Disabled "Advanced Threat Defence" - now it's nag time

I disabled "Advanced Threat Defence".
Yes I've done a naughty thing.
Now I'm getting the red shield with an exclamation mark, I've been told, fair enough!

I have my reasons to do this right now. Thanks for letting me know that my computer my end up in the pit of Hades and end up swimming in viruses. Duly noted.

Now I want that notification turned off, I don't want that red shield anymore. In reality my machine is fine and not at risk, what I'm doing isn't going to be a problem.

But I cant do that now, can I?
Nanny knows best.

Find more posts tagged with

windows

notification

Comments

Alexandru_BD

Hello,

Thanks for posting here. I like the good humor. 🙂

I understand that there are times when advanced users may choose to disable certain protection features like ATD, especially for testing, performance, or compatibility reasons, or other reasons, really. That's why the option to disable various security modules was made available to users, so if it's there, it means it can be used freely. But there can be a downside to this. That said, the red shield with the exclamation mark serves a very important purpose. It visually communicates that a key layer of protection has been disabled, which could leave the system more vulnerable.

For many users, especially those who are not as technically inclined, this visual alert is critical. It acts as an immediate signal that something needs attention. If this indicator could be disabled or hidden too easily, some users might not even realize that their device is unprotected, or worse, might assume everything is fine when it's not.
The Bitdefender UI aims to strike a balance between user autonomy and system transparency. While I respect that your system may still be secure in your specific use case, the software is designed to err on the side of caution. This ensures that any deviation from the recommended protection settings is made clearly visible to the user.

Now, may I ask what was the reason behind disabling this module? if that's something you would like to share, of course.

Regards

BDAlexS

I'm running a dedicated low latency environment most of the time, and I'm mostly off the internet. I do not require advanced threat defense turned on, it adds latency and reduces performance that I need. If I'm running this feature and I monitor with latency I observe high DPC.

I do use it in other environments where latency and performance isn't so critical. Regardless my use case is irrelevant, I know what I'm doing here, I do not need to be protected for my own good and I do not need to justify it.

So I've got this turned off, if my firewall turns off (I do not want that) the warning is obscured. That's not good. Either way I don't want to operate in my environment with a permanent warning message.

I've ran other antivirus packages before, and I've been able to turn off these warnings. Perhaps earlier versions of Bitdefender had this. Even windows antivirus allows me to turn off warning messages if I so wish.

I appreciate warning messages are useful, but I do not appreciate Bitdefender holding my hand permanently niggling me like a back seat driver.

If a user wants to turn off warning messages like this they should be able to do so. This environment should be mine to control, and I should it should be tailored to my needs, not what Bitdefender thinks it should be.

Alexandru_BD

I understand your perspective. Most of the notifications in Bitdefender can be customized, but usually the security related alerts are persistent, especially the protection status. That said, your feedback is absolutely valid. There could be a use case for offering more control in expert modes or allowing temporary suppression with clear warnings and auditability. We’ve passed this kind of feedback on before, and continuing to hear it from engaged users helps make the case for evolving the product and maybe revising this notification area, or how the software behaves visually when some of its modules are switched off.
I know the security researchers and app developers are very proactive and don't want to take any risks, but they are always attentive to the usage scenarios, and the feedback they received in time from the user community and other channels really helped shape this product into what it is today.

While it may seem that the app provides less control in such scenarios or corner-cases, altering security status changes could pose a risk for the more inexperienced users and may lead to unwanted security events or vulnerabilities. So they need to take all possible risks into consideration, but also technical implications involving the whole architecture of the solution that would require significant modifications.

Thanks again for the thoughtful comment.

BDAlexS

The thing is I've already been notified, I don't need to be notified permanently. Having a notification on/off feature hidden away somewhere in settings (maybe under "advanced settings") is hardly going to get in the way of the "inexperienced" user and is probably never going to be touched by them.

If you want to be super hand holding you can have a splash screen giving a warning "Caution, changing these notification settings may cause the outbreak of world war 3" or something when these settings get accessed.

Alexandru_BD

😅

Alexandru_BD

I think that thread refers to in-product notifications in general, it's not necessarily related to the product status we are debating here. Nevertheless, the discussion also reveals that users can set preferences for most notifications.
I've configured mine also, so I mostly get only security-related alerts.
Much has changed since 2020 and many notifications and flows have been improved since.

BDAlexS

...but not this issue on this thread.

Alexandru_BD

I personally don't think this is considered to be an issue in the true sense of the word, because it's how the status information was designed to be displayed, whenever the antivirus defenses are not entirely operational…

BDAlexS

Again. Nanny knows best. It's "by design" because you say so. Everybody must have the same use case. We must always be permanently notified that we are doing something wrong all the time because Bitdefender says so.

The user cannot be trusted to make a valid decision for themselves, and they must be notified of what is happening on a permanent basis.

So heck, when needing low latency for recording music you better 5uck up the DPC's Bitdefender is pumping out or else, even if you're disconnected from the hive and living in a remote desert island on the planet Mars with no internet.

Gotcha.

Sorry to say but it's this sort of thing that makes power users go elsewhere.

Like I say, even Microsoft antivirus products allow us to turn off notifications.

Alexandru_BD

I know that this may not be the outcome you have expected, but I think it's important to have the full perspective when it comes to product changes that may affect the security of the users and to analyze every aspect of this proposal. Please keep in mind that, when adjusting the products or developing new features, the product management teams always take multiple criteria into account and each modification must be designed for both advanced users and less tech savvy users as well, to meet overall requirements.

The developers understand that users may have specific needs and that there are situations in which you are willing to expose yourself, either to get a better experience during the games or to run certain tests, or for other reasons and the fact that the security solution does not facilitate an option to completely silence its status or dismiss it when security modules are disabled, may pose an inconvenience.

However, the first and perhaps most important measure of protection is prevention. As a trusted service provider, Bitdefender is responsible for the integrity of your systems and data, and any vulnerability can be exploited, which they want to avoid completely, as part of their promise to keep users safe at all times. As a security company, they are at the forefront of the evolution of threats and their manifestations, and the fight between them and the bad guys is happening behind the scenes, as transparent as possible for users. For this reason, their solutions include several layers (prevention, protection, remediation - to name a few) and complex technologies developed precisely to ensure that they can protect everything that is important to their users. Yes, they take security very seriously. It's not really a nanny, but more like your personal guard in the online realm. And it has a job to do.

With this in mind, having an option to completely discard the antivirus protection status can pose certain risks which the security researchers are simply not willing to take. Because they cannot rely solely on a notification informing the end user that the defenses have been disabled when it comes to resuming protection. If the user dismisses such notification and overlooks to enable protection afterwards, his devices will be at risk and we will not be able to protect him until the antivirus is reactivated. But this is just an example. There are other risky scenarios that may happen. Are others willing to take chances or shortcuts? By all means, everyone is free to design their product to the best of their abilities and resources. And by the looks of it, Bitdefender is doing pretty well in this industry, so I guess they must be doing something right, otherwise they wouldn't be a leader in the field.

So, although other security solutions may provide the option you mentioned, and you can certainly find ways to ensure that users who disable security modules remain unprotected for as little time as possible, I invite you to think about the real importance of this trade-off, on a larger scale.

This is also a matter of compliance and high security standards by which the vendor stands. Whenever something relevant to the security of the users' system or data happens, such notifications and overall protection status play a key role in raising awareness of the events happening on the device and send assurances that the product is operating as expected. Being a security product by design, it does not have a toggle to disable security-related notifications, nor to actually dismiss a possible vulnerable state, as this would defy the whole purpose of having an interactive antivirus that provides feedback and alerts the user of any potential threats or attacks coming their way.

This is not about not trusting users, or not allowing people to decide for themselves, it's about having some preventive measures in place and choosing precaution over risk. 😉

BDAlexS

A zillion words that basically states:

"Nanny knows best".

I don't want to use ALL the security features. Ideally I just need firewall and antivirus. My main goal is to avoid latency. Other computer builds will need this feature. This one does not. But hey, I SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED to know what I'm doing.

But no no no, I must use all the features provided, if not I will get a permanent nag screen - by design .I should NOT be trusted to acknowledge a notification and then continue what I'm doing. I must be COMPLIANT to do what Bitdefender needs to me to do. It's nothing to do with my personal or my organisations requirements.

Ok I guess I'll opt for another product that doesn't do this "by design". The default supplied with Windows for instance allows me to turn off notifications I've already read. Guess they should be listening to you guys right?

In fact every antivirus product I've ever used on the past except Bitdefender has allowed me to do this, maybe I should go look elsewhere when it's renewal time.

Alexandru_BD

But is there a notification actually popping up on screen and stealing focus, or are you simply bothered by the 'at risk' status? I mean, you could go on with your work with ATD off and the UI closed ignoring that status in this case..🙄

BDAlexS

Or you could simply do what most apps do, give me the ability to customise notifications for my needs. I'm not turning off the firewall or antivirus here am I? And maybe on certain use cases that would be fine (a machine with no internet, a ring fenced machine, no apps or OS being updated (just being left as it is) with no external data going in or out for instance, and disabled USB sockets). There are valid use cases for this in some scenarios.

The idea that I shouldn't be able to customise notifications for my particular needs is ridiculous. The one size fits all approach needs to be revaluated. At least MS understands this, as well as a ton of other security related products.

Next you'll be sending out warning messages that I don't have your VPN installed.

(Oh guess what, I've just updated Bitdefender, and surprise, your VPN got installed without my say so again oh well).

BTW if I wasn't bothered why would I be posting?

notmsn

The BD icon in the taskbar has a permanent X in it because I cannot tell it 'I want this piece disabled so stop warning me'. That increases the security risk because I won't know if there is an additional warning indicated by the X that is present. I just have to live with a permanent flag whose meaning is now unknown.

Alexandru_BD

Which module is disabled in this case? Is it also ATD? That warning serves a purpose, to inform the user that the protection is not running at full capacity…the UI will display exactly the reason and what needs to be enabled/corrected, but apart from that, the modules don't just disable by themselves, so I think the scenario of another security risk is unlikely to happen, and that "x" remains relevant to the initial issue that needs to be addressed (e.g. one ore more security modules turned off).

notmsn

It was the web component (the online component). I respectfully disagree. It is well known in GUI design that constant warnings just get ignored and users get acclimated to having warnings there and just begin to click through any notifications etc.

I understand you would prefer users to use the full suite but many users have valid reasons for not doing so. I started using BD because the previous vendor's product became too intrusive when they put a facade on their user interface to be more appealing to a mass audience. This strikes me as being similar.

Cheers