Bitdefender passive mode

RandomFreeBDUser · 2025-06-13T15:59:57+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

Just a suggestion to the team to explore an option for passive mode in Bitdefender products. It should just be a toggle when activated, should turn off all its realtime protection, web scanning etc. When this is enabled, Windows Defender should be activated as primary antivirus whereas Bitdefender should act like second opinion scanner or on demand scanner.

Find more posts tagged with

Active

Status: Active

Comments

Alexandru_BD

Hi and thanks for sharing your thoughts here.

I'm not sure what would be the purpose of passive mode, but there's the option to disable the Shield:

Petersl

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/104370/bitdefender-passive-mode

Hi @RandomFreeBDUser @Alexandru_BD

Could this not potentially make it easier for a hacker or malware to disable the bitdefender protection if it's only with one click?

It would make it easier to turn off protection but it should be with the option to password protect it.

Alexandru_BD

Hi,

I believe that certain vulnerabilities or risks that security researchers are aware of and want to avoid are some of the reasons why such a feature is not on the table. There have been discussions about this in the past (the topic was actually a hotbed of debate) and the conclusion was that there won't be a "kill-switch" to shut down all protection modules at once. You can see how one of those discussions unfolded here:

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/91650/exit-bitdefender

Regards

RandomFreeBDUser

Thanks for your insights, however I don't think the system should remain unprotected. Turning off the real time shield currently won't turn on the Windows Defender I believe. But what was suggested even earlier was to have a kill switch which would in turn switch on the Windows Defender. This could give power to the user to use Bitdefender as a second opinion scanner, if necessary.

Alexandru_BD

Hi @RandomFreeBDUser,

You are most welcome. You are right to assume that Windows Defender does not automatically re-enable itself in most configurations, in the event the main security solution installed on the device, such as Bitdefender in this case, is deactivated. This has to do with a very nuanced area of Windows security architecture. When a third-party antivirus like Bitdefender is installed on Windows, the Defender antivirus is deactivated. This behavior is by design and enforced by Windows Security Center, which prevents multiple antivirus engines from running simultaneously to avoid conflicts, performance and detection issues. On this topic, I recommend this article, which dives more into this scenario of usage and explains why having more than one antivirus running at the same time may cause problems:

https://www.av-comparatives.org/why-you-should-never-have-multiple-antivirus-programs-on-your-computer/

Now, you may ask yourself why Windows Defender doesn't take over if Bitdefender is disabled, or why this action cannot be performed by automated means. The thing is, WSC does not detect "paused" or "disabled" states of third-party antivirus software as unprotected status unless the product unregisters itself from WSC. Bitdefender remains registered with WSC even when modules are turned off. As such, Windows still assumes a third-party antivirus is managing protection, so it doesn't take any action. Hypothetically, what you are proposing COULD be technically possible, however under certain conditions. Such a process would require the other antivirus, Bitdefender in this case, to explicitly unregister from WSC when it disables itself. This would trigger Windows to bring Defender out of passive mode. Obviously, this flow would need to be built into Bitdefender as a feature, and I don't think the security researchers and product developers would actually endorse this concept. Because this may pose an inconvenience, or even problems later on, when users would have to register Bitdefender with WSC again, and this is where things can get complicated.
I think another possible way to achieve this, without actually developing a feature designed for this purpose, would be a Windows setting or scheduled s.c.r.i.p.t/policy managed by the user or system administrator (e.g., via Group Policy or PowerShell) to monitor AV status and enable Defender if the third-party AV is non-functional. This would be something that the user sets, according to their preferences. So, hypothetically you could use group policy or endpoint management to monitor AV health and switch.
But I think this is really more of a corner-case, or special usage scenario which doesn't really occur on a daily basis, or at least the majority of users don't really require to switch between antiviruses, especially if they purchased a paid solution. I think most users are looking for a reliable, trustworthy solution that offers enhanced protection, so more than what their standard antivirus has to offer, and when it comes to device security, people usually seek a set-it-and-forget-it type of software that does the job in the background and gives them peace of mind without too much user input. It's also true that more tech-savvy users could require more customization options, and Bitdefender does offer a plethora of settings, both basic and advanced, to cover the needs of most advanced users as well.

What I'm trying to say is that once you've gone with a third-party security vendor, it's unlikely to switch back to the default security solution installed on your operating system (unless you have good reasons to do so), at least this is my perspective. So, I think such a "switch" feature is highly unlikely to be developed in the antivirus, because chances are it won't really be used consistently and would require resources and planning just to have something that some users may use once and a while. For the record, this is also not the default behavior for most vendors, they all remain registered with WSC in this use case.

That's my personal take on this.

Regards

RandomFreeBDUser

Thank you very much for the insightful and thorough explanation. I can now understand the reason and nuances of such an approach.

Alexandru_BD

Anytime, you are most welcome. 🙂