Bitdefender and "Scan program files only"

Been playing around with Bitdefender 9 Standard and it’s Virus Shield runs a little heavy on my system with default settings. Default setting is to scan all files.

Does anyone know if I set the Virus Shield to “Scan programs files only” will I still have strong protection?

I noticed in the help menu that "Scan program files only" does not include files with extensions for jpg, jpeg and wmf. Should this be a concern? Are there other file extensions that are potentially dangerous that are not covered by the “Scan program files only” setting in Virus Shield?

Would appreciate any comments on how to configure Bitdefender’s Virus Shield for optimal protection and speed for a gaming system. Thanks.

 

I think you 'd better choose it to Scan all files whitout compressed files.
BD use more cpu resource than some others

 

I am also trying BitDefender 9 Standard at the moment. I am trying out a bunch of stuff before deciding whether or not to renew my NOD subscription in a few weeks.

Here is what the BitDefender help says about the "scan program files only" setting.

"Only the program files will be scanned. This means only the files with the following extensions: .exe; .bat; .com; .dll; .ocx; .scr; .bin; .dat; .386; .vxd; .sys; .wdm; .cla; .class; .ovl; .ole; .exe; .hlp; .doc; .dot; .xls; .ppt; .wbk; .wiz; .pot; .ppa; .xla; .xlt; .vbs; .vbe; .mdb; .rtf; .htm; .hta; .html; .xml; .xtp; .php; .asp; .js; .shs; .chm; .lnk; .pif; .prc; .url; .smm; .pdf; .msi; .ini; .csc; .cmd; .bas; .eml and .nws. "

I think proll is probably right. You will probably find less system impact with BitDefender if you tell it not to scan compressed files (or packed files as they call it).

If BitDefender doesn't work for you, keep trying other trial versions. I would heartily suggest NOD if you are really concerned about speed on a gaming machine.

 

Thanks for the responses and to hamlet for posting the file extensions scanned with the "Scan program files only" setting in Virus Shield. But the question still remains:

If I set Virus Shield to “Scan program files only” will I still have strong protection? Or are there other potentially dangerous file extensions not covered with this setting that I should be worried about?

I would really appreciate any feedback that could help me out here.

 

Wanted to provide an update to those that are interested in Bitdefender or this thread.

On my system, with the Virus Shield set to “Scan program files only,” Bitdefender is lightweight and responsive. However, my concern is, does this setting provide strong protection.

To get an answer, I submitted an email to Bitdefender. The following is the original email and their response:

To Support at Bitdefender,

Bitdefender 9 Standard and it’s Virus Shield runs a little heavy on my system with default setting of scan all files.

If I set Virus Shield to "Scan program files only" will I still have strong protection? Are there other potentially dangerous file extensions not covered with this setting that I should be worried about?

The help file does list the file extensions covered with this setting but does not give any guidance to the user on whether this setting is safe for most people, dangerous or whatever. Thanks.​

Bitdefender’s response:

Dear [edited for privacy],

> > If I set Virus Shield to "Scan program files only" will I still have
> > strong protection?

Yes you will, the most common (to get infected) extensions will be scanned by
BitDefender.

This option covers all these extensions:
exe; bat; com; dll; ocx; scr; bin; dat; 386; vxd; sys; wdm; cla; class; ovl;
ole; hlp; doc; dot; xls; ppt; wbk; wiz; pot; ppa; xla; xlt; vbs; vbe; mdb;
rtf; htm; hta; html; xml; xtp; php; asp; js; shs; chm; lnk; pif; prc; url;
smm; pfd; msi; ini; csc; cmd; bas; eml; nws.

Best regards,Andrei Dudea
BitDefender Technical Support Engineer​

I was hoping one of the resident security or AV guru’s that are members of this forum can confirm the accuracy of the response from Bitdefender and that the file extensions covered are in fact comprehensive enough to provide strong protection.

I am very interested in making Bitdefender work on my system for the following reasons: 1) it has performed well at AV-Comparatives on both the On-Demand and Retrospective/Proactive tests and it seems to be one of the top 3 or 4 AV’s over at Jotti’s; and 2) can be purchased through several online vendors in the low $20 range and the renewal price is very competitive. Thus, the reason for sticking with it and trying to make it work without bogging down my system.

Hope this post helps anyone else who is considering the AV.

 

With some AV's it has to be a balance between speed/responsiveness of your system and protection.

When I ran BD as a primary scanner I also had to select "scan program files only". This will still give you good protection as BD support have confirmed.

Just make sure that you carry out regular on-demand scans with ALL files selected and use this same setting when checking downloaded files.