I'd like to pose questions to users of Bitdefender paid anti-virus

[juhful]

Oh sorry, I forgot about looking it up(still)....

Your are right on the buck! Press release from Panda below.
http://press.pandasecurity.com/news...e-in-av-comparatives-most-comprehensive-test/

I think this is where I saw the 100% detection claim not a press release

http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/caa/free-scan.php?prod=caa&af=1726_5b

You were right! I haven't seen this before, I should try it, 100% is daBomb lol

 

[Cavehomme]

I'm only going to say one thing : "BitDefender is the most overrated antivirus ever"

They are not over-rated for detection rates, they are consistently at / very near the top. In terms of support when things go wrong, they stink, definitely one of the worst out there.

 

[Cavehomme]

Bitdefender is AV which i would suggest you to install if you want to slow down your PC & Internet.


if you want a good AV with Good Detection, Lightness, Nice UI, Awesome Web-Protection, Least False Positives, Awesome PUP detection.
Than use ESET Smart Security or ESET NOD32.

I am using BD AV Plus on a 4.5 year old dell laptop running at 2.2 GHz. It is working and a little playing 12+ hours per day. Have tried ESET on it, Kaspersky, AVasst, Norton, Comodo, etc, etc. The least impact was Webroot Secure Anywhere, second least impact is BD AV Plus, then Avira Pro which is more or less the same impact as BD. All the rest were a long way behind these three.

 

[Littlebits]

They are not over-rated for detection rates, they are consistently at / very near the top. In terms of support when things go wrong, they stink, definitely one of the worst out there.

I would have to disagree about their detection rate being on top, first point according to what? if you say AV testing sites then they are known to feed you false information. Just ask someone like myself who has been the the malware removal business over 10 years.
I have customers with over 200 infections actively running the latest BitDefender working correctly and fully updated not detecting anything. I call this over-rated at the same time I have other customers just using MSE, AVG, Avast, Avira, etc. with much less or no infections. It has been proven to myself that BitDefender can not protect users any better than other solutions and has a very high false positive rate. Going through some of these infected computers, BitDefender was detecting a high amount of safe programs and still allowing infections. BitDefender is one product I will not recommend to any user.

Thanks.

 

[Cavehomme]

I would have to disagree about their detection rate being on top, first point according to what? if you say AV testing sites then they are known to feed you false information. Just ask someone like myself who has been the the malware removal business over 10 years.
I have customers with over 200 infections actively running the latest BitDefender working correctly and fully updated not detecting anything. I call this over-rated at the same time I have other customers just using MSE, AVG, Avast, Avira, etc. with much less or no infections. It has been proven to myself that BitDefender can not protect users any better than other solutions and has a very high false positive rate. Going through some of these infected computers, BitDefender was detecting a high amount of safe programs and still allowing infections. BitDefender is one product I will not recommend to any user.

Thanks.

I am not saying that I do not believe you, I do not doubt your expertise, but what you say is anecdotal, I am sorry to say, unless you provide clear evidence.

I could doubt some AV testing organisations such as Matousec for example, but AV Comparatives and AV Test are German and Austrian and if you know anything about German / Austrian processes and quality you will know there are very strict laws / rules.

Yes, an AV vendor can "tune" their AV to give good test results, but in the "real world" tests they are using genuinely realistic scenarios...I have been using PCs for 30+ years so I do know something.

I do respect that you have been in the malware removal business for 10 years, but how are the customer configs? Do your users press to allow rather than having "default deny" etc etc? Who can examine what you do and vouch for the quality and accuracy of what you do? For the Germans they are independently assessed by TUV for example - who checks your work, for example? Who can independently say that what you say is correct?

Again, I am not saying that you are not correct, but a professional and respected EU testing organisation develops very clear parameters and performs standardised and repeatable tests to be able to benchmark vendors against, AND they are audited. In comparison to this, your claims of 200 bits of malware are possibly unbelievable without evidence, or are the result of problems with the way that things are set up.