<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Privacy — Expert Community</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/</link>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 23:19:34 +0000</pubDate>
        <language>en</language>
            <description>Privacy — Expert Community</description>
    <atom:link href="https://community.bitdefender.com/en/categories/377-privacy/feed.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
        <title>Tls 1.1, 1.2 Problems In Bdis 2014</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/53291/tls-1-1-1-2-problems-in-bdis-2014</link>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>Zocor</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">53291@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>I noticed some strange behaviour in BitDefender Internet Security 2014 (and maybe in AV also), regarding the ‘Scan SSL’ option in privacy settings. When this option is enabled TLS 1.1 and 1.2 are no longer used by Chrome and IE 11, and probably FireFox that I didn’t test.</p>
<p>
To reproduce the error, enable ‘Scan SSL’ in privacy settings and visit <a href="https://www.howsmyssl.com" rel="external nofollow">https://www.howsmyssl.com</a> you’ll see the (BEAST exploit) compromised TLS 1.0 is used, though both Chrome and IE 11 should be using TLS 1.2. Visiting the link will tell you your TLS 1.0 is Bad.</p>
<p>
Now when the ‘Scan SSL’ setting is disabled and visiting above link you’ll see you are connected whit TLS 1.2 and all security options say you’re good to go.</p>
<p>
This info has been send to support too, just wanted you guys to know.</p>
<p>
Kind regards, Z.  <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/emoticons/default_dry.png" alt="&lt;_&lt;" /></p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>[fixed] Search Advisor Not Working With Bing</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/54323/fixed-search-advisor-not-working-with-bing</link>
        <pubDate>Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:36:18 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>mrfreezzzz</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">54323@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>
I have 3 machines protected by BD 2014. 2 win7 64bit and 1 win7 32bit. Until today, search advisor and BD toolbar wasn't working on one of the x64 "only". We've sort of "accepted" that BD would never be able to fix this issue and that one machine would never have a fully working version of BD.  But, after the last upgrade, it also stopped working on the x86. It's now 2 machines out of 3. That's a bit much.</p>
<p>
It's not only annoying, but I wanted to double-check an assertion made by someone on this site: even if Search Advisor doesn't work, BD will still block harmful pages. I've picked a website declared in the board as a false-positive (didn't want to risk any real infection) and... BD didn't block it on the machines where Search Advisor doesn't work. Knowing this, I can't but wonder how safe is random browsing and how secured are the 2 faulty machines. </p>
<p>
It'd appear that Seach Advisor has been a bug for quite some time, and it hasn't really been fixed once and for all.</p>
<p>
I already did a repairing without any success, any input welcome at this point.</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Website Development</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/53744/website-development</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2014 13:14:15 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>gony</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">53744@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>
I am a developer using xampp and Drupal 7 (PHP CMS) on a 64bit windows 7 pc.</p>
<p>
I have tracked a performance issue when downloading initial html from localhost, to the privacy, Protection against phishing option.</p>
<p>
When enabled it takes on average 4secs, when disabled it is 400ms.</p>
<p>
I tried adding my local site name to the whitelist but this appears not to work (<a href="http://dv7.local" rel="external nofollow">http://dv7.local</a> as defined in windows hosts file as 127.0.0.1 dv7.local).</p>
<p>
If I switch Protection against phishing option off, I get a big red error that I really dont want to see.</p>
<p>
So my qns are:</p>
<p>
1. why does whitelist not work?</p>
<p>
2. I feel that I dont need Protection against phishing option anyway so I am happy to disabled, so how do I get rid of the big red warning ("There are crtitial issues to fix").?</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Problems With Bitdefender And Firefox</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/53075/problems-with-bitdefender-and-firefox</link>
        <pubDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2014 12:04:31 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>Sunyata2</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">53075@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>I'm not sure how to ask this question because I don't know the proper name for the feature.  Please bear with me. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/emoticons/default_smile.png" alt=":)" srcset="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/emoticons/smile@2x.png 2x" width="20" height="20" />   If I use internet explorer as my browser, when I do a google search, Bitdefender will alert me to which of the sites that come up are safe, and which are not.  I think this is called Search Advisor?  In any event, the same is not true when I use Firefox -- which is my preferred browser.  There are no green or red check marks next to any of the sites in a search.   I'm sure there must be an easy fix to this.  Can someone help?</p>
<p>
I am using Firefox 28.0 and Windows 7.</p>
<p>
Thanks for any input.  My apologies if this has been asked and answered elsewhere already -- I could not find the solution.</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Data Protection</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/53341/data-protection</link>
        <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 05:26:32 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>error-id10t</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">53341@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>I posted this elsewhere incorrectly, please delete if needed.</p>
<p>
First time I've entertained using this. So I just "simulated" it by entering few numbers into a text file that matched the rule I had created. I then tried sending this to my other email address via Outlook. It appears sent but it is never received? There are no alerts at BD either to say the rule was applied.</p>
<p>
To confirm nothing is wrong with Outlook etc, I created another file with different numbers and sent that. As expected this went through instantly.</p>
<p>
Question then: Should I not be getting alerted on the first instance? Obviously BD is "stopping" it.</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Certificate Errors...</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/47457/certificate-errors</link>
        <pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 21:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>Stealth</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">47457@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>With the newest version of Anti Virus Plus (17.15.0.682) , I keep getting Security Certificate errors almost on every webpage. If I disable the "Scan SSL" option, the problem goes away. I've looked throughout the forum, however, I can't find a solution. I'm using IE10 with all settings in default.... My system clock is up to date. </p>
<p>
Any advice?</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Anti Phishing</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/51746/anti-phishing</link>
        <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:04:30 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>error-id10t</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">51746@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Bitdefender IS is not blocking Test 4 (Test if protection against accessing a Phishing Page is enabled):</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.amtso.org/feature-settings-check.html" rel="external nofollow">http://www.amtso.org/feature-settings-check.html</a></p>
<p>
As per the link, it shows Bitdefender supports it but it is failing to block it?</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Browser Toolbar</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/51293/browser-toolbar</link>
        <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:09:09 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>xEral</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">51293@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Hello</p>
<p>
i activated the toolbar in the privacy settings but it doesnt work</p>
<p>
i read that it is small and people just dont see it, but it is definetely not there</p>
<p>
not in the interface of firefox and also not listed in the installed addons/plugins</p>
<p>
oh and i have bitdefender total security 2014, windows 7 and mozilla firefox</p>
<p>
the programm was installed and started with admin rights</p>
<p>
is it possible that bitdefender doesnt apply some changes in the settings?</p>
<p>
i really have no idea, i would be happy if you can help me</p>
<p>
thanks</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Scan Ssl: Peer's Certificate Has An Invalid Signature.</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/49714/scan-ssl-peers-certificate-has-an-invalid-signature</link>
        <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>Flute</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">49714@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Good afternoon. Last week I installed the latest version of Bitdefender, 17.20.0.883, on a Vista Home SP2 x86 desktop computer. I uninstalled the 2013 version first and then after a reboot I installed the latest version. My license expires in about 300 days.</p>
<p>
After I installed the new version everything appeared to be working normally but my brother noticed that when he went to <a href="https://www.facebook.com" rel="external nofollow">https://www.facebook.com</a> in Firefox (latest version 24) that it gives the message <i><b>Peer's certificate has an invalid signature.</b></i> Other HTTPS websites don't have this problem and seem to work fine. I deleted Firefox's certificate database then started it again and manually added Bitdefender's certificate to the database. Still the problem is the exact same. For the time being I've disabled SSL scanning which solves the problem, but I wonder if you have some bug in your certificate parser or rewriter that is incompatible with Firefox. Chrome and Internet Explorer both work fine for Facebook regardless of whether SSL scanning is enabled or not.</p>
<p>
Also, I read another post <a href="http://forum.bitdefender.com/index.php?showtopic=47829" rel=" nofollow">here</a> that cites what appears to be a similar problem.</p>
<p>
Here are two screenshots, one of your product info and one of Firefox choking on the invalid signature:</p>
<p>
<img src="http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6361/t6kr.png" border="0" alt="t6kr.png" /></p>
<p>
<img src="http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3343/svbh.png" border="0" alt="svbh.png" /></p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Ssl Problem With Eid (belgian Goverment)</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/50974/ssl-problem-with-eid-belgian-goverment</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2013 05:08:49 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>Kopernikus</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">50974@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>
Since I updated to "The New Bitdefender" I'm unable to access my eID applications (Belgian Goverment: used for tax, id, etc.), I always get an SSL error, tried different browsers, same result.</p>
<p>
In the past disabling "Scan SSL connections" helped and all worked fine then, now even disabling the "Scan SSL" feature doesn't help.</p>
<p>
Hope this issue gets resolved real soon!</p>
<p>
Nico</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Configure 'data Protection', Match Case / Whole Words...</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/50937/configure-data-protection-match-case-whole-words</link>
        <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2013 04:23:18 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>bitter150</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">50937@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>In shown settings both check boxes can be marked simultaneous:</p>
<p>
Match whole words</p>
<p>
Match case</p>
<p>
In my opinion this makes no sense, what is the difference?</p>
<p>
Something like this should be blocked for mail and web:</p>
<p>
123#abc</p>
<p>
For example all following cases should be covered:</p>
<p>
<b>123#abc</b></p>
<p>
0<b>123#abc</b></p>
<p>
<b>123#abc</b>4</p>
<p>
<span>(space)</span><b>123#abc</b>4</p>
<p>
<span>(space)</span><b>123#abc</b> somewhat</p>
<p>
somewhat <b>123#abc</b> somewhat</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/monthly_12_2013/post-146563-1386580795.jpg" rel=" nofollow"><img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/monthly_12_2013/post-146563-1386580795_thumb.jpg" data-fileid="%7B___base_url___%7D/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=12402" alt="post-146563-1386580795_thumb.jpg" /></a></p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Whitelist Not Working For Seedbox</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/49397/whitelist-not-working-for-seedbox</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>tingyik90</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">49397@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Hi, I'm using trial version of bitdefender internet security 2014.</p>
<p>
Whenever I'm using Google Chrome 30.0.1599.69 m to access my seedbox, the traffic light will stop me from accessing it. It's a clean web, since I own it.</p>
<p>
After adding the domain to whitelist, traffic light stopped showing up. However, it will still pop out occasionally and it's very annoying.</p>
<p>
Is there any fix? Can't provide the link to my seedbox though... Thank you.</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Err_name_resolution_failed</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/49102/err-name-resolution-failed</link>
        <pubDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 17:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>Haugs</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">49102@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Hello.  I receive the following error when I attempt to sandbox chrome (all browsers fail to work in the sandbox, however):</p>
<p>
ERR_NAME_RESOLUTION_FAILED</p>
<p>
The event viewer displays the following:</p>
<p>
The Cryptographic Services service failed to initialize the VSS backup "System Writer" object.</p>
<p>
Details:</p>
<p>
Could not open the EventSystem service for query.</p>
<p>
System Error:</p>
<p>
Element not found.</p>
<p>
I can setup a new user account, and the sandbox will work properly.  As a test, I deleted a user account affected, and then re-setup the account.  However, that did not work.  I've tried contacting support without much luck, hoping someone may have some ideas for me. </p>
<p>
Thank you in advance for any help.</p>
<p>
Respectfully,</p>
<p>
Peter</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Can Anyone Remove My Site From Blacklist?</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/48568/can-anyone-remove-my-site-from-blacklist</link>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:19:17 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>0932Designconsultant</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">48568@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Hi , </p>
<p>
We are facing the same issues for our company webmail .</p>
<p>
Please unblock the following web URL :<u><a href="http://www.0932.am:2095/" rel="external nofollow">http://www.0932.am:2095/</a></u></p>
<p>
Thank You</p>
<p>
Regards, </p>
<p>
CK low</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Ssl Connections</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/47829/ssl-connections</link>
        <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>Bell1</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">47829@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>I've been having a terrible slowdown after installing the latest version of Total Security. I did a complete install and then reinstalled the product. Now everything is running great except for one problem. An secure connection I try with Firefox gives me the following error "Peer's certificate has an invalid signature. (Error code: sec_error_bad_signature).</p>
<p>
 I tried completely uninstalling Firefox and reinstalling it and still get the same problem. To temporarily fix the problem I've turned off scanning of SSL in the privacy options. This only started after the reinstall of Total Security and only happens with FF and not IE.</p>
<p>
 Any clue as to why this would start after a new install of TS? BTW, I used Bitdefender's uninstall tool to completely wipe out TS and rebooted before I re-installed.</p>
<p>
OK, I have discovered something. After I log into a site, I can return that site with SSL scanning on. Is there any danger in just leaving it off? Eventually, I guess I could turn it back on once I logged into every site I visit frequently.</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Error 403 After Opening Suspicious Page In Sandbox</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/46310/error-403-after-opening-suspicious-page-in-sandbox</link>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>bitter150</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">46310@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for releasing BD-2014  <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/emoticons/default_smile.png" alt=":)" srcset="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/emoticons/smile@2x.png 2x" width="20" height="20" /></p>
<p>
BD-2014-AV reclaims some pages infected as expected, for example:</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.eicar.org/download/eicarcom2.zip" rel="external nofollow">http://www.eicar.org/download/eicarcom2.zip</a></p>
<p>
<a href="https://secure.eicar.org/eicar_com.zip" rel="external nofollow">https://secure.eicar.org/eicar_com.zip</a></p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.idfest.ro" rel="external nofollow">http://www.idfest.ro</a></p>
<p>
If trying to open this pages in sandbox, FF-22 shows a white page, IE announces an error 403.</p>
<p>
If exploring external router log (attached), error 403 is shown for this requests.</p>
<p>
In my opinion opening of suspicous pages should be possible in sandbox, isn't it?</p>
<p>
And additional: If opening isn't possible, a BD error message should be displayed!?</p>
<p>
(Win7prof-32bit)</p>
<p>
Thx...</p>
<p><a href="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/monthly_06_2013/post-146563-1372349008.jpg" rel=" nofollow"><img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/monthly_06_2013/post-146563-1372349008_thumb.jpg" data-fileid="%7B___base_url___%7D/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=11846" alt="post-146563-1372349008_thumb.jpg" /></a></p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Problem Accessing Hotmail</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/46570/problem-accessing-hotmail</link>
        <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 20:38:41 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>nuclearman</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">46570@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>A few days ago I purchased a three-computer license for Bitdefender Antivirus Plus on the strength of its reviews by PC Magazine and AV-Comparatives, but so far I've already encountered a couple of vexing problems.  When I installed the program on my Windows 7 64-bit workstation, I quickly discovered that it didn't work well with the 64-bit version of the Opera Browser.  Each time I went to a new site, several security certificate warnings would pop up, forcing me to okay the certificates before I could access the page.  This problem didn't show up with any other browser, so I was able to get around it by opting for Chrome of Firefox when I went online.</p>
<p>
Unfortunately, an even bigger problem showed up when I installed Bitdefender on my Windows XP 32-bit laptop in Seattle:  I can no longer access my Hotmail account, no matter WHICH browser I use.  Instead, the process times out, each and every time I attempt to log in.  I've tried adding Hotmail, Login.Live.com, and so on to the antiphishing whitelist as a means of getting around this, but absolutely nothing I've tried has worked.  I'm so frustrated I'm seriously considering uninstalling Bitdefender and going with Microsoft Security Essentials on the laptop until I can get back home and use the workstation, since I need access to my Hotmail account and can't really afford to just let the mail pile up for a full month.</p>
<p>
Does anyone at Bitdefender or on this forum have a clue as to what could be causing this Hotmail access problem, or how to solve it?</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Wrong Info By Trafficlight</title>
        <link>https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/46347/wrong-info-by-trafficlight</link>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:24:01 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Privacy</category>
        <dc:creator>coolcool1227</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">46347@/en/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Kindly see the attachment that I tried to browse the malicious website which is successfully blocked by the Bitdefender, but when I click on the <b>"+"</b>  to see what is malicious in the website, but the Bitdefender Trafficlight shows that "We haven't seen any suspicious activity from this website" which is totally wrong. Its a very old bug since 2012 version and is not fixed yet. Also the opening by Trafficlight is very very slow.</p>
<p><a href="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/monthly_06_2013/post-31288-1372404071.jpg" rel=" nofollow"><img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/monthly_06_2013/post-31288-1372404071_thumb.jpg" data-fileid="%7B___base_url___%7D/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=11854" alt="post-31288-1372404071_thumb.jpg" /></a></p>
<p><a href="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/monthly_06_2013/post-31288-1372404085.jpg" rel=" nofollow"><img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6031943/uploads/ipb_attachments/monthly_06_2013/post-31288-1372404085_thumb.jpg" data-fileid="%7B___base_url___%7D/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=11855" alt="post-31288-1372404085_thumb.jpg" /></a></p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
