a bit irritating.
13. Downloading updates takes ages compared to Eset.
14. So far without any errors in operation. Apart from Proton VPN Free, where the first connection to the server takes a long time, it works without any problems with other programs and does not conflict with them.
15. Bitdefender's Central Panel is in a different league compared to Eset Home.
16. Eset takes up about 1.5GB on the disk in total. BD about 2.3GB.
17. BD support is also much better than Eset.
18. BD knocks Eset out with prices.
19. Eset has a cool context menu. You can even add a file to quarantine. BD doesn't have such options.
20. I like that BD doesn't interfere with the browser. It doesn't need plugins, it doesn't create any frames on the browser.
21. BD sits in the background and does its thing. It resembles the operation of Fsecure. This is very cool.
22. In BD, the "console" takes longer to start. Eset did it lightning fast.
23. In one day, BD downloaded 3MB of data
24. I even have the impression that navigating around the computer is faster on BD than on Eset. Copying and bringing files, opening files and programs is faster on BD than it was on Eset.


Disadvantages of Eset - a multitude of settings, more requirements during use (settings, configuration). It loads the disks more. It's not a program for laymen. Sometimes it gets lost when you change settings. Longer file downloads and LiveGuard interferes every now and then, even on files that it should know (because of which, until the cloud responds, the file is blocked). Eset annoys with the sensitivity of a PUA.

BD disadvantages - takes up more RAM (but you don't feel it and if you have 16GB, most of it is lying around lazily anyway). Loads the disk less. Delays VPN Proton. Takes longer to update. Those 500MB in signature processing annoy the update (the biggest disadvantage). Search Advisor still doesn't work for me (I don't need it but I notice it).

To sum up. If Bitdefender continues to work the way it does for 30 days of testing, I'll choose BD.
If BD discovers something or annoys me, I'll write.
Thanks. That's all from me.

And now three questions
1. Does BD scan the computer in real time all the time like Eset? In Eset, you can see it in the settings, when files change.
2. I can't seem to get around to starting KeepassXC. Does anyone use KeepassXC and BD in tandem and have no problems? This is the only program I haven't started from those I have and I don't know BD's reaction
3. I don't understand one thing. When there is a malicious file in rar/zip, Eset deleted the whole file after scanning. BD leaves the file packed and deletes only the file it thinks is malicious. Can someone explain this to me?

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

Bitdefender does not depend on the cloud unlike bad antiviruses like Eset and WD that are loved on this forum. It's very easy to bypass the cloud with a script, which is why all cloud-dependent AVs are bad.

 

[Jonny Quest]

@IceMan7 I just want to confirm things here, just so people here know where you're coming from as far as your comparisons and why. You are Flexx from the Bitdefender forum, is that correct? As you mentioned "I got a response" in this post.

App Review - CheckPoint vs Eset Protect vs GravityZone

Sometimes it's better to choose a solution that may not be #1 or #2 in tests, but one that gives you peace of mind for years. I've tried a number of AVs and always return to the built-in option. MS Defender's been working great for me for years. And I have peace of mind.

malwaretips.com

And yet it was also "you received a response" from this BD thread? Same reply from support, same time stamp?

App Review - CheckPoint vs Eset Protect vs GravityZone

Sometimes it's better to choose a solution that may not be #1 or #2 in tests, but one that gives you peace of mind for years. I've tried a number of AVs and always return to the built-in option. MS Defender's been working great for me for years. And I have peace of mind.

malwaretips.com

edit: deleted a comma. As sometimes I get a little comma happy

 

[lokamoka820]

1. Does BD scan the computer in real time all the time like Eset? In Eset, you can see it in the settings, when files change.

From my experience, it will scan the computer regularly, you can enable "security widgets" in "General settings" so you can see when it is scanning.

3. I don't understand one thing. When there is a malicious file in rar/zip, Eset deleted the whole file after scanning. BD leaves the file packed and deletes only the file it thinks is malicious. Can someone explain this to me?

BD will unpack the "unprotected" RAR/Zip files, delete the infected files, then re-pack again, it will tell you if the RAR/Zip file is "password protected" too and that it can't scan it.

 

[IceMan7]

I just want to confirm things here, just so people here know where you're coming from as far as your comparisons and why. You are Flexx from the Bitdefender forum, is that correct? As you mentioned "I got a response" in this post.

Are you some kind of fortune teller ?
You're wrong. As I wrote here, I wrote on some matters on the BD forum. I'm not Flexx. Just another character. But does it really matter? I'm an ordinary user who uses a computer and gets help wherever possible

From my experience, it will scan the computer regularly, you can enable "security widgets" in "General settings" so you can see when it is scanning.

Indeed, you are right.

BD will unpack the "unprotected" RAR/Zip files, delete the infected files, then re-pack again, it will tell you if the RAR/Zip file is "password protected" too and that it can't scan it.

On the one hand, this is a very good function. It removes the malicious file from the packed file.

On the other hand - for example, it removes a file like me. I have KillSwitch packed and it removed CCE.exe from me. It went to quarantine. Unfortunately, it will not return to the packed file from quarantine. I had to download it again and add it to the exceptions.

We can always deal with it this way. You have to set it not to scan packed files and there is no problem.

 

[Jonny Quest]

Are you some kind of fortune teller ?
You're wrong. As I wrote here, I wrote on some matters on the BD forum. I'm not Flexx. Just another character. But does it really matter? I'm an ordinary user who uses a computer and gets help wherever possible


Indeed, you are right.


On the one hand, this is a very good function. It removes the malicious file from the packed file.

On the other hand - for example, it removes a file like me. I have KillSwitch packed and it removed CCE.exe from me. It went to quarantine. Unfortunately, it will not return to the packed file from quarantine. I had to download it again and add it to the exceptions.

We can always deal with it this way. You have to set it not to scan packed files and there is no problem.

No problem, I apologize, I just wanted to make sure, as you quoted it as being "I, you" from you in both posts. Rock on

 

[SeriousHoax]

Regarding, no search assistant on Firefox, is google(.)com traffic being decrypted by Bitdefender? Do you see Bitdefender's certificate on google?

 

[IceMan7]

Regarding, no search assistant on Firefox, is google(.)com traffic being decrypted by Bitdefender? Do you see Bitdefender's certificate on google?

Since there are instructions, it should work. Besides, if I remember correctly, only Bing, Google and something else support it. I checked on Bing and it's not there either.
DuckDuckGo definitely doesn't. DDG doesn't work in Eset either

Search Advisor not working in Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera

If you are not seeing the Search Advisor checkmarks in search engine results as you see in other web browsers, disable HTTP/3 QUIC protocol.

www.bitdefender.com

I can live with it. It doesn't bother me. But when I rate it, I don't skip it.

Anyway, it looks like I'll be replacing Fsecure with Bitdefender. Eset is also a very good AV, but I prefer BD and I consider it a better product

 

[SeriousHoax]

Since there are instructions, it should work. Besides, if I remember correctly, only Bing, Google and something else support it. I checked on Bing and it's not there either.
DuckDuckGo definitely doesn't. DDG doesn't work in Eset either

Search Advisor not working in Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera

If you are not seeing the Search Advisor checkmarks in search engine results as you see in other web browsers, disable HTTP/3 QUIC protocol.

www.bitdefender.com

I can live with it. It doesn't bother me. But when I rate it, I don't skip it.

Anyway, it looks like I'll be replacing Fsecure with Bitdefender. Eset is also a very good AV, but I prefer BD and I consider it a better product

I didn't ask you to do what the BD support page said. I just wanted to know if you see, BD's certificate in Firefox on Google or the original google certificate?
Example:

 

[IceMan7]

I didn't ask you to do what the BD support page said. I just wanted to know if you see, BD's certificate in Firefox on Google or the original google certificate?
Example:

There is a Google certificate. There is no BD.

Before installing BD, when I added the BD Traffic plugin to Firefox, Search Advisor worked in the Google search engine.
Now that I have BD, Search Advisor does not work.

EDIT
I have just added the Bitdefender TrafficLight Firefox plugin. Search Advisor works and is not only in Google but also in DuckDuckGo.
In any case, since Traffic is part of BD which I have installed on my computer, it should work without the plugin.
So it doesn't work for me and I don't know why. The instructions on the BD website don't work for me either.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

If this is mentioned in an earlier post I apologize, when I used Bitdefender I did not have Trafficlight installed and search advisor worked for me. If I remember correctly there is a setting in BD to turn it on or off.

 

[Jonny Quest]

I didn't ask you to do what the BD support page said. I just wanted to know if you see, BD's certificate in Firefox on Google or the original google certificate?
Example:
View attachment 288011View attachment 288012

Is this what you're looking for?
In this order, FF, Chrome and Edge.

 

[Jonny Quest]

If this is mentioned in an earlier post I apologize, when I used Bitdefender I did not have Trafficlight installed and search advisor worked for me. If I remember correctly there is a setting in BD to turn it on or off.

Yep, for Search Advisor that can be found here.

 

[SeriousHoax]

There is a Google certificate. There is no BD.

Before installing BD, when I added the BD Traffic plugin to Firefox, Search Advisor worked in the Google search engine.
Now that I have BD, Search Advisor does not work.

I guess you didn't disable "Encrypted web scan" feature in BD settings, right?
If Bitdefender certificate is not shown in google on Firefox, then something is not right in your system/BD installation/Firefox. For Bitdefender's Search Advisor to work, it needs to decrypt the HTTPS traffic. It is necessary for the extension-less approach of Bitdefender unlike Kaspersky and ESET's extension-based approach.

TrafficLight extension is independent from Bitdefender AV so when you use the extension, search advisor works. Sites blocked by the extension will not be logged in Bitdefender AV as it's a different product even though it's from Bitdefender.

Now check if you see Bitdefender certificate on github and facebook. If you again don't see it, then there is definitely something wrong. On Chromium browsers you won't see BD certificate on Google without disabling QUIC via chrome://flags but on github and facebook you should see even if QUIC is not disabled. So, check if you see the certificate on Chrome/Edge on those two sites. If yes, then only Firefox is broken. If no, your BD installation is broken.

 

[IceMan7]

Now check if you see Bitdefender certificate on github and facebook. If you again don't see it, then there is definitely something wrong. On Chromium browsers you won't see BD certificate on Google without disabling QUIC via chrome://flags but on github and facebook you should see even if QUIC is not disabled. So, check if you see the certificate on Chrome/Edge on those two sites. If yes, then only Firefox is broken. If no, your BD installation is broken.

I disabled the Disable WebRTC plugin in Firefox. On all the sites you provided - Google, GitHub and Facebook there is a Bitdefender certificate in Firefox. Interestingly, facebook. (my country) does not work. Facebook.com works
On Edge I only have it in GitHub.

When I enable the DisableWebRTC plugin on Firefox, the certificate is nowhere to be found.
In any case, even if I have the certificate, Search Advisor does not work.


So what? Reinstall Bitdefender? Do I have to reinstall BD again in my life? :kup:

EDIT
Or something is wrong with Bitdefender Firefox again. There are a few threads on their forum about BD working with Firefox

Honestly. First of all - I use the DuckDuckGO search engine anyway, not Google. There is no such function on DDG anyway.
And secondly - I don't know if I want to reinstall BD because it's only for 30 days and then I'll go back to F-Secure because you have a valid license until October
Or maybe it's some BD bug and it will work for me soon? In the future if it doesn't improve I'll know what to do

It is necessary for the extension-less approach of Bitdefender unlike Kaspersky and ESET's extension-based approach.

Can you explain this further? And which is better? Which has more flaws?


I also wonder why, when I have the DisableWebRTC plugin enabled, I don't have a BD certificate? When I had it enabled, their "Search Advisor" worked on Eset. On Fsecure as well. Only in the case of Eset and F-Secure, their plugins are dedicated to Firefox. Bitdefender does not have this. Maybe that's where the difference comes from?
I just didn't check if they had certificates on these sites because I had no reason to. But when I go back to F-Secure, I'll check.

 

[IceMan7]

I checked SafePay, which is based on Chromium. There is a certificate on all pages. And it works in Google Search Advisor.
So it looks to me like Bitdefender doesn't want to talk to Firefox. Again?
BTW Search Advisor supports Brave? From what I remember, no. The only thing that remains is the BD Traffic plugin, because Brave is also Chromium.

 

[SeriousHoax]

I disabled the Disable WebRTC plugin in Firefox. On all the sites you provided - Google, GitHub and Facebook there is a Bitdefender certificate in Firefox.

So, nothing seems to be broken from Bitdefender's side but this Disable WebRTC plugin somehow meddles with Bitdefender's protection. So, you'll have to stop using the extension.
Besides, isn't Webrtc only used for video calling, live-streaming, and similar things? Do you do those things regularly on your browser? If not, then you shouldn't worry about Webrtc. Also, do you use VPN 24/7?

When I enable the DisableWebRTC plugin on Firefox, the certificate is nowhere to be found.
In any case, even if I have the certificate, Search Advisor does not work.

It should work but can't tell why it is not because it's working for other users like @Jonny Quest
Try removing cookies and cache, some other conflicting extension if there is any and temporarily disable VPN if you're using one.

Can you explain this further? And which is better? Which has more flaws?

It's not a matter of flaws. Using an extension makes it very easy for the AV provider to implement a search advisor on supported browsers. Bitdefender prefers to not use an extra extension for basically one function only.

I also wonder why, when I have the DisableWebRTC plugin enabled, I don't have a BD certificate? When I had it enabled, their "Search Advisor" worked on Eset. On Fsecure as well. Only in the case of Eset and F-Secure, their plugins are dedicated to Firefox. Bitdefender does not have this. Maybe that's where the difference comes from?
I just didn't check if they had certificates on these sites because I had no reason to. But when I go back to F-Secure, I'll check.

F-Secure's old version didn't do MITMing/HTTPS scanning so there was no F-Secure certificate. It was 100% extension reliant on blocking HTTPS sites on browsers. Avira's paid version has HTTPS scanning, so maybe the new F-Secure has that, too? I was never a F-Secure fan tbh, so I know less about it than most other top products.

BTW Search Advisor supports Brave? From what I remember, no. The only thing that remains is the BD Traffic plugin, because Brave is also Chromium.

Bitdefender does not support Brave. Chrome, Edge, and Firefox are supported. Only ESET officially supports Brave at the moment, I think.
TrafficLight extension works on every browser.

 

[IceMan7]

So, nothing seems to be broken from Bitdefender's side but this Disable WebRTC plugin somehow meddles with Bitdefender's protection. So, you'll have to stop using the extension.
Besides, isn't Webrtc only used for video calling, live-streaming, and similar things? Do you do those things regularly on your browser? If not, then you shouldn't worry about Webrtc. Also, do you use VPN 24/7?

A friend of mine once recommended the WebRTC plugin to me. Supposedly it protects against IP leaks. In Firefox, of course, you can live without this plugin, because you can permanently disable WebRTC in the about:config settings. But the plugin lets you enable/disable it whenever you want.

I don't use VPN 24/7. In fact, I hardly ever use it. That's why I only have Proton VPN Free if I need it. And now in BD there's 200MB per day in HotSpot Shield (as if they couldn't choose another Romania, but such a spy... Ehh) But in BD I don't even use their VPN for SafePay
And I also have free Windscribe - there is 10GB per month.

I have no intention of disabling it. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. I use DuckDuckGO as a search engine in Firefox anyway, and it doesn't work there.
The only question is, should I disable it for browsing security because otherwise there is no Bitdefender certificate and it's a risk? The browsing protection works, because I checked on various "bad" links.
Apart from Disable WebRTC, I've had the following plugins for years:
1. AV (there was Fsecure, there was Eset). Now BD doesn't have a dedicated paid version of Bitdefender.
2. Ublock Origin
3. Facebook Container
4. Privacy Budger
5. KeepassXC (this will be when I finally run and configure this program )
6. I used to have CanvasBlocker, but I removed it.

These are all the plugins that had access to my Firefox.

It should work but can't tell why it is not because it's working for other users like @Jonny Quest
Try removing cookies and cache, some other conflicting extension if there is any and temporarily disable VPN if you're using one.

So I clean CCCleaner. I also have Firefox set to clean everything after each close - cookies, saved passwords, history, etc.

It's not a matter of flaws. Using an extension makes it very easy for the AV provider to implement a search advisor on supported browsers. Bitdefender prefers to not use an extra extension for basically one function only.

From my life experience I know that life is not black and white There are always drawbacks to every solution and in every case you have to make a compromise.

Since Eset and Fsecure (as examples) use browser plugins and BD does not, there must be a reason. Easier? Fewer or more problems? What do you think is a better solution - the path BD has chosen or sticking to plugins?

Yes, I know. Eset supports Brave. I used Brave once.. However, I'm sticking with Firefox

Thanks for the help.

BTW
Avira also has a Firefox plugin. I wonder if it's just the equivalent of BD Traffic?

Avira Browser Safety — pobierz to rozszerzenie do 🦊 Firefoksa (pl)

Pobierz dodatek „Avira Browser Safety” do Firefoksa. Avira Browser Safety helps identify internet addresses that are harmful to your system when you are browsing the web and protects your privacy by preventing invisible trackers.

addons.mozilla.org

 

[SeriousHoax]

A friend of mine once recommended the WebRTC plugin to me. Supposedly it protects against IP leaks.

Only when something you use is using WebRTC like video calling, live-streaming, etc. that sort of things, not in case of regular browsing.
Besides, the IP leakage part is for people who always use VPNs. Even when you use VPN, your actual IP could leak when using something that relies on WebRTC. Since you neither use video calling/live-streaming regularly nor using a VPN 24/7, you have no reason to disable WebRTC or worry about IP leaks in general. Your IP is known to every site you visit anyway.

Since Eset and Fsecure (as examples) use browser plugins and BD does not, there must be a reason. Easier? Fewer or more problems? What do you think is a better solution - the path BD has chosen or sticking to plugins?

Extension-based approach seems easier for AV vendors, less bugs but I also prefer using as few extensions as possible so........