@Razvan C,

I hope you're doing well! I’ve been reading about quantum computing online and wanted to get your thoughts on a few things.

Right now, there’s intense competition between companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc in the race to develop quantum computing. When you look at Google’s Willow ( https://blog.google/technology/research/google-willow-quantum-chip/ ), Microsoft’s Majorana 1 ( https://news.microsoft.com/azure-quantum/ ), Amazon’s Ocelot ( https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/quantum-computing-aws-ocelot-chip ), etc. How do you see this battle playing out?

The big question is: do we even need quantum computing? From what we, as the general public, understand, it’s supposed to solve incredibly complex problems in seconds and handle millions of calculations at once. But what are these companies really trying to prove? And more importantly, where does this leave the average user?

Honestly, I don’t see quantum computing being useful for everyday people. Sure, it might be a game-changer for organizations like NASA or research labs, but for regular users, it doesn’t seem to have any real impact. So why is there so much hype and competition? Technology usually gains recognition when it provides direct benefits to people.

Compare this to AI-powered tools like Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Meta AI, ChatGPT, Grok and DeeSeek—these are innovations that people actually use and find valuable. AI and machine learning have already made life easier, helping individuals and businesses alike, even in cybersecurity.

Quantum computing, on the other hand, doesn’t seem like something that will benefit software companies or everyday users anytime soon. If you ask people about AI, I’d bet 70–80% would know what it is. But if you mention quantum computing, more than 90% probably wouldn’t have a clue—it might even sound like some kind of sci-fi concept.

At the end of the day, it feels like big tech companies—Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and the rest—are mainly focused on outdoing each other, trying to prove that their quantum computing technology is superior. And honestly, this competition isn’t going to end anytime soon.

What do you think about all this?

Regards

Thanks for sharing your insights, @Razvan C! Quantum computing is definitely a fascinating and critical area of advancement.

@Razvan C, just to add—maintaining a spam/scam log database in a developing product might not be easy. How about Bitdefender partnering with one of the largest spam/scam blocker company, Truecaller ( https://www.truecaller.com/ ), whether for calls or SMS? Their database keeps growing, and in 2024 alone, they identified 3.2 trillion unknown calls and helped block 56 billion spam calls. In India, around 80-90% of people use Truecaller, and while adoption may vary in other countries, it's still one of the world's top spam detection companies. A partnership could be a game-changer!

Regards

CASE 1:

I have a question for you, @Rock.87. What if someone really needs to uninstall a Bitdefender product but has forgotten the authorization password? What are your thoughts on that?

Should Bitdefender synchronize the authorization password with Bitdefender Central? In my opinion, that would be a lot of extra work for Bitdefender developers, wouldn’t make much sense, and would ultimately be a waste of resources and time.

You mentioned Avast, but I guess you didn’t go through their support articles. If you search there, you’ll easily find that the standalone Avast Uninstallation Utility can bypass the password restriction and uninstall the Avast product. This proves that even if a feature like password-protected uninstallation is implemented, developers must also consider potential side effects. Below is the link to the support article, followed by the image.

https://www.avast.com/en-us/uninstall-utility#pc

CASE 2:

In Safe Mode, Windows runs with only essential drivers and services, which means most third-party security protections (including Bitdefender’s self-defense mechanisms) are disabled. This makes it possible to:

1. Manually delete Bitdefender files and folders from the installation directory.
2. Remove Bitdefender registry entries using the Registry Editor.
3. Use third-party uninstallers to force remove Bitdefender.

Since Bitdefender relies on active system processes to protect itself, it can't enforce uninstall restrictions in Safe Mode. However, Bitdefender may still leave behind some locked files that require extra steps (like using the Uninstall Tool or modifying permissions), but a determined user can completely remove it.

So while Bitdefender does have self-protection mechanisms in normal mode, Safe Mode bypasses those protections, making uninstallation much easier.

@camarie, what is your take on this?

Regards

It's better to make a clean reinstall of the windows instead of becoming breached , leaving the car unlocked with a fear of key lost is not a wise idea.

I see your point, but the reality is that most antimalware solutions focus on balancing security with user convenience. While forcing a Windows reinstall for lost passwords could enhance security, it would also make the software impractical for many users.

Even among top-tier antimalware solutions, very few implement strict uninstallation protection, and those that do (like Avast and possibly AVG) still have workarounds. If uninstalling an antimalware requires extreme measures like reinstalling Windows, many users would simply opt for a less restrictive product.

Instead of making uninstallation nearly impossible, a better approach would be strengthening self-defense mechanisms, preventing unauthorized tampering while still allowing users a secure recovery option in case they forget their password.

If avast can defend itself in a safe mode why can't we? Bit defender is near to be the best a.v. protection , and best needs hell of efforts obviously.

I get what you're saying, but you need to understand that even though Avast has self-defense for uninstallation in Safe Mode, Microsoft ultimately has the upper hand. The reason is simple—Windows controls what runs in Safe Mode, and it only allows the essential drivers required for the system to function.

Now, let's assume Bitdefender also integrates password protection for uninstallation in Safe Mode. Even then, Microsoft’s restrictions would still apply. Most software, including antimalware programs, require specific drivers and services to function properly. Since Safe Mode disables most of these, the Bitdefender uninstaller might not even launch properly.

There’s an even easier way to bypass uninstallation protection—just manually delete the Bitdefender installation files and folders in Safe Mode. Once you restart your system in normal mode, Bitdefender will effectively be gone.

Additionally, not all users are tech-savvy. Bitdefender has to cater to a wide range of users, including those who may forget their passwords. Are you suggesting that even those users should be forced to reinstall Windows from scratch just because they lost their password? That’s an extreme approach.

Yes, adding password protection for uninstallation could enhance security, but it also comes with downsides. If it becomes too restrictive, many users might abandon Bitdefender for other antimalware solutions that don’t impose such strict requirements. Security is important, but so is user experience and business viability. A balance must be maintained.

In short, while adding a password for Safe Mode uninstallation sounds good in theory, in practice, it wouldn’t make much of a difference due to Windows’ restrictions, and it could be an inconvenience for non-tech-savvy users.

So @Rock.87, just a friendly reminder—I know you prioritize security first, but you’re also impacting Bitdefender’s user experience. This could, in turn, affect Bitdefender’s business. As a side note, if there’s no business, there’s no product, and if there’s no product, there’s no security. One needs to find a balance.

Maybe @camarie can provide more information here.

Regards

Exactly! Thanks for providing the insights here, @camarie

Regards

Thank you for the update, @Razvan C. But how will Bitdefender maintain a database from scratch when this Bitdefender product will be newly launched? Bitdefender needs at least a base database before it can update the database from their end as well.

Regards