Still Within Current Subscription Period But Won't Be Renewing.

Bitdefender, although basically effective , is laughable when it comes to user control over heuristic analysis - essentially, despite configuration options, it typically deletes files it perceives as threatening even if you have chosen to ignore (never mind highlight) potential threats.

I have raised my concern over this issue previously on this forum but despite receiving advice still experience exactly the same symptom.

I want complete control, particularly regarding heuristic analysis of all of my software. It should be my choice whether I enable or disable a heuristic scan and how I react to EVERY issue raised by a scan.

At the moment, I suffer random action; some detected generic risks are highlighted and I'm given the choice to delete or leave but others are immediately deleted.

Essentially a good product has been let down by an ineffective and inconsistent implementation of what should have been a completely transparent user interface.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

stranger

I hate that about bitdefender internet security 2009 as well <img class= " />. But it was kind of funny when it detected the Microsoft removal tool (december one) as generic Trojan when it was downloaded directly from the Windows Download site itself about two weeks back.

NL71

I hate that about bitdefender internet security 2009 as well " />. But it was kind of funny when it detected the Microsoft removal tool (december one) as generic Trojan when it was downloaded directly from the Windows Download site itself about two weeks back.

I have lost legitimate software on many occasions thanks to Bitdefender. It's ridiculous that an application that I have paid for has the ability to delete files - essentially crippling my software installations on the basis that it perceives POSSIBLE risks based purely upon heuristic file analysis. and I have no reliable, consistent control.

Bitdefender is basically worthless unless you are willing to be exploited due to inexperience by placing naive trust in its ability to protect your system by deleting files as it deems necessary - even those that are legitimate and completely innocuous.

alexcrist

The actions that BitDefender will take in case of Realtime Detection can be edited from here:

If you select Deny access and continue to all actions, BitDefender won't take any automated actions against detected files, except blocking them to execute.

Actions for on-demand scans can be set in a similar way, for each scan task (go to task properties and select custom level).

Please report any false detections, so they can be fixed. You can send them on e-mail, or post them on the forum, on the Malware Talk section.

Cris.

NL71

The actions that BitDefender will take in case of Realtime Detection can be edited from here:

If you select Deny access and continue to all actions, BitDefender won't take any automated actions against detected files, except blocking them to execute.

Actions for on-demand scans can be set in a similar way, for each scan task (go to task properties and select custom level).

Please report any false detections, so they can be fixed. You can send them on e-mail, or post them on the forum, on the Malware Talk section.

Cris.

Thanks for your reply Cris. Unfortunately, user options don't seem to be consistently applied when using Bitdefender.

I currently have the application set to respond as "Action to take when an infected file is found" -> "First action <disinfect file>" , "Second action <Move file to quarantine>"; "Action to take when a suspect file is found" -> "First action <Deny access and continue>" -> "Second action <Deny access and continue>".

My configuration of Bitdefender, through selection of available options in both cases, regardless of the threat identification method, explicitly excludes deletion of any files BUT THEY STILL ARE DELETED.

As I stated previously, it appears to be almost random - Some heuristic threats are highlighted and I am given the choice of how to respond, but other files are also highlighted as generic risks and are immediately deleted.

When I configure an application, I expect to be able to rely on its adherence to operate within the boundaries that I have explicitly set - Bitdefender simply doesn't.

A more effective implementation of the Bitdefender engine might result in less need for customers - people that have paid for your solution, to be asked to contribute to the development and longevity of a currently problematic application.

stranger

The settings work for the real time scanner, but still have problems with it deleting files using the manual scan. Set the options as disinfect and the second one as move to quarantine and the third one as take no action. It still manages to delete some files without moving them to quarantine while running a manual scan.

NL71

The settings work for the real time scanner, but still have problems with it deleting files using the manual scan. Set the options as disinfect and the second one as move to quarantine and the third one as take no action. It still manages to delete some files without moving them to quarantine while running a manual scan.

I have Bitdefender set to automatically scan on a daily basis; my scan takes place during the early hours of the morning, that's when I am least likely to be using the system hence delays experienced by me are minimised and my activity won't slow the scan - scheduled automatic scanning is a key feature of all serious AV solutions.

On too many occasions, I have returned to my system in the morning to be advised that software found during the scan has been identified as a GENERIC threat and has been deleted. I have verified thoroughly, by various means, that those files have been false positives. In these cases, despite my settings regarding the default action to be taken, the files have been deleted while others, also identified as potential threats have been left - in line with my configuration , offering me a choice of response.

I have no intention of mucking around, salvaging files that I didn't give permission to be deleted, in fact deliberately excluded any possibility of them being deleted without my intervention.

Bitdefender isn't a piece of software that can be trusted to function in the way its users have configured it.

alexcrist

I have said it many many times before on this forum (maybe I should consider writing a FAQ about this question, one of these days...).

When you choose Disinfect, it means that BitDefender will disinfect the computer, not just one file. In case of malware of type FILE INFECTOR, which can be removed without actually removing the host file, BitDefender will remove just that part (and the original file will remain intact).

But for all other types of malware, including (but not limited to) trojans, worms, adware, spyware... Disinfect includes (between other actions): removing registry keys, startup entries, and YES!, removing the detected file itself.

Because FILE INFECTORS are rather rare, we can safely say that Disinfect = Remove infected file + remove other traces. If you want to be on the safe side, follow my advice: set BitDefender to either move the file to quarantine, either to just block the file.

Oh, and YES! These settings work just how they were meant to work, just how they were designed. And setting them to Deny access and continue never deleted any of my files. Never ever.

Cris.

NL71

I have said it many many times before on this forum (maybe I should consider writing a FAQ about this question, one of these days...).

If you feel frustrated by an issue being frequently raised on the forum, perhaps you should address it more clealy. If a solution were more obvious it's probably a safe assumption that the topic would appear less frequently.

When you choose Disinfect, it means that BitDefender will disinfect the computer, not just one file. In case of malware of type FILE INFECTOR, which can be removed without actually removing the host file, BitDefender will remove just that part (and the original file will remain intact).

But for all other types of malware, including (but not limited to) trojans, worms, adware, spyware... Disinfect includes (between other actions): removing registry keys, startup entries, and YES!, removing the detected file itself.

Again, many thanks for that information but I can assure you that false positives trigger random deletions of files which are in no way threatening, in my experience this has included system files, reputable applications and on rare occasions, has prevented the installation of OS updates.

Because FILE INFECTORS are rather rare, we can safely say that Disinfect = Remove infected file + remove other traces. If you want to be on the safe side, follow my advice: set BitDefender to either move the file to quarantine, either to just block the file.

File infections aren't rare and I have no intention of following your advice - I have in excess of 25 years of I.T. experience, including both hardware and software development but I manage to approach this forum with a less sanctimonious and patronising tone than you.

Oh, and YES! These settings work just how they were meant to work, just how they were designed. And setting them to Deny access and continue never deleted any of my files. Never ever.

Cris.

Congratulations Cris, you should count yourself lucky that you haven't experienced problems with the software, rather than drawing the conclusion that others are incapable of understanding clearly, the principal and results from Bitdefender file analysis.

alexcrist

If you feel frustrated by an issue being frequently raised on the forum, perhaps you should address it more clealy. If a solution were more obvious it's probably a safe assumption that the topic would appear less frequently.

I made a search on the forum about this issue, to see how exactly I explained it (maybe you are right, and I didn't explain it clearly enough...).

Guess what I found? You asked the exact same question (about why Disinfect deletes the files) back in September, and I answered exactly the same way. You never complained about not understanding what I said. In fact, you never replied again. So if you leave the topic untouched, please don't blame me.

Again, many thanks for that information but I can assure you that false positives trigger random deletions of files which are in no way threatening, in my experience this has included system files, reputable applications and on rare occasions, has prevented the installation of OS updates.

BitDefender doesn't know that a file is a false positive. If it did, it wouldn't be detecting it, would it?

Now seriously. Yes, BitDefender has false positives. And so does every other security solution out there. These are mainly caused by heuristic and generic detections, methods with which the analysts try to keep up with new threats that appear every day.

Trojan.Generic (or any other *.Generic, for that matter) are considered threats to your system. If you apply the Disinfect action to these, the files will be removed! If you just choose to leave those actions like that, then don't be surprised when some files will get deleted, even if they are clean.

As I said: in many years of usage, I never saw a flaw in the way these options work. I would also like to see a more profound differenciation between Disinfect and Delete, but that is out of my hands. Current specifications state that Disinfect will remove detected files if that is the corect way to remove the threat, regardless of detection type.

File infections aren't rare and I have no intention of following your advice - I have in excess of 25 years of I.T. experience, including both hardware and software development but I manage to approach this forum with a less sanctimonious and patronising tone than you.

I'm sorry I offended you in any way, and I assure you that was never my intention.

However, I don't really understand why are you against my suggestion. Please explain the reasons. Maybe you can even convince me that I'm wrong.

I was refering to the ballace between users with file infectors and users with other types of malware. From that point of view, today we see way fewer cases of infected host files(except for closed networks with improper protection).

Congratulations Cris, you should count yourself lucky that you haven't experienced problems with the software, rather than drawing the conclusion that others are incapable of understanding clearly, the principal and results from Bitdefender file analysis.

Back in September you made a confusion between generic and heuristic detections. Now you make a confusion between these two and also the signature-based detections. Again, I don't mean to offend you in any way, but you should clarify these notions between making false assumptions.

Signature-based detections: A sample is analyzed. If that sample is found to be malicious, a signature will be released to detect that file and close derivatives. The naming convention is posted HERE.

Generic detections: A number of samples are analysed and deemed as related. A signature or a detection routine is released that will identify all analyzed variants (and hopefully also others).

Heuristic detection: Detections that fall in this category are created without a specific file in mind. Durring scanning files are dynamically "analyzed" and the output is used to check the file for malware symptoms. According to a large set of rules, the file is reported as a threat or not.

This separation is just a basic one. Other things are also factored in at different stages like emulation and unpacking.

As a general rule, generic and heuristic detections are much more prone to produce false positives that signature-based detection.

Also, if you encounter false positives, please do report them, on the forum or by mail. By reporting false detections you allow BitDefender analysts to fix them and thus also help other users.

In simple words, false positives can be viewed as "scan engine bugs", because nobody intended for them to be detected. And just how you report a bug about the interface, or about one of the features, you should also report detection bugs (false positives, or false negatives).

Cris.

NL71

I made a search on the forum about this issue, to see how exactly I explained it (maybe you are right, and I didn't explain it clearly enough...).

Guess what I found? You asked the exact same question (about why Disinfect deletes the files) back in September, and I answered exactly the same way. You never complained about not understanding what I said. In fact, you never replied again. So if you leave the topic untouched, please don't blame me.

Congratulations, your memory clearly serves you better than your ability to assist Bitdefender customers. Your initial response was as sanctimonious, patronising and unhelpful as your reply on this occasion. Your previous attempt to offer a useful suggestion resulted in me having to raise the same issue. Others have expressed the same concern based on their experience.

BitDefender doesn't know that a file is a false positive. If it did, it wouldn't be detecting it, would it?

Now seriously. Yes, BitDefender has false positives. And so does every other security solution out there. These are mainly caused by heuristic and generic detections, methods with which the analysts try to keep up with new threats that appear every day.

Trojan.Generic (or any other *.Generic, for that matter) are considered threats to your system. If you apply the Disinfect action to these, the files will be removed! If you just choose to leave those actions like that, then don't be surprised when some files will get deleted, even if they are clean.

Rest assured, I don't choose to deliberately waste money buying an application that is so obviously flawed in its' implementation. Less still, do I expect to be treated so badly when I express my disaffection and concern regarding my experience.

As I said: in many years of usage, I never saw a flaw in the way these options work. I would also like to see a more profound differentiation between Disinfect and Delete, but that is out of my hands. Current specifications state that Disinfect will remove detected files if that is the correct way to remove the threat, regardless of detection type.

I'm sorry I offended you in any way, and I assure you that was never my intention.

However, I don't really understand why are you against my suggestion. Please explain the reasons. Maybe you can even convince me that I'm wrong.

I was refering to the ballace between users with file infectors and users with other types of malware. From that point of view, today we see way fewer cases of infected host files(except for closed networks with improper protection).

Back in September you made a confusion between generic and heuristic detections. Now you make a confusion between these two and also the signature-based detections. Again, I don't mean to offend you in any way, but you should clarify these notions between making false assumptions.

I sincerely hope you have made this comment in anger Cris, if not, please review my correspondence in full.

Signature-based detections: A sample is analyzed. If that sample is found to be malicious, a signature will be released to detect that file and close derivatives. The naming convention is posted HERE.

A bit/byte analysis is entirely speculative, to actually form a decision to delete data on that basis, without offering the administrator an opportunity to verify the "decision" made by the AV scan is not only presumptuous but inexcusable.

Cut ...

Also, if you encounter false positives, please do report them, on the forum or by mail. By reporting false detections you allow BitDefender analysts to fix them and thus also help other users.

In simple words, false positives can be viewed as "scan engine bugs", because nobody intended for them to be detected. And just how you report a bug about the interface, or about one of the features, you should also report detection bugs (false positives, or false negatives).

I have paid for a solution that I expected to perform well. False positives are "par for the course" but I expect to be able to fully control any applications' ability to delete files from MY computer. I appreciate clear advice regarding the nature of a perceived threat; I don't appreciate control of my system being taken from me.

alexcrist

OK, it really seems like we have a very bad connection here.

As I said, I never meant to offend you in any way, but I agree that the way I said some things might have seemed impolite. I take the blame for how I said some things, but not for what I said.

I really hate to argue with someone for a reason that's not worthed arguing for.

I'm not a BitDefender employee (in case you didn't already know), so I have no reason to make it look good, nor to make it look bad for that matter. I have absolutely nothing to gain from either situation, nor from this forum, on which I'm just a volunteer, a simple user like everyone else, who tries to help other users with their problems.

So let's just start over.

Your previous attempt to offer a useful suggestion resulted in me having to raise the same issue. Others have expressed the same concern based on their experience.

And I ask again: why haven't you asked for more details then? You just left that topic untouched for months and now you accuse me that I was not clear enough. I'm sorry, I'm just a human and I can make mistakes like everyone else.

And many other users raised the same question, yes. But not because they didn't understand what I said, but because very few users actually search the forums before posting. This forum has become to be quite big (and that is partly because many topics contain the same subject...) and it's kinda hard to search for something right now. And for this reason, I have to answer all questions every single time they are asked, instead of just closing the topic because "this matter has been discussed. Use search".

I have paid for a solution that I expected to perform well. False positives are "par for the course" but I expect to be able to fully control any applications' ability to delete files from MY computer. I appreciate clear advice regarding the nature of a perceived threat; I don't appreciate control of my system being taken from me.

I marked with BOLD a sentence in your comment. That is exactly what I'm talking about: not letting an application taking control over your PC.

Overall, I like BitDefender as a product, I use it for a very long time, and (overall) I'm satisfied with it's performance and features. I use it on two computers (desktop + laptop), I installed it on a few other systems, and they all work great. (and remember: I'm making these comments as a simple user!)

But this doesn't mean at all that I like every single part, and every single behavior of BitDefender. There are some things that I would change in it, if I could. And this "automatic actions" system is part of this category. I don't like BitDefender (and no other application) to take decisions for me. I suggested this behavior to be changed since a few versions ago, but, as I said, I don't have more power than you do in deciding what will and what won't be implemented in the interface.

What we can do is only to make suggestions, and hope that someone will apply them. For this, there is always the Feature request board, on this forum. I noticed that when a new version is scheduled, that part of the forum is checked and some of those ideas get implemented. If you post this request there (in fact, if I'm not mistaking, it was already posted...), I will also back you up, and probably other users (which search the forum before posting, of course).

At the moment, the closest thing to "what should I do with this file?" that BitDefender has is exactly Deny access and continue (for Realtime) and No action (for manual scans). Both these actions won't modify the system's structure in any way. If you set it like this, BitDefender will just report the detected files, and you will be able to decide what to do next.

For the Realtime engine, that action will also block any access to that file, thus preventing a potential infection. But the file will remain in it's current location, without any changes. After a file has been blocked, you will be able to make a manual scan over it, and decide what to do with it. If it's actually a clean file, you can always add it to the Exclusion list, so it will just be ignored by the scanning engine. Also, it's very much recommended that you report false positives.

For the Manual Scans, No action really IS No action. Detected files are not blocked, they are not moved, they are not changed. You will just see a list of detections, and you can choose on the spot what to do with each and every file.

And for this reason, I have to repeat (even if, again, it will seem offensive): why are you against this suggestion? You say that you want the power to decide, and I'm offering to you a way to do it. It's not a perfect way, agreed. But it's the best you can do for the moment.

I have to say another thing before I end this topic: I'm also a software developer. I also make applications and I know how hard it is to make every user satisfied. There is no "how to" in this business. Every user is different, and everyone has different expectations from what they buy. As a software developer, you have to make a compromise between all wishes. There's no way to satisfy all users, and there;s no way to make a perfect, bug-free, 100% useful to everyone application.

And BitDefender, as a product, doesn't make an exception from this rule. It's imperfect, and cannot satisfy everyone. It's nobody's direct fault, so please don't accuse anyone for what you don't like, because what you don't like might be very useful to someone else.

Cris.

csalgau

A bit/byte analysis is entirely speculative, to actually form a decision to delete data on that basis, without offering the administrator an opportunity to verify the "decision" made by the AV scan is not only presumptuous but inexcusable.

Dear user,

Please note that as per the end user license agreement you signed when licensing/installing the software, BitDefender is not liable and cannot be held responsible for the integrity of data and proper operation of other software installed/found on your computer, server, network or other environment where BitDefender is deployed. This responsibility should be taken on by the users, administrators or other personnel that has been set responsible for the deployment and/or configuration of BitDefender solutions in the respective environment. BitDefender offers the tools to properly set restrictions for handling actions regarding detections and removal of data and those should be used.

From the BitDefender labs perspective, all samples are analyzed in multiple ways and decisions are made if/how to detect them after proper consideration. We are very sorry if any false positives have occurred or if the product detected and removed files you intentionally handled. Please understand that the service is offered to all users, not just to highly experienced ones that can properly consider the impact a specific action will have on their environment. In general, the default is OK for most customers, and you may tweak those to your liking if you believe you need it. If you have trouble finding a specific option, you may request help on the forums or by calling Customer Support.

Thank you for understanding!

NL71

Dear user,

From the BitDefender labs perspective, all samples are analyzed in multiple ways and decisions are made if/how to detect them after proper consideration. We are very sorry if any false positives have occurred or if the product detected and removed files you intentionally handled. Please understand that the service is offered to all users, not just to highly experienced ones that can properly consider the impact a specific action will have on their environment. In general, the default is OK for most customers, and you may tweak those to your liking if you believe you need it. If you have trouble finding a specific option, you may request help on the forums or by calling Customer Support.

Thank you for understanding!

Thanks Cris and Catalin,

My intention isn't to dismiss the effectiveness of Bitdefender; it hasn't failed to block any identified virus or spyware in my experience, at least to my knowledge but has let me down by its unpredictable reaction to perceived generic threats.

Addressing Catalin in particular, since you have a direct role in software development, is it a viable option to include an opt out from heuristic scanning; even better would the ability to verify the proposed action Bitdefender has deemed appropriate if the bit/byte pattern analysis indicates a possible threat?

Perhaps an "Expert Mode", if necessary giving a disclaimer explaining that users won't be as comprehensively protected as they are when using the default options might be a viable solution - in this way experienced users can be catered for while maintaining a comprehensive protection level for other, less experienced customers.

Again, thanks to both of you regarding my explanation and frustration regarding this issue.

csalgau

Unfortunately that is not my area of expertise. BitDefender Labs are only responsible for the backend of BitDefender products. We can only make requests to the interface people to add features/fix bugs.

Now. Cris told the option to disable heuristics scanning has been disabled in recent builds for some unknown reason. It was in the interface in the 2008 builds or somewhere near that. As for the second idea - providing the user with a way to select what he/she wants to do when a warning is triggered.. I have to say I'm kind of surprised BitDefender doesn't offer that. I believe this was in the product a few versions back too.

Please understand that handling malicious files I am unable to have a real time antivirus installed and as such I do not know what is what in the interface. I can assure you that the engines are fully capable of handling user interaction and are customizable enough to accept disabling of heuristics on demand. I'll start posting some questions to the involved departments.

Thank you for pointing that out.

NL71

Unfortunately that is not my area of expertise. BitDefender Labs are only responsible for the backend of BitDefender products. We can only make requests to the interface people to add features/fix bugs.

Now. Cris told the option to disable heuristics scanning has been disabled in recent builds for some unknown reason. It was in the interface in the 2008 builds or somewhere near that. As for the second idea - providing the user with a way to select what he/she wants to do when a warning is triggered.. I have to say I'm kind of surprised BitDefender doesn't offer that. I believe this was in the product a few versions back too.

Please understand that handling malicious files I am unable to have a real time antivirus installed and as such I do not know what is what in the interface. I can assure you that the engines are fully capable of handling user interaction and are customizable enough to accept disabling of heuristics on demand. I'll start posting some questions to the involved departments.

Thank you for pointing that out.

I was under the impression that I was dealing directly with the development team responsible for the Bitdefender application.

I'm surprised and disappointed to discover that you have a limited level of participation in product development Catalin.

I would appreciate direct contact information for the Bitdefender software Development team.

Please PM me with the relevant information.

Many thanks.

NL71

I was under the impression that I was dealing directly with the development team responsible for the Bitdefender application.

I'm surprised and disappointed to discover that you have a limited level of participation in product development Catalin.

I would appreciate direct contact information for the Bitdefender software Development team.

Please PM me with the relevant information.

Many thanks.

Due to the Bitdefender team being unable to provide a resolution to my problem; primarily because they aren't the software developer responsible for Bitdefender, I have researched a suitable alternative.

It's unfortunate that I have had no viable option but to subscribe to a competitor - I have dropped Bitdefender in favour of "Norton Internet Security 2009" - I have been so disappointed that I have changed with an excess of nine months remaining of my two system, two year subscription to Bitdefender remaining.

Norton products are generally recognised as having deteriorated in quality and value since Peter Norton gave way to Symantec in 1990; this year however, Symantec have provided a very fast, flexible, powerful non-system intensive and comprehensive security solution.

I can now confidently allow scans in my absence, knowing that none of my files will be deleted due to an apparently random security philosophy imposed without my consent.

Heuristic analysis and response are fully customisable - it can even be turned off.

Hopefully, in the future, Bitdefender will appreciate the need to offer more than a dictatorial approach to security and offer flexibility and trust to its customers.

fungus

NL:

I agree with you and will continue to run BDIS-2008 until either my BD license runs out, or when BD2008 starts crapping out like BD2009 did for me. At that time I am going to buy Norton 2009. Many reviews are now saying that Norton is the best product at this time. I'm willing to try it rather that face the issues I may encounter with BDIS-2010 this Fall. :-(

My BD2008 works with the exception of the spam toolbar which did work for a few weeks last Fall. The anti-Phishing feature also doesn't work. My BD2008 upgrades do work about 90% of the time.

Too many people keep using software that doesn't work for them, why? Maybe complaining is fun for them. My solution is to dump it and move on.

Fungus

dreamgear

It seems to be a moving target - this nebulous definition of "disinfect". Today BD (client professional plus) decided to delete a perfectly valid VNC kit THAT HAS BEEN SCANNED HUNDREDS OF TIMES BEFORE!

NL71

It seems to be a moving target - this nebulous definition of "disinfect". Today BD (client professional plus) decided to delete a perfectly valid VNC kit THAT HAS BEEN SCANNED HUNDREDS OF TIMES BEFORE!

Alas Bitdefender strikes again - it's over zealous, inconsistent and almost uncontrollable approach to potential threats appears to have re-surfaced.

Digital River; yes, the same e-commerce leader responsible for the online marketing of many major software solutions - ironically including Symantec, appear to be behind Bitdefender development.

If I'm wrong then I welcome clarification from the Bitdefender development team.

csalgau

I'll have to thank you all for posting this in the False Positive section. :blink: Detection will be removed soon.

iainsmith

Dear user,

From the BitDefender labs perspective, all samples are analyzed in multiple ways and decisions are made if/how to detect them after proper consideration. We are very sorry if any false positives have occurred or if the product detected and removed files you intentionally handled. Please understand that the service is offered to all users, not just to highly experienced ones that can properly consider the impact a specific action will have on their environment. In general, the default is OK for most customers, and you may tweak those to your liking if you believe you need it. If you have trouble finding a specific option, you may request help on the forums or by calling Customer Support.

Thank you for understanding!

I too have had several false positives since installing BitDefender about nine months ago. Prior to that I had Norton on my machine for seven years without one false positive! I've been reading that the reason I gave up Norton (bloated, slow etc) seems to have been fixed with the latest version which is now lean, fast and unobtrusive. As a local store is offering it at half price that's where I'm going, even before my BitDefender sub is up for renewal. So it's bye bye BitDefender!

Iain Smith

Hoitenvoit

Going back to Mcafee!!!!! The only help, is to get rid of it and the sooner you do, the better!

Bitdefender is literally true GARBAGE and the service is ZILCH! Wasted $130 bucks on this worthless %&*#$)%@!

I'm a small business owner and purchased the small business license and am sick and tired of keeping this so called total security mess running on 4 computers. What a pain it has been for the last 4 months!

If it isn't one thing, it's another. Now one computer has not been able to scan for over a week? "Scan Failed to execute" Online and phone help is nonexistence. Computer #2 will not update, automatically or manually. Download "weekly.exe" will not work with some worthless unknown response!!

Every email sent is a "canned" response to log in to this black hole of uselessness!

I'm sick and tired of uninstalling and reinstalling this crap every week!

Networking is haphazard and pretty nearly useless (thank heaven for thumb drives) and printer networking is completely out of the question!?

This software is garbage, instructions useless and help nonexistent.....

GOODBYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE BITGARBAGE

kungfu

Going back to Mcafee!!!!! The only help, is to get rid of it and the sooner you do, the better!

Bitdefender is literally true GARBAGE and the service is ZILCH! Wasted $130 bucks on this worthless %&*#$)%@!

I'm a small business owner and purchased the small business license and am sick and tired of keeping this so called total security mess running on 4 computers. What a pain it has been for the last 4 months!

If it isn't one thing, it's another. Now one computer has not been able to scan for over a week? "Scan Failed to execute" Online and phone help is nonexistence. Computer #2 will not update, automatically or manually. Download "weekly.exe" will not work with some worthless unknown response!!

Every email sent is a "canned" response to log in to this black hole of uselessness!

I'm sick and tired of uninstalling and reinstalling this crap every week!

Networking is haphazard and pretty nearly useless (thank heaven for thumb drives) and printer networking is completely out of the question!?

This software is garbage, instructions useless and help nonexistent.....

GOODBYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE BITGARBAGE

Have given up too

Enough is Enough See http://forum.bitdefender.com/index.php?showtopic=11915

ronchicago

Alas Bitdefender strikes again - it's over zealous, inconsistent and almost uncontrollable approach to potential threats appears to have re-surfaced.

Digital River; yes, the same e-commerce leader responsible for the online marketing of many major software solutions - ironically including Symantec, appear to be behind Bitdefender development.

If I'm wrong then I welcome clarification from the Bitdefender development team.

I also had a file deleted two days ago - the one that does Windows updates! So I will go thru all the places that give me a choice and try to stop deletion. Seems like there are many places to look for this option.

But I came to BitDefender from Norton 360, after a few years with that product, because I started getting BSoD which I eventually tracked to some Symantec services. The response from their support was to uninstall and reinstall, which I did twice. Still BSoD. So I am not yet ready to give up on BitDefender 2009. Seems to have many good features. Even though I have had a major outstanding issue with support open for about 10 days.