Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
CheckPoint vs Eset Protect vs GravityZone
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SeriousHoax" data-source="post: 1120610" data-attributes="member: 78686"><p>The slowdowns mainly come from the HTTPS scanning feature. All AVs with HTTPS scanning feature have some slowdowns because decrypting + scanning + re-encrypting takes time. ESET's HTTPS scanning is very fast so it's unnoticeable for most users. Bitdefender's is slower than most. But they don't perform HTTPS scanning on most websites. Almost on all sites that supports QUIC protocol. BD as well as even many enterprise products at the moment cannot scan QUIC. There's also a several year old Chromium browser bug that don't allow decrypting QUIC traffic by using self-signing certificate. Firefox don't have this limitation.</p><p></p><p>BD takes up more RAM as they keep the signatures loaded in Ram for faster operation. Bitdefender's I/O activity is low probably because of this though ESET is also low (usually even lower than BD). But anyway, it's just different tech working differently in different products. It would be nice if BD could use less ram, but it is what it is. System snappiness is more important though that's also an area where they have room for improvements. Their app launching performance has worsen in the last 2 years.</p><p>BTW, Bitdefender's installation size is not 1 GB, it's around 2 GB or maybe even more. They hide their signature folder. It used to be accessible from File Explorer, but they locked it around 2023 probably to hide the 500 MB disk writes complaints from users.</p><p></p><p>Any disk-based activity like signature update is a horrible experience on HDD. IMO, HDD users should stay away from BD.</p><p>Yeah, Photon improves system performance over time. But it takes a few days for it to learn the system pattern. From 5 to 7 days at least I think. Photon is actually part of a local anomaly detection ML model that trains itself on each system. The collected telemetry is used to fine-tune their detection algorithms.</p><p></p><p>Every product need cloud. Checking reputation of a file is a must to improve protection and performance. Sometimes a file is blacklisted in the cloud before a signature update is pushed. Some product's cloud does the heavy lifting of analyzing files with powerful ML models that cannot be deployed locally. Some products like McAfee, Panda, Trend Micro are heavily cloud-based.</p><p></p><p>Maybe I didn't explain properly but BD having more signatures by numbers doesn't by definition make it better. Number of signatures is not too relevant here. Bitdefender creates a lot of useless signatures. About 3-4 times I have asked them to delete some useless signatures and to their credit they did every time except one. As I said, ESET, Avast can detect more with less. That's how their product is designed. If you take 100 in-wild-samples of the last 5 days, chances are that ESET will detect more than BD in a right-click scan. Even in Shadowra's test here, ESET detected a few more. But that's only half the test, the other half is if it can block them after execution.</p><p></p><p>Windows 7 threats is okay, but I don't see the point of still keeping Windows 98, Windows DOS era malware in their database. Maybe they don't take much space but still what other vendors does is smarter and more efficient. Those ancient malwares cannot infect your system.</p><p></p><p>As I implied, if it was easy then I'm sure they would've done it. There must be something that is holding them back. Or maybe it's not even in their plan at the moment due to the popularity of fast SSDs and high Ram systems of today's. I think 16 GB ram is the most common nowadays which is plenty for Bitdefender to function normally. Well, for Steam users at least, turns out 32 GB is the most common now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SeriousHoax, post: 1120610, member: 78686"] The slowdowns mainly come from the HTTPS scanning feature. All AVs with HTTPS scanning feature have some slowdowns because decrypting + scanning + re-encrypting takes time. ESET's HTTPS scanning is very fast so it's unnoticeable for most users. Bitdefender's is slower than most. But they don't perform HTTPS scanning on most websites. Almost on all sites that supports QUIC protocol. BD as well as even many enterprise products at the moment cannot scan QUIC. There's also a several year old Chromium browser bug that don't allow decrypting QUIC traffic by using self-signing certificate. Firefox don't have this limitation. BD takes up more RAM as they keep the signatures loaded in Ram for faster operation. Bitdefender's I/O activity is low probably because of this though ESET is also low (usually even lower than BD). But anyway, it's just different tech working differently in different products. It would be nice if BD could use less ram, but it is what it is. System snappiness is more important though that's also an area where they have room for improvements. Their app launching performance has worsen in the last 2 years. BTW, Bitdefender's installation size is not 1 GB, it's around 2 GB or maybe even more. They hide their signature folder. It used to be accessible from File Explorer, but they locked it around 2023 probably to hide the 500 MB disk writes complaints from users. Any disk-based activity like signature update is a horrible experience on HDD. IMO, HDD users should stay away from BD. Yeah, Photon improves system performance over time. But it takes a few days for it to learn the system pattern. From 5 to 7 days at least I think. Photon is actually part of a local anomaly detection ML model that trains itself on each system. The collected telemetry is used to fine-tune their detection algorithms. Every product need cloud. Checking reputation of a file is a must to improve protection and performance. Sometimes a file is blacklisted in the cloud before a signature update is pushed. Some product's cloud does the heavy lifting of analyzing files with powerful ML models that cannot be deployed locally. Some products like McAfee, Panda, Trend Micro are heavily cloud-based. Maybe I didn't explain properly but BD having more signatures by numbers doesn't by definition make it better. Number of signatures is not too relevant here. Bitdefender creates a lot of useless signatures. About 3-4 times I have asked them to delete some useless signatures and to their credit they did every time except one. As I said, ESET, Avast can detect more with less. That's how their product is designed. If you take 100 in-wild-samples of the last 5 days, chances are that ESET will detect more than BD in a right-click scan. Even in Shadowra's test here, ESET detected a few more. But that's only half the test, the other half is if it can block them after execution. Windows 7 threats is okay, but I don't see the point of still keeping Windows 98, Windows DOS era malware in their database. Maybe they don't take much space but still what other vendors does is smarter and more efficient. Those ancient malwares cannot infect your system. As I implied, if it was easy then I'm sure they would've done it. There must be something that is holding them back. Or maybe it's not even in their plan at the moment due to the popularity of fast SSDs and high Ram systems of today's. I think 16 GB ram is the most common nowadays which is plenty for Bitdefender to function normally. Well, for Steam users at least, turns out 32 GB is the most common now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
