Bitdefender Anti Tracker for Firefox: issue with sites like Amd.com

Anti tracker has some issues on a few sites. For example the legitimate AMD driver download page:

(I'm not yet enabled to post links sorry)

has serious issues on Firefox if the Anti Tracker plugin is enabled. Try to choose a driver from the list. You will see that the "SUBMIT" button will not forward you to the file download: nothing happens.

Adding the domain "amd.com" to the plugin exception sites will fix the issue. Reduce tracking activities is good but we should "reduce" too aggressive actions like this one.

Bitdefender Anti tracker version: 1.5.0.36

Firefox version: 138.0.1

Bitdefender IS: 27.0.49.254

Sorry if this is the wrong sub forum where to post issues related to this plug-in. Feel free to move the post to a better place if needed.

Simone

Find more posts tagged with

bitdefender

Firefox

Comments

Gjoksi

@camarie

Can you check on this? Thanks.

Alexandru_BD

Hello @Spulci and thanks for joining us here.

I'll jump in here with more context. I have now moved your post in the Privacy subcategory, as it's seems best suited there.

The Anti-tracker can indeed interfere with essential web trackers or features used to monitor critical webpage functionalities, and I'm guessing that this is what happens in your case. For this reason, the extension does provide the option to allow trackers on a specific website you are visiting, and this setting applies only as long as you have the website open and will be reverted to the initial state when you close the website. Like you noticed, adding an exception fixed the issue, and I think this is how the extension was designed to mitigate such situations.

I'm not sure if anything more can be done about this. Anti-tracker extensions work by intercepting network requests and blocking domains or s.cript patterns associated with profiling, advertising, or cross-site analytics, but modern sites frequently bundle these same third-party scripts with code that performs essential jobs, loading fonts and images from CDNs, handling payment widgets, running single-sign-on flows, or even populating product catalogs in real time. Because that “tracker” javascript often exports shared functions or injects data into the page’s global scope, removing it can break dependency chains, leaving blank components, frozen buttons, or layout shifts.
Anti-tracker extensions therefore juggle two moving targets: an ever-changing ecosystem of tracker domains (which they catalogue with heuristic rules and blocklists) and the equally fluid ways developers weave those domains into site functionality. Loosening the rules preserves visual fidelity but leaks more behavioral data; tightening them protects privacy but risks usability. Striking a sustainable balance means constant triage, whitelisting scripts that prove indispensable, shipping nuanced rules that allow only the minimum required endpoints, and giving users per-site controls, yet even with that care, the inherent tension between “never let them watch me” and “let the page do everything it was designed to do” ensures that occasional breakage is the price of stronger privacy.

Regards,

Alex

Spulci

@Alexandru_BD

thanks a lot for your detailed reply. I agree with you: it's not an issue whitelisting a domain inside the plug-in config: this should be conducted on the user side, I agree with you.

Keep up the good work ;)

Simone

Alexandru_BD

@Spulci you are most welcome, glad I could provide some clarity on this.
And thank you for your appreciation! 🙏