Exit Bitdefender

I want to add two clarifications:

1- Adding this feature evidently doesn't pose a security risk, the Russian antivirus I used was in fact, one of the best antiviruses measured in AV-Comparatives and AV-test, so I'm sure they wouldn't add something that would hurt their protection.

2- My PC is quite powerful (Intel Core i5-12600KF CPU and 3200MHz 16GB RAM), it definitely can handle any antivirus, even if you have a very good CPU, any antivirus will impact your performance (More or less, depends on its optimization)

ChristopherS

i have the same problem fps drops on new games with game profile active. minimum fps was better without bit defender installed

https://www.bitdefender.com/consumer/support/answer/28557/

Hello @SaurikSI and thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

I appreciate your suggestion, this is a feature request that has been brought into the attention of our developers in the past and they have been analyzing it for some time now. Currently, there are no updates concerning the possible implementation, but it's still an open topic. Indeed, a warning notification is mandatory in this scenario.

When adjusting the products or developing new features, the product management teams always take multiple criteria into account. Even though a feature may seem effortless to implement at first, the developers are also considering aspects such as the value the respective feature brings to the average user, as each modification must be designed for both advanced users and less tech savvy users as well, to meet overall requirements.

The developers always analyze feature requests based on many criteria and some will not be implemented even if they may have low complexity, as long as they do not provide value for a relevant mass of users. The priority is to develop new things that bring additional benefits and protection for all users, as the threat landscape evolves.

Nevertheless, the proposal is on the table and we are looking forward to updates regarding their decision.

In the meantime, there are two alternative routes to achieve this and and optimize your system resources.

The first option would be to disable the security modules individually, as described here:

For an uninterrupted gaming experience, the Game Profile has been a popular choice for gamers using Bitdefender:

https://www.bitdefender.com/consumer/support/answer/2066/

Best regards.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/309678#Comment_309678

Greetings @Alexandru_BD, I appreciate your detailed answer, I think it's important to understand each other's insight on this situation.

First of all, regarding the criteria for users, I actually thought about that before posting this, and came to the conclusion that this doesn't have any negatives, as long as you: Warn users before exiting, forcing users to use the settings password (Or set one) before closing, or (If you are really paranoic) add this feature but disabled by default, so the exit option has to be enabled in settings. Your concern on this topic is valid, I respect that you care about this, but I think in this casr having more freedom is a lot more important to customers (By looking at other requests in the forum, it seems that this one has a lot of positive votes). To summarize what I mean here: It's better to have more than less, security will not be an issue, because the Russian antivirus I used was one of the best in the industry, competing with yours directly, and they have this feature.

To end this long comment, I want to address your two alternative options: Before deciding to stop using Bitdefender after so many years, I tried several things to fix this (Including your options):

- Disabling every module manually not only takes time that I can't lose every week when I need to work or play heavy games, it also doesn't help a lot, because the Bitdefender services and programs that are still running impacts performance.

- Gaming mode is good for non-heavy tasks, but the difference is very tiny compared to just closing Bitdefender, because the performance impact comes from all the scanning and supervising Bitdefender has to do, no antivirus can work without impacting performance because of all these complex operations it does all the time, so closing it is clearly the solution here.

Thank you so much for taking your time and reading what I have to say, I respect companies that take into account what users want, I really hope that you can make this change so I can return using the antivirus I love.

I wish you a great day.

_Iván_

My issue with this is more like christopher's, I noted that my FPS was lower, tried with gaming mode, didn't help. So I did a benchmark with Bit Defender installed, and another one with it uninstalled: There was a 15-25% FPS difference on CPU-bound games. That's a lot, so I will wait until they add an exit option.

Greetings and cheers to you @SaurikSI 🙂

I appreciate your response and I'm with you on this one. I understand where the need comes from and this is the starting point for all in-house developments we do here. You have given us reason, valid arguments and competition insight and I am very thankful for that. The main purpose of this ideation category is to bring the members of this community closer to Bitdefender, to know your perspective and what features you would like to see in the products. And to find out what are the areas of improvement.

So the philosophy on which the portfolio is built is always centered on the user's experience and the only way to find out if what you are doing is well received is to ask the user. There are several ways to achieve this, but in my personal view I think the forum is by far the best place to find answers and to obtain valuable insights on what users need. Because here you have the "luxury" of debate, where each user can share their opinions and personal experience and this is fantastic.

Going forward, as I'm a liaison between the Bitdefender community and the development teams, I always collect and share with them the feedback received here and do my best to follow-up. Considering that multiple requests have been made on this forum for a "kill switch" feature, I am excited to find out what the outcome will be for this proposal. Of course, there are many things the developers need to take into account at the start of each new project, so it's really difficult to predict if and when a feature will make its way into the product.

Best regards

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/309736#Comment_309736

I definitely agree with you, having this place is great, once again thank you for reading my take on this, great things can be done when people really listen to each other with an open mind.

Can you keep us updated on this? I see that I'm not the only one who will wait until this is implemented, so I'll check here once and while for the grand announcement, that will be my return to using Bitdefender.

I want to suggest the development team to see how the Russian antivirus I used implements this, that way they will understand better what I'm talking about.

Thanks a lot to the community for participating both with comments and with votes, you guys really took this request to the moon, 15 positive votes! 😮

_Iván_

That would be good, bookmarked this page so I will know when the right click + exit is add

Until then i will have to keep Bit Defender uninstalled

Hello,

Of course, I will keep you updated on this thread and post new developments as soon as they arrive.

I wish to thank everyone that participated on this thread, your vote is highly appreciated.

TORNADO92

YES! FINALLY! This is what Ive been looking for since yesterday but every Google result showed ridiculous "solutions" like disabling everything one by one, or restarting to safe mode to disable something, then restart again, then restart again to safe mode to enable it once you're done.

This is EXACTLY what I wanted to find at least it has been proposed before. Please add this ASAP it would be very useful.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/310015#Comment_310015

I also hope so, you should bookmark this so you know if they add it.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/310243#Comment_310243

Hello everyone,

Following up on this topic, I would like to share with you a couple of insights and a bit more context concerning this feature that would pause protection. 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, and the fact that the security solution does not facilitate an option to completely disable all defenses at once, may pose an inconvenience.

However, the first and perhaps most important measure of protection is prevention. As a trusted service provider, we are responsible for the integrity of your systems and data, and any vulnerability can be exploited, which we want to avoid completely, as part of our promise to keep our users safe at all times.

As a security company, we are at the forefront of the evolution of threats and their manifestations, and the fight between us and the bad guys is happening behind the scenes, as transparent as possible for users. For this reason, our solutions include several layers (prevention, protection, remediation - to name a few) and complex technologies developed precisely to ensure that we can protect everything that is important to you.

The product developers and security researchers always take into account all possible vulnerabilities and scenarios of usage. Having an option to completely disable the antivirus protection can pose certain risks for less tech savvy users.

We 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.

So, although other security solutions may provide such an option, and you can certainly find ways to ensure that users who use the setting remain unprotected for as little time as possible, I invite you to think about the real importance of this trade-off.

Keep in mind that you are as strong as the weakest service you are using.

All things considered, the developers are not entirely scrapping this concept and will continue to explore the idea. If all potential risks are eliminated and such a feature lives up to Bitdefender’s quality and security standards, it may make its way into production in the future.

Thank you for your understanding and for choosing Bitdefender.

Scott

I'll probably get another Disagree tick or two on this or my other post below, but I get it and understand where BD is coming from if anything happens or not. I guess it just needs to be resolved one way or the other so that going forward, we can have a clear answer on how to answer thread questions like these regarding this feature request.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/307317#Comment_307317

Stay safe my friends, as that's what Bitdefender is trying to do for us.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/310243#Comment_310243

Hi, Alexandru. While I understand were are you coming from with this, I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Clearly there are simple ways to implement this securely, which I'll mention below.

Why I disagree:

- I am sorry to mention your main competitor in this way, but it's necessary to demonstrate my point; Kaspersky is considered by some the best antivirus on the market, on lab tests, it is on par with Bitdefender or even better, except for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Kaspersky always have had a very good reputation and it's a well known brand. Yet, you can close their antivirus, if this were a security risk, they obviously wouldn't implement this, they would get negative feedback and reputation which never happened, security solutions reviewers like the PC Security Channel regard Kaspersky highly and never warned against this feature.

- Your philosophy of "Security through less freedom" doesn't really work, and evidently by looking at the popularity of this post, it makes you lose respect from your consumers. The best method of security is good design, both of your security engine and of your UI.

- The majority of users don't customize their antivirus, because they don't care, they just install it and let it do its thing, they won't close Bitdefender, not only for this, but for my next point

- If you are still preoccupied that 0,1% could misuse the exit button, there is an easy solution: Warnings and making it difficult. Make it a big clear warning that you can't close, for the first time, make the user read it first by disabling the button for 15 seconds. If they don't have a settings password, don't allow them to exit Bitdefender, make them set a password and then always use that password to exit (This way it is impossible for a user to do this by accident or without knowing what it means). If you are still not happy with this solution, I have an even more paranoid one; Make the "Exit" button a "feature" that's disabled by default, so if you want to use it, you have to go to settings and enable it (You can add another warning there)

Honestly, I don't think all of this is necessary to implement this basic function, because it is not a real security risk, even if it sounds like it is (If we go to that route of making theories, I could say that not adding this is a security risk, because users like me who can't use Bitdefender without this option end up uninstalling as their only option, which leaves us exposed) but, if you are still preoccupied about this, I have laid out very paranoid solutions to make it IMPOSSIBLE to misuse this feature. Just a little reminder, this option will not disable every module, but completely close Bitdefender, which makes a performance difference (I tried manually disabling everything and it still impacted performance)

Thank you for reading, and I hope we can reach a solution you can implement.

@Alexandru_BD Is there any news regarding this? I really look forward to go back using Bitdefender, but I need to be able to exit it completely.

Hi @SaurikSI and thank you for following up on this matter.

I have submitted your feedback along with the requests made so far by our members regarding this feature, but it's not something the developers will implement any time soon. This being said, they are not disregarding such a feature, but after we weigh the pros and cons, it just doesn't make it to the development phase, at least not for now.

I cannot pronounce myself in regards to other competitors and what they might consider safe and user friendly, because we have our own way of doing things and the development teams are focusing more on innovation, rather than copying existent features that the antivirus industry has to offer these days.

While I agree that the execution does not necessarily pose an obstacle to implementation, as there are indeed ways to implement this feature, I trust our developer's better judgement and know that their decisions are based on knowledge, experience and extensive research.

Pereillo

Three months and no news.

Developers must help us to be safe, but thet are no Gods. The computer is mine, the risk is mine, the decision is mine. If there were a developer error and my computer got infected, the problem will be mine. So I want to decide what to do and when to do.

I am a developer too, and some times, bitdefender blocks my own programs.

As other users I left kaspersky for the Ucranian conflict. I like more kasperky, and if Bitdefender don't change I'll come back to kaspersky. If developers dont let me decide, I decide say good by.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/316314#Comment_316314

I feel 100% identified with you, I have given up on Bitdefender unfortunately, and I don’t want to use Kaspersky because of the invasion, but they are the only ones smart enough to include such a simple feature as “Exit”

It’s a shame, Bitdefender has everything going for it, except their resistance to what users want. This post has more votes than any other I have seen, but they just refuse to listen to us.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/310243#Comment_310243

Hi,

The development teams have listened carefully to the users' feedback and opinions concerning the "exit" feature, posted not only on this thread, but gathered through other sensors as well. As liaisons between our user community and Bitdefender security research and product development teams, we made sure all suggestions and feature requests reached the relevant teams.

From the technical point of view, there are some challenges, because although it may seem rather simple to develop, such a feature would have to control multiple security modules at once. But the main reason behind the disinclination to implement this feature in the antivirus is the risk involved, which we are not willing to take.

Think of an antivirus as a "one-size-fits-all" type of product. It has to satisfy the needs of different categories of users, such as people that simply want a security solution that works on a "set-it-and-forget-it" basis, more tech savvy people that require more interaction with the product and variety when it comes to customization options, but also people with less technical experience and here we include elderly users as well, that may become vulnerable if there would be a "loophole" in the product that can be exploited, or if the defenses are deactivated by mistake, without bringing them up again.

In my previous comments, I have underlined the concerns and developer's perspective on this matter and the fact that product developers and security researchers always take into account all possible vulnerabilities and scenarios of usage. Having an option to completely disable the antivirus protection can pose certain risks for less tech savvy users. Of course, we can argue that some providers do offer such an option, but they do it on their own terms and business decisions. Our security analysts and developers do not endorse such a feature in the Bitdefender products.

The decision not to implement this feature (at least not for now) has been made after extensive research conducted by experienced security researchers and engineers, who concluded the disadvantages greatly outweigh the advantages.

Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards

Scott

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/316402#Comment_316402

For years the modules have always been separate components to enable and disable, and then to try to link them all together in a right-click pause protection, or exit, could be a logistics "nightmare" of glitches and issues that I would not want to be a part of in helping members out with on this forum. Let's continue to focus on the stability of the product itself, especially of the New and Evolved products. There is a lot on the plate already. Just my opinion, in which I'm always too willing to share. lol :) :)

I totally agree with the above post and it's true that the developers have A LOT on their plate now.

Cheers

Unfortunately Bitdefender is more interested in getting a partnership with literally Ferrari, than to simply respect their own customers and let them choose whatever they want to do with their PC and antivirus. 🤣

I'm not really angry, I just found it funny, I no longer use Bitdefender, I prefer software that doesn't treat me like a baby.

For the record, I just checked and this is literally the most voted and searched/watched request ever on this forum.😂

@SaurikSI indeed, the suggestion has gained a lot of traction and views for that matter.

But it's not something the product developers are considering right now, for the various reasons and concerns explained in detail in my comments above. At the end of the day, it's a business decision and for the sake of debate we can come up with arguments for and against, but this will not change the fact that a decision has been made not to develop this feature and I think we should accept that some features will simply not make it into production and move on.

Thank you for being with us this far and I hope you will reconsider our products in the future.

Cheers.

SeriousHoax

Though it seems like a good idea in theory, it could actually be risky. I saw someone last year created something like an autoclicker which was coded to pause protection and exit AV software that provides that option in tray icons. This tool could only do this for any tray icon items. He tested two products. One AV was Kaspersky and the other one I forgot. He showed that it was very easy to do something like that and AV products should avoid giving such risky option in the tray icon.

So I would say I support Bitdefender's decision to not such an option in the tray area. It's risky to have that so it's not worth it. I would rather prefer Bitdefender to have an option in the UI that can disable all protection modules with two/three clicks at maximum. This would help advanced users.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/317188#Comment_317188

Please read my proposal, it’s very easy to prevent obvious risks like that, just force the user to set a password to exit.

You could also use a clicker to disable the antivirus modules one by one if there’s no password.

SeriousHoax

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/317198#Comment_317198

I saw your suggestions and yeah, setting a password would be a nice addition, but I don't think that's gonna happen. That's not how BD want to design their product, I think. Every brand has a different vision. Besides, most AVs don't provide such options, so they probably don't feel the urge to do something about it either. So I understand your frustration, but don't be too harsh on them. I for example would really like to have an ask mode for the real time protection so that Bitdefender asks me and let me decide before deleting a malware. But I'm pretty much sure it won't be done because that's not their way of doing things. So I never even suggested this.

Bitdefender shouldn't impact gaming performance, specially with Gaming mode active when the game is running. Gamers often overthinks when they think about their AV causing a massive impact. I play games too, and I once saw a couple of years ago a few lower frames with Avast as the AV, but other than that haven't had issues with other well known products like Bitdefender. Performance remains the same for me with or without third-party AV. But of course it's possible that you experienced an impact caused by Bitdefender and in that case you should report to them about the game if you haven't already, and they might be able to have a look.

I have asked Bitdefender to completely change how their profile system is designed and suggested them to take a more basic approach like other products on the market. I'm waiting to see if they make the required changes.

Foxfan100

I'm currently considering this aspect of BitDefender, and would like to add my comment.

Whilst I do not often update BIOS, and usually will not do so, this HP machine allows for BIOS updates via Windows Update or by using an HP utility to download a BIOS .exe update file to the machine. In either case, the BIOS update has to be run as if it's an "external" program.

One usual and important recommendation when installing BIOS updates is to disable or kill any AV running, as this may interrupt the update and brick the machine. There are also other circumstances when trying to run updates (valid, approved software) for other applications or OS updates can run into serious problems of they are stopped or disallowed by the AV.

I might be happier to go through the tedious process of turning every bit of BD "OFF" prior to update, and then the equally tiresome routine to turn them "ON" again, if I could be certain that every single piece of BD was rendered inactive. However, anything that leaves a number of services running might be problematic. I see that most key BD services in Windows cannot be stopped or otherwise altered, and when I have disabled BD as per the advised methods, those services are still running. Nor can they be killed by, for example, Process Explorer.

I'd certainly welcome some comment from BitDefender staff regarding the potential BIOS update problem, along with any recommendations they might care to make.

Hi @Foxfan100,

The only workaround I can think of is to uninstall the antivirus for the BIOS update. This way you will be absolutely certain no service will be running. Simply reinstall afterwards. As Bitdefender draws its validity and configuration from the active subscription in Central, you won't loose anything.

Regards

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/319565#Comment_319565

Hi Foxfan100, don’t bother, I’m the one who made this post and let me tell you: As with the import/export settings idea, the pause protection idea, and this one, they’ll do anything they can to avoid implementing ideas like the plague.

Doesn’t matter how easy is to implement, or how popular the idea is. As you can see, they’ll always tell how to work around their non implementation no matter how inconvenient it is for the user.

Of course uninstalling Bitdefender every time is a ridiculous idea, so is their response to the Pause Protection idea: They told the user “Just disable every single module manually when you need that” and never implemented it.

Foxfan100

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/319573#Comment_319573

I agree with you.

There is a world of difference between "hardening" any AV so that a wrongdoer cannot disable or otherwise mess with it. Although I haven't yet gone through the ritual of uninstalling and reinstalling BD, it looks to me as if it could possibly be either uninstalled or disabled by a "bad actor" anyway, under certain circumstances.

As I said earlier, BIOS updates aren't frequent, but a failed one runs a good chance of "bricking" the system. As we know, Microsoft have just about given up on properly testing Windows updates before release, and although it's difficult to pin down, I've had a couple of occasions where AV might have caused problems.

There are several proven methods to ensure that AV programs are legitimately turned off and on, such as passwords and 2FA. I don't suppose that many people have a need to turn them off frequently, so any layers of extra security wouldn't be much of a burden.

I have about 200 days of my paid BD contract, so I may have to go the uninstall route for the moment. However, I will meantime be carefully considering what to do when that contract runs out.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/316879#Comment_316879

Just for records, are you sure that your request is the most voted request 😂

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/82313/dark-mode-theme-for-future-2021-version

This feedback was provided in the year 2021 and was implemented by bitdefender developers in 2022.

You need to understand that not everything requested can be implemented right away. There are various things that are to be considered while implementing a new feature in a particular product. While your feedback is valued but it is up to the developers whether they feel if it necessary to implement the feature or not.

Regards

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/325897#Comment_325897

Thank you @Flexx, this is exactly what I have tried to explain on numerous occasions when it comes to feature requests. The user feedback is highly appreciated at Bitdefender and if we look back, there were several suggestions and ideas that came from OUR users and did make it into production, such as the one described above, the return of the Widget and the list can go on, I can't name them all from the top of my head.

What is important to consider with all feature requests is that they MUST bring a general benefit for the mass of users and MUST NOT interfere with any known or possible vulnerabilities. Any vulnerabilities found by the security researchers when analyzing an idea may kill the concept from start, it's a reality we must accept.

Not all ideas will make it into development, just like with every beautiful woman that we may like, not all of them will like us back. And then what? We start pointing fingers and making accusations? No, it's called moving on.

Everything goes through rigurous testing around here and the developers are not doing this to make things harder for the end users, they do this with security in mind, as the solution needs to meet the high expectations of millions of users around the world, who trusted the security of their devices with this valued provider.

The reasoning behind the decisions taken by our product teams have been explained in detail on this thread and although I agree that some functions may pose an inconvenience for the more experienced users that wish to have certain functions available for more control, because they have the required experience to take the risk of exposing themselves for various purposes, we simply cannot ignore the fact that for some users, such advanced features that disable protection completely, may leave them vulnerable and complicate basic usage, therefore, we must always balance things for the sake of everyone's safety.

alanrew

A couple of points...

1) It's good to see BD development listening to users. Many software vendors don't do this.

2) I'm a very satisfied long-term BD user. Usability much better than other products.

3) I'm having to to a Repair Upgrade to my Windows 10 PC, and this has the highest chances of working if anti-virus is temporarily disabled. The alternative is failed upgrades, which come with their own problems.

4) If I can't do this easily, I'll just uninstall BD, do the upgrade & then re-install BD. It's my PC & I decide what risks to take with it. I'm sure other users will consider the same option. In terms of the time window that the PC is "unprotected" I expect that uninstall/reinstall results in a bigger time window, so not having a more convenient switch results in worse protection, not better.

5) BD could perhaps consider having two "modes" of the UI, one for normal users & one for "expert" users who are IT literate. Access to the latter UI could involve lots of warnings for the unwary, and disclaimers about the consequences. The expert mode could allow temporary disabling of BD, on a strictly time-limited basis.

Foxfan100

@alanrew

Good points.

I too am generally satisfied with BD after several years of use.

As you point out, there are a number of circumstances, which may be Windows-oriented, other application software or hardware/firmware updates (BIOS), where interference by ANY AV can cause serious consequences. Whilst uninstalling it and reinstalling is the obvious solution, this isn't always needed, or sometimes it really must be done to avoid possible problems. It's not always easy to tell which, and my preference would be to have the ability to turn it off briefly as a default approach to updates etc.

Whilst I appreciate that some users may have problems tackling an ON/OFF scenario, it does indeed work on other AV software I've used, especially when combined with a time-lock approach. In almost all of the situations where I've needed to uninstall BD, my outbound and inbound internet traffic is to Microsoft or hardware suppliers for drivers, and many updates, such as BIOS, are local. Under these circumstances, I'd rather have a brief spell unprotected rather than run the risk of corrupting the system or "bricking" it.

Scott

As far as #5, they did have that option before in the past (2009 shown below), so they know how to do it. I just don't remember if any of what you're asking was included at that time, but maybe just a way of seeing the advanced settings. They had Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced options, view.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/64259#Comment_64259

EllieBean

I'm searching for a way to shut off Bitdefender .. I need to test something with it off! And still we're at the end of 2023 there is no simple way to do it!?!? smh 🤦

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/331365#Comment_331365

Temporarily disable Bitdefender Protection: https://www.bitdefender.com/consumer/support/answer/28557/

Regards

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/331365#Comment_331365

Hi, OP here, yes, this thread makes it clear that Bitdefender won't implement a way to shut it off completely no matter how crucial it is, your only option is to either uninstall Bitdefender, or to boot in Safe Mode and manually disable every Bitdefender service and boot items, which is tedious but in theory could work.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/331369#Comment_331369

As far as I know, you cannot boot into Safe Mode to disable Bitdefender services. You will have to do that in normal mode.

Regards

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/331371#Comment_331371

IIRC, you need to boot into Safe Mode first, as you can't disable Bitdefender services while it's running. In fact, I think I read someone who tried this and worked, but maybe this has changed.

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/331410#Comment_331410

Bitdefender services are disabled in Safe Mode by default, as Safe Mode only runs applications that are necessary for Windows troubleshooting and, sometimes, third-party applications that may work in Safe Mode. However, Bitdefender will never launch in Safe Mode, and thus, it will be disabled by default.

Regards.

[Deleted User]

To add to what @Flexx has said, Safe Mode does not load BD or other third-party security apps.

For the best results when trying to restore a "System Restore Point," it should always be done from within Safe Mode because security software is known to cause restore failures in Normal boot mode. Many people have erroneously concluded that Restore Points are a waste of time because they won't restore, but when questioned, they admit that they attempted the restore without booting into Safe Mode.

I hope this helps. Have a great day.

Regards,

Phil

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/331424#Comment_331424

Well, of course, that's exactly the reason why I suggested the user to boot into Safe Mode, as you want Bitdefender to be fully shut down before disabling its services.

In fact, last time I tried, it was impossible to disable Bitdefender's services while it's running, for obvious reasons.