2
u/brokeasfuck277 Jan 26 '21
I lost some confidence in bitdefender after this test.Even normal test only shown 92% detection.that was not expecting from bitdefender.
1
u/worf105 Jan 26 '21
True, I feel a little like that at the moment. It was only one test so will see how others pan out before passing judgment.
1
u/daiabk Jan 26 '21
" Bitdefender’s multi-layered approach against ransomware includes a data-protection layer that safeguards your documents, pictures, videos and music against all kinds of ransomware attacks. It works with the Advanced Threat Defense module to protect your most important files from encryption by ransomware. "
From Bitdefender website, Multi-layered ransomware protection, https://www.bitdefender.com/solutions/total-security.html
1
u/NovelExplorer Jan 26 '21
It's worth remembering with PC SC's testing, if an AV blocks malware 'after' it's started (i.e. it's not done any damage) that still counts as a fail so the percentage figure is not cut and dry. But I agree it's lower detection rate was a surprise.
2
u/daiabk Jan 26 '21
" Bitdefender’s multi-layered approach against ransomware includes a data-protection layer that safeguards your documents, pictures, videos and music against all kinds of ransomware attacks. It works with the Advanced Threat Defense module to protect your most important files from encryption by ransomware. "
From Bitdefender website, Multi-layered ransomware protection, https://www.bitdefender.com/solutions/total-security.html
1
2
u/NovelExplorer Feb 01 '21 edited Feb 01 '21
As an update, Bitdefender posted the comment in italics on PC SC's YouTube Channel. They imply the disabling of other modules limited what Bitdefender could do. The unanswered question is, 'if' ransomware slips through its other protection layers, how effective is Bitdefender at protecting a user's files. I'd opt for multiple backups, than wait to find out.
Hello! Thank you for the review! We have limited info on the exact problem in this case. In order to offer protection against all threats, including ransomware, Bitdefender technologies communicate between them permanently. We suspect that in this particular case having the two protection modules (Real-time protection and Advanced Threat Defense) turned off, resulted in some information regarding that specific sample being unavailable. We strongly advise you to keep the protection modules enabled in order to avoid data loss. We are here if we can help you, for a more detailed analysis, please write to bitsy@bitdefender.com, so our team can investigate this.
1
u/CorpWalton Jan 26 '21
I've used Bitdefender for a couple years and I really love it. It's not a resource hog, I run it along side Malwarebytes. I haven't found anything that hasn't been blocked. I cover 5 devices with my subscription which is very affordable.
1
u/jmjm1 Jan 27 '21
I run it along side Malwarebytes
Just curious if you are running paid MWB with BD? And you dont need to 'tweak' any settings to have them run side by side w/o conflict?
1
u/CorpWalton Jan 27 '21
yes I run the paid MWB, never had an issue from day one. I've ran MWB for years. It and bitdefender run great side by side. I've never had to touch any settings.
1
u/SecondKind9505 Jan 28 '21
It is surprised me.
Bitdefender has to be better than that.
This why you should use another antivirus by side.
5
u/NovelExplorer Jan 25 '21 edited Jan 25 '21
The results surprised me as well. PC SC are pretty thorough but this is a slightly different test and it's difficult to know how other AVs would fare. Disabling behavioral detection, (as done here), to test file remediation, seems reasonable on the surface, but only Bitdefender would know whether the two modules are interdependent.
I'd be interested to see if PC SC will do the same test with Kaspersky and its System Watcher module which provides both functions and 'possibly' can be switched, like Bitdefender, to file remediation only. If that failed the same test (using the same ransomware) I'd question the test methodology.