The bad thing about bitdefender....

[Pollmaster]

Can someone tell me all the bad things about bitdefender compared to the AV they are using?

For those using bitdefender can you tell me what you would like improved.

Technical details are welcome.

[Capp]

{QUOTE-> Can someone tell me all the bad things about bitdefender compared to the AV they are using?

For those using bitdefender can you tell me what you would like improved.

Technical details are welcome. <-QUOTE}


The only drawback I have found to using Bitdefender, is it takes forever to scan my system.
Other than that, I enjoy using the free version (on-demain scan only) as a backup scanner.

[FastGame]

I don't see any drawbacks with BitDefender, scans my system fast :D

The only small thing that bugs me about BD is it updates too much, seems as though I spend my whole day watching BD update :-\

[waters]

If you dont like regular updates dont use kav,or bitdefender

[Nika]

The downside are:

~ Compatiblity problem wit som programs.
~ Has to be turned of when defragment hdd.
~ Program has to restarts after updatin (there lot of updates so lot of program restars)

[RejZoR]

That defragmentation thingie only applies to FAT32 partitions. NTFS partitions are not affected.

[Pericles]

I recently bought a year subsciption to BitDefender 8 Standard. After about 4 days, I asked for a refund due to the 32,000K memory usage. Its otherwise a really strong product and I felt very safe with it, but that was way too much memory usage for my liking.

[BlackHawk1]

Very recently I tried BitDefender out and I was very disappointed that it missed both the "Inservice" trojan and "Istbar." Yes I had it updated and the settings were correct. OTOH, trusty Kaspersky found both of them. I submitted both files to BitDefender so they could add detection, fix the problem or whatever the deal is. I then uninstalled BitDefender. I had high hopes for BitDefender as I was under the impression it had high detection rates which is the most important factor to me. Memory usage, GUI, etc. all play second fiddle to detection IMO. I had plans to use BitDefender as a backup to Kaspersky, but it wasn't meant to be I guess. NOD32 users take note: NOD32 also missed the same 2 files that BitDefender missed. IME, NOD is not what some people make it out to be. It's detection is extremely overrated and it has some false positive issues IME. I have not come across an antivirus that has consistant detection like Kaspersky has shown me.

[Stan999]

{QUOTE-> Very recently I tried BitDefender out and I was very disappointed that it missed both the "Inservice" trojan and "Istbar."

OTOH, trusty Kaspersky found both of them.

NOD32 users take note: NOD32 also missed the same 2 files that BitDefender missed. IME, NOD is not what some people make it out to be. It's detection is extremely overrated and it has some false positive issues IME. I have not come across an antivirus that has consistant detection like Kaspersky has shown me. <-QUOTE}

They all miss some. Example:
Last file scanned at least one scanner reported something about: a variant of Win32/TrojanDownloader.IstBar in iinstall.exe, detected by:

Scanner Malware name
AntiVir X
ArcaVir X
Avast X
AVG Antivirus X
BitDefender X
ClamAV Trojan.Downloader.Istbar-145
Dr.Web Trojan.DownLoader.3316
F-Prot Antivirus X
Fortinet Adware/IstBar
Kaspersky Anti-Virus X
NOD32 a variant of Win32/TrojanDownloader.IstBar
Norman Virus Control X
UNA X
VBA32 X

[RejZoR]

You really cannot judge AV software by only two missed samples...

[BlackHawk1]

The "Multi-engine Online Antivirus Scan" I presume? :) Don't go by that. You can't count on it. I would want the file on my HD to scan to be sure. And... I'm not saying they were, but the results could have been edited by you. :)

[Stan999]

{QUOTE-> The "Multi-engine Online Antivirus Scan" I presume? :) Don't go by that. You can't count on it. I would want the file on my HD to scan to be sure. And... I'm not saying they were, but the results could have been edited by you. :) <-QUOTE}

It wasn't edited, KAV just didn't detect it but NOD did.

Point is all AVs miss a bunch. That is why I have KAV on a machine and NOD on another machine.

[illukka]

{QUOTE->
Point is all AVs miss a bunch. <-QUOTE}

100% true ;D

[BlackHawk1]

{QUOTE-> It wasn't edited, KAV just didn't detect it but NOD did.

Point is all AVs miss a bunch. That is why I have KAV on a machine and NOD on another machine. <-QUOTE}


Care to send that file this way for me to scan and verify? :) Zip it up and password protect it. I'd love to check it out.

[StU]

{QUOTE-> The only small thing that bugs me about BD is it updates too much, seems as though I spend my whole day watching BD update :-\ <-QUOTE}Why don't you set the update-interval up?
Maybe up to 3, 8, 12, 24 or 48 hours? ::)

{QUOTE-> The downside are:
... Program has to restarts after updatin (there lot of updates so lot of program restars) <-QUOTE}That's the only thing which I would call a "bad thing".

[fosius]

I have just tried to scan my whole computer by BitDefender On-line scanner. It has found this virus in two files: JS.Trojan.Downloader.IstBar.A. But these two files are clean.

[Don Pelotas]

{QUOTE-> I have just tried to scan my whole computer by BitDefender On-line scanner. It has found this virus in two files: JS.Trojan.Downloader.IstBar.A. But these two files are clean. <-QUOTE}
Are you absolutely sure?

[fosius]

{QUOTE-> Are you absolutely sure? <-QUOTE}

Yes, I am. I went through those files and used VirusTotal to scan it. Only BitDefender and Panda said it was infected.

[jlo]

I would zip it up, password protect the file and submit to newvirus@kaspersky.com and get them to verify the file is clean. It could be a new varient that only panda and bitdefender detects.

You will get a quick reply from Kasperksy.

Cheers

Jlo

[fosius]

I am going to send it but I doubt it is infected because it is an document from NOD32 website. I will write here a reply from Kaspersky...

[Stan999]

{QUOTE-> Care to send that file this way for me to scan and verify? :) Zip it up and password protect it. I'd love to check it out. <-QUOTE}

I don't have the file. Just noticed that on Jotti's site. I probably take a look 1 to 3 or 4 times a day at most just for curiosity and notice that all AVs miss a bunch including KAV.

Again, the point is that all AVs miss some.

[mvdu]

All AVs miss some, but KAV misses fewer. ;)

I like BitDefender as a backup AV, but haven't been tempted to buy it. Why does it want to send out a report to the company every time it scans? I always block that.

[Stan999]

{QUOTE-> All AVs miss some, but KAV misses fewer. ;)

<-QUOTE}

I am not sure that is of any great comfort.:)

My post was in reference to BlackHawk1 putting down other AVs because they missed a couple on his machine. They all do from my observation.

[mvdu]

I understand, but from my experience, there are degrees of missing. KAV seems to miss fewer than any I've tried. That said, it's always nice to install a backup AV or two, without the real-time monitor. My backup to KAV is NOD32.

[Stan999]

{QUOTE-> I understand, but from my experience, there are degrees of missing. KAV seems to miss fewer than any I've tried. That said, it's always nice to install a backup AV or two, without the real-time monitor. My backup to KAV is NOD32. <-QUOTE}

Always good to have a backup check.:) At my end I prefer to use NOD's AMON and the IMON HTTP RTM with AH for zero hour stuff and check from time to time with KAV. There are other good combinations that others may prefer or works better for their setup.

[fosius]

Just recieved an answer from Kaspersky Lab. Files marked by BitDefender as Trojan.IstBar.A are clean. Now you can be absolutely sure that it is a false positive.