Levels of acceptance
There should be more information, pretty much everywhere, about WHAT is suspicious, wrong, or malicious, rather than just "this is bad you can't do it", and there should be significantly more options than "Add an exception to prevent warnings about any threats at all."
For one simple example, if a site's security certificate does not match its name, and I don't have Bitdefender, then I will get warned that the certificate is invalid, and I can view why it's invalid, see that the company accidentally registered that site under their main site's domain instead of this subsidiary company, and choose to allow the connection. If there are further security problems, then I'll still get warned of them. This is significantly better than WITH Bitdefender installed, where I get a "Suspicious page blocked for your protection" warning, which will not under any circumstances tell me what was wrong with the certificate, and my only recourse (given that "I understand the risks take me there anyway" does absolutely nothing, but that's a separate topic) is to add the site to my exceptions list.. which is an exception for ALL things, so if this slightly incorrectly registered site also hosts malware or has CSS or whatever else wrong with it, BD considers that A-OK since the first problem it saw was inconsequential.
That's far from the only example, there's a similar situation if an executable is signed wrong, or has a minor problem that BD considers "suspicious," or in many other cases. When not paying for your product is a better experience than paying for it, that seems like an issue
Comments
-
1
