App Review Bitdefender Total Security 2022

It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
Product name
Bitdefender Total Security 2022
Installation (rating)
3.00 star(s)
User interface (rating)
3.00 star(s)
Accessibility notes
I personally do no not like this kind of interfaces, for me looks like Jenga with all the boxes and switches.
Dark mode for me is badly written, the notifications are hard to read.
Performance (rating)
4.00 star(s)
Core Protection (rating)
4.00 star(s)
Proactive protection (rating)
4.00 star(s)
Additional Protection notes
Protection is good, BD uses HTTPS injection, so no Browser Extention for this, except Anti Tracker Extention.
Phising and Malware pages are detected fine. Most Malware samples i tested were detected.
But.....
Installing VPN from the interface will take forever, better install it seperately with the installer.
The updates to download and install take a while, the updates are all small files that need to be loaded and installed ( this really makes no sense for me )

Safepay simply dont work when you use the bookmark in your browser. It only works when you type the URL.

And now the biggest frustating error of this program :

After a couple of days, Services not responding and Bitdefender will never start.
Talked to support and they know about this ( same like many years ago ) and still not fixed.
Some people have this, others do not have this issue.

For me this is the last time i installed this Bugdefender I sorry for the name )

I will not recommend this BD anymore, if you really want the Bitdefender Signaturs, go for GDATA/VIPRE or other programs that use the BD engine and Signatures.
Browser protection (rating)
4.00 star(s)
Positives
    • Many features
    • Low impact on system resources
    • Lightning fast scans
    • Easy to use
    • Ransomware protection
    • Strong and reliable protection
    • Detects or blocks in the wild malware
    • Consistently high test scores
    • Accurate results and reliable antivirus engine
    • Effective malicious URL blocking
    • Excellent scores in independent tests
    • Effective malware removal
Negatives
    • Advanced users may want more control
    • Short on configuration options
    • Clumsy or awkward interface (UI)
    • Not as many features as some competitors
Time spent using product
Reviewed over a 30-day period
Computer specs
Intel i3 processor
Tower PC
10GB RAM
240GB SSD
Recommended for
  1. Inexperienced users
  2. Financial banking or trading
  3. Low spec PCs
Overall rating
3.00 star(s)
RansomwareRemediation said:
It depends, I'll discuss it with you. Norton has proven to be an excellent antivirus, sonar is very effective, and now with the Avira + Avast acquisitions it can become a very powerful av. On the other hand Kaspersky, despite being a widely used AV, is being banned from several countries and that can make your product lose strength. Greetings.
Click to expand...
Yes, in my experience Norton provides decent protection. Regarding the ban of Kaspersky in some countries, this is politics and I believe none of the allegations were proven. I am sure this ban will affect its performance, but believe me this is a huge loss for the field of cybersecurity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roger_m, Anthony Qian, Virtuoso and 1 other person
RansomwareRemediation said:
It depends, I'll discuss it with you. Norton has proven to be an excellent antivirus, sonar is very effective, and now with the Avira + Avast acquisitions it can become a very powerful av. On the other hand Kaspersky, despite being a widely used AV, is being banned from several countries and that can make your product lose strength. Greetings.
Click to expand...
Fails to removes a file that a user can easily delete is what you call good? The software itself is also buggy
 
  • Like
Reactions: MuzzMelbourne, Sorrento and Anthony Qian
L0ckJaw said:
a

Buggy ? I don’t think you are right. It runs perfect and with my and @Shadowra testing it detects and removes any malware without any issue.
Get your facts straight 😀
Click to expand...

Agree Norton does fairly well. SONAR is quite powerful as is their firewall. The only "test" that it did not fair well on is the one that @kC77 did. But that was not a real test as you won't get hit with 1000 malware samples at once. :)

Norton is next on my list. ;)
 
  • Like
  • +Reputation
Reactions: MuzzMelbourne, Sorrento, Nevi and 2 others
Trooper said:
Agree Norton does fairly well. SONAR is quite powerful as is their firewall. The only "test" that it did not fair well on is the one that @kC77 did. But that was not a real test as you won't get hit with 1000 malware samples at once. :)

Norton is next on my list. ;)
Click to expand...
KC77 tests for me are worthless.
Totally not realistic and waste of time to make and watch. I prefer real tests like @Shadowra or the hub.
 
  • Like
  • +Reputation
  • Thanks
Reactions: MuzzMelbourne, gigi adi, Nevi and 2 others
L0ckJaw said:
KC77 tests for me are worthless.
Totally not realistic and waste of time to make and watch. I prefer real tests like @Shadowra or the hub.
Click to expand...

Agree. His tests are very crude and he will tell you so. I just simply mentioned it because it did not do so well during his test. You are making me want to put Norton on another machine here heh.
 
  • Like
  • +Reputation
Reactions: MuzzMelbourne, Sorrento, Nevi and 3 others
a
Trooper said:
Agree. His tests are very crude and he will tell you so. I just simply mentioned it because it did not do so well during his test. You are making me want to put Norton on another machine here heh.
Click to expand...
try it , you will like it
 
  • Applause
Reactions: Trooper
L0ckJaw said:
a

Buggy ? I don’t think you are right. It runs perfect and with my and @Shadowra testing it detects and removes any malware without any issue.
Get your facts straight 😀
Click to expand...
I personally also saw a few tests on YouTube where Norton failed to remove inactive threats from the system. No idea if that's still the case tho. Just thought I should point that out.
 
  • Like
  • Applause
Reactions: MuzzMelbourne, Nevi, Shadowra and 3 others
Trooper said:
Agree. His tests are very crude and he will tell you so. I just simply mentioned it because it did not do so well during his test. You are making me want to put Norton on another machine here heh.
Click to expand...
yep very basic and crude tests indeed! but Norton couldn't cope with it.. when I first tested it was v21.x I noticed a v22 released a couple of weeks later and thought I'd try it again... the protection just shutdown again halfway through the test.
unrealistic yes... but protection just stopping is pretty important.
(also to note this was a trial version I tried so it's possible they have some limits in it)
 
  • Like
  • Applause
Reactions: MuzzMelbourne, Sorrento, Nevi and 2 others
SecureKongo said:
Sorry, have to correct myself... It wasn't an inactive threat. Still, not an optimal way of handling threats if you ask me. After all, I didn't use Norton enough to judge it's performance nowadays.

Here is the test I was talking about:

At about 10:20
Click to expand...

Leo and one year ago. I never experience this anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MuzzMelbourne, Nevi and RansomwareRemediation
kC77 said:
yep very basic and crude tests indeed! but Norton couldn't cope with it.. when I first tested it was v21.x I noticed a v22 released a couple of weeks later and thought I'd try it again... the protection just shutdown again halfway through the test.
unrealistic yes... but protection just stopping is pretty important.
(also to note this was a trial version I tried so it's possible they have some limits in it)
Click to expand...
And what’s the fun with these kind of tests ?
 

You may also like...