Bitdefender and icon-pdf files

RNM001 · 2025-03-11T18:52:01+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

Each time I boot my computer (Win 10 22H2) bitdefender appears to create a bunch of PDF files that seem to be icons. I don't suppose it is damaging or take much time but writing to the SSD more-or-less randomly doesn't seem like good practice. One example is this:

iconNotif-128.pdf

C:\Program Files\Bitdefender\Bitdefender Security App\Safepay\extensions\ibkoenhablealnikeefmjineccmgegmh\1.2.4_0\src\images\icons\iconNotif-128.pdf

Any advice or thoughts about this? Why is it happening?

Thanks Richard

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

Gjoksi

Hello.

I'm sure that @camarie, who is the main developer for Safepay, will answer your question.

Regards.

camarie

These are part of Securepass extension, which is loaded by Safepay. But this is unzipped only once, if it is already there it will not unpack them again. There might be updates that unpacks newer versions, but these are rare and definitely not on every boot.

Do you encounter such a behavior of creating these files at every reboot? If this is happening is a bug (although harmless), and I would like to hear more details about this.

RNM001

Yes, on quick check these files appear to be created on each re-boot.

I just rebooted the program and I see the files have a new date-stamp. You are correct that this is reasonably harmless. A nuisance in a small fashion - for example, when one searches for the newest PDF files they will show up at the 'top' with each reboot if this continues. I can manage that by hiding the directory from the search results, of course.

I appreciate your feedback.

Cheers Richard 😏

Screen Shot 03-11-25 at 05.16 PM.PNG

RNM001

ps the files are found in this directory:

C:\Program Files\Bitdefender\Bitdefender Security App\Safepay\extensions\ibkoenhablealnikeefmjineccmgegmh\1.2.4_0\src\images\icons\

camarie

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/351125#Comment_351125

Then I will open an internal issue, because this should not happen. There is also a checksum mechanism that makes the difference between existing checksum and a possibly new extension, and if these matches and the extension directory is present, the unpacking is not done.

We will attempt to reproduce and if we confirm it, it will make it on my list of issues to be dealt with.

Thank you for your feedback and details.

Alexandru_BD

Thank you @RNM001 for sharing your feedback with us here, and thank you @camarie for looking into this. 🤝