Bitdefender Antivirus Free - English GUI

I was able to resolve the conflict (crashing the computer) between Privazer and BD Antivirus Plus 2013/and BitDefender Windows 8 Security by placing Privazer.exe in the Excluded Processes list.
Also, by placing CCleaner.exe into the Excluded Processes list, I was able to reduce the cleaning/running time for CCleaner by 70%.
Where can I find the same, Excluded Processes list on BitDefender Free Antivirus?

 

I was testing the same setup in a VM earlier.
MBAM Free installed, trying to installed BDFE.
BDFE prompted, I said "No thanks", it continued on with the install. No problems; installed itself, left MBAM alone.

 

I even disabled the idle time scanners, as I don't want a full scan once per week churning my hard drive.

I am comfortable with the real-time project. The only weekly scans I do are with HMP or MBAM.

 

Hmmm... that's odd. Maybe I did something wrong? I'm not sure, but it worked out fine in the end...

 

Auto Scan was on - but idle. I turned Auto Scan off, and (Wow!) my old XP computer doubled its speed!
The strange thing was that the computer doubled its speed but the CPU and memory usage remained the same or even more:
gzserv.exe - about 30,000K
gziface.exe - about 7,000K

Go figure.

 

Probably disk I/O.

 

I did the same thing, but with the auto scan paused (disabled), BDF would not "clean" the eicar test file on reboot. It only finished removing the infected file once I re-enabled auto-scan.......Try it for yourself and see what you get.

 

So now we can manage quarantine and FP or it´s still dangerous with unknown files ?

 

Yesterday, I decided to scan one folder with one file of 462K, using BitDefender Free Antivirus. Visually, it took more than 1 hour to scan.
Every ten minutes, I was opening the BDFA screen to check on the scan.
Eventually, after more than one hour, the scan on-demand was completed.
I checked the log and found out that -
1. it took only 11 minutes for the scan to finish, and
2. it scanned :13444 files (?)
==============================================
An On Demand scan has completed.
The scan took: 00:11:07
Files scanned: 13444
Infected items detected: 0
Files known to be clean: 0
No infected items have been found.
=============================================
In order to deal with sluggishness, I've turned off Auto Scan on BDFA, and my .5GB RAM XP computer became fast again. Also, I decided to run simultaneously KingSoft Antivirus.

Questions.

What is the purpose to have "the best" antivirus scanning engine, BitDefender FREE Antivirus on older computers, if you need to turn Auto Scan off?
What is the need to have BitDefender FREE Antivirus, if it is impossible to scan even a small file?
If you need to have another antivirus, like KingSoft, installed to meet your "normal" antivirus requirements, do you still need BD Free AV?
Is it a good thing to have "over-automated", "I-know-what-is-best" antivirus?

Having said that, I have BitDefender Free Antivirus and KingSoft AV installed on a Sony Vaio Windows 7 laptop with 4.0 GB of RAM. I have not noticed any sluggishness on my laptop but one.
When I had Avira and KingSoft AVs installed on the same computer, it used to take about 12 seconds to run "immunize-after-update" on my SpybotSearch&Destroy v1.6.2.
This morning, with BitDefender Free and KingSoft AVs, it took about 85 seconds to run "immunize-after-update" on Search&Destroy. A few years ago, I encountered similar (it takes so long to run immunization) situation. The culprit was Windows Defender AV, running along my Avira AntiVir. As soon as I stopped Defender, my problem was gone.

So far,
1. I would not recommend BDFA for older XP computers,
2. I would say, "what's the reason to install BDFA on newer Win 7 computers, if you can get a very powerful Avira AntiVir and even supplement it with KingSoft AV, set on Quick Mode?".
3. I would say, "At this moment, you can install BDFA on new Windows 8 computers with enough memory. Just don't forget KingSoft AV for the regular antivirus needs".

 

We'll make changes to this module to be less intrusive, I already said this at least twice..

Still, I think you (not you, bdavfree users in general) should also try to accept our statements/intentions and [L.E. help us] (if you want, of course, and if you believe it's worthing) shape this anti-malware solution as powerful, smart, non-intrusive, reliable as posible, with benefits for all users

At some point, power users will either become tired to "fight" Gonzales and learn to trust "him", or they will remove it from the system

What's the need/scenario for manual scanning a file??!!
It's just another damn paradigm/stereotype; how do you get that file on your computer? Internet? It's already scanned! USB stick? The same! Was already there? Auto-scan will deal with it! It's a password protected archive? We'll scan it when you'll un-archive it!

C'mon, [I hope] at some point in the future, most of the computer users (advanced or not) will end up just using their computers, not spending half of their lives tweaking the AV, playing his Interface, pressing the Options buttons, over-configuring stuff, answering "stupid" questions from AV..

 

It's a bug, confirmed by our Q&A team; thanks for pointing this out

 

Most Wilders type members will always want more options but perfect for normal public

 

=) Full Ack !

PS: If AV Vendors start to produce Bug free software we will stop complaining... promised!

All the AV software (including Bitdefender IS paid)flew of my system again after a couple of test days because of minor or bigger bugs.. I am running my maschine without any AV now for 2 years. I am still waiting until the biggest bugs are fixed and then I will give BD free a try and see if it runs well.. I will let you know afterwards.. =)

 

PROGRAM TO AN INTERFACE!

Many years ago, I was taking "Object-oriented programming (OOP) in C++" classes and the worst thing to say to my teacher was,
"I, as the developer of the program, know better what my customer needs; therefore, I decided to disregard the customer's (dummy's) requests".
My teacher used to go ballistic.
I'm not in the programming field anymore, but the teacher's message is always with me.

How do I know that BD Free AV is capable of scanning zip files, 7-zip files, RAR files? Let's say, Norton is failing miserably with zip of 7-zip archives, but exceeds with RAR files.
If I extracted (in Sandboxie) a zip file, I would like to scan the extracted files again.(?!)
How is BDFA scoring with malicious PDF files? Should we just blindly trust you?
What if I, the user of your product, just wanna scan the file?

What would you say if I, who fully trusted BDFA, decided to scan my computer using different AVs and those AVs have discovered some malware? But you told me to relax and enjoy the surfing.

I completely agree with you that there is no need for any more discussions on how to perfect BitDefender Free Antivirus.
No more questions and sincerely thank you for your comments.

 

Was never my intention to upset you, and I realize that maybe I didn't express exactly what I was thinking - I therefore Later Edit my previous post..

On the contrary, I personally want nothing more than to perfect Gonzales project, to absorb like a sponge as much information/feedback as I can and then, to be able to "put myself in the skin" of the users - regular and advanced - and be able to "respond" with the best solution (surely, "constrained" by the Gonzales philosophy )

Hope that you'll all see that will be a dialog here, not a monologue
"We are the experts" was not pointing to Gonzales team, but to this community..

 

@Iulika0069: You have to think about the type of people you're dealing with at Wilders. It doesn't really cater to and consist of the "set it and forget it" crowd. The "normal" users are mixed in with the paranoids, the security industry experts, the "experts" and the hobbyists. It's upsetting for the power users to have their "power" stripped away and told "Calm down, we've got your back, just trust us". Not being able to see under the hood bothers them, that's all. There's really little you can do to change that and stay the course with the philosophy behind BD Free. It's a philosophy I agree with and I think many, many agree with. We should be able to simply use our computers and not screw with pop-ups, maxing out this, tweaking that. For the power user doing that is part of the fun or job. For the every day user, it's just a PITA, all so we can keep some jackass with an exploit kit off our systems.

Take care of the quarantine issue, try to speed up manual file scanning a little (yes I know, your point is very valid, but just try anyway. It's just something people are used to and do by habit.) and let some time pass and the media/testing organizations get a hold of it. It'll be given its chance. In my own opinion, Avast is the best competition you have right now in the free AV area. Everything else is sub par or naggy, so BD Free is a welcome addition.

 

Very well put

 

Where do you think you are? This is Wilders .....!

 

I have both Trafficlight and BDF installed on a laptop and while accessing a known malware link I get the message below (using SRWare Iron as my browser on a win 7 64bit system) from the free av. Is BDF intercepting the URL before Trafficlight? Why would Trafficlight say the page is safe but BDF says it contains malware (in this case BDF is correct)? Does BDF contain the same URL filtering ability as Trafficlight?

 

You should uninstall TrafficLight, as BDAVFree web filter has the same detection capabilities as TL

What is happening here is that now you have 2 network filter drivers on your system; BDAVFree is intercepting the url before TL, and then TL is intercepting the "BDAVFree Edition has blocked a page" response html, which is clean, of course

 

My apologies if this has been asked and answered before, but how does the program update itself? Do we get notified of new program updates and have to download and install? Or is it automatic in some way? Thanks (anyone).....

 

Awesome! One less program to have installed.

 

This is a terrific comment!

So, what I understand is that the power users is not necessarily avid for tweaking his security suite, but rather hungry to see in very detail what his anti-malware solution was already made!?

As an example, if AVC (Active Virus Control) blocks a process, the PowerUser will want to see "why?"
Opening a window full of "raw" info like
- sensitive registry keys that were modified by the respective process
- which Objects has been modified
- what not-digitally signed driver has dropped
- the internal score versus maximal score
- and so on,
will completely feed his hunger??

 

It will sometime soon, yes: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2164455&postcount=375. How it acts now I'm not sure, though definition updates are auto.

 

Some do like that, yes. But then you have the tweakers and the ones who desire to know what sort of tech is underneath, you know, like does it have behavior blocking, is there a HIPs module, HTTP scanner, those sorts of questions. To those types of people, it's jarring to not be able to see and play with the various "shields". I admit I'm slightly that way, but nowhere near to the extent many here are. Having simple on or off switches just messes with the minds of tweakers and some pros, that's all Me personally, I may like to see these "shields" to an extent, but I do not have a need or desire to have information overload and to be bugged with questions I may not even understand like some HIPs products do.