Exit Bitdefender

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:

Best regards.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Cheers

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 🤦

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