- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated Jun 22, 2021 8:23pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Not sure if anyone cares about this, but I worked with the technical engineers from Bitdefender, providing logs, remote sessions and testing, and they seem to have made a change in Bitdefender where it finally no longer blocks vorpX. My testing has been limited so far and I’m not sure if this would add more instability or not, but try for yourself if you have it. And before anyone asks, Bitdfender is one if not the highest rated Antivirus software, and it does provide better protection and functionality than Windows Defender. Windows Defender is free and solid, so it’s not a bad choice if that’s what you are using either.
Thanks, I use bit defender and have had to turn off advanced threat defence since installing vorpx, to make it work. I will try turning it back on and see what happens.
I can confirm bitdefender now works for me as well. I mainly got it for my parent’s PC but it includes multiple devices so I’ll be using it as well. Just have to keep in mind in case of issues that it might be the culprit.
So far I haven’t encountered any issues. Now let’s hope that a vorpX update doesn’t get us back to square one, but I was impressed by how good their engineers were about working with me to fix it.
It depends how familiar you are with technology.
Windows defender is primarily a classic black list scanner. If you are a target of phishing attack it won’t help you. If you get infected by a novel ransomware it won’t help you. If there’s some 0-day vulnerability it might not help you in time. If there’s a complex worm which can mutate very effectively chances are it won’t detect it.
More complete AV solutions like Bitdefender employ multiple techniques to cover most of these. They have browser add-ons and block most phishing domains, they have a long experience in responding to 0-day exploits, they employ detection mechanisms for ransomware encryption and other behavior based scanning to prevent issues from worms before they are actually found or if they’re hard to fingerprint.Personally I’m aware of all of these and like to think I can’t fall for them. I mainly bought it for my parents and since it’s a multi-device licence I might as well use it.
Because Bitdefender scores consistently higher than Windows Defender and many other antivirus solutions in real world tests. But because it uses a lot of complex heuristics it sometimes catches software like VorpX which does a lot of hacky stuff to work (not bashing on VorpX, it’s the only way software like this can work). However, by the same measure, it can protect from novel attacks. My only gripe with it is that it should never block something without telling you it did it, which was happening with VorpX.
TBH my personal sympathy for antivirus vendors that intentionally break stuff to “score higher” in some unrealistic tests has worn rather thin. They break more and more things to “score higher” simply because Windows Defender has become so good over the years that noone really needs third party AV anymore.
I could live with that if at least these people had the decency to tell their users that what they really do is guesswork, instead of flatout calling perfectly fine software malware based on nothing more than a guess. Sometimes I’m almost tempted to wonder what the actual malware is here…
Post removed.
No advertising of for the average PC user largely unnecessary third party antivirus software here that for years and against better knowledge wrongly flags each and every new vorpX version as malicious. Thanks.
What? Advertising? I’m your costumer and your user. I’m not affiliated with Bitdefender, and I’m just their costumer too. And I’m helping your costumers base by working with Bitdefender to fix the false flags, which should help you as you won’t have your client coming here to complain that VorpX doesn’t work, and wasting your time.
I’m just giving my argument of why I use them, and if you think Windows Defender is fine your entitled to that opinion, I was just presenting the counter argument that many Security experts disagree with that assessment. I’m not advertising Bitdefender. Kaspersky works just as well and scores higher some times. Windows Defender is better than nothing, but it’s not the best. There isn’t any argument about that.These guys don’t get their ducks in a row literally for years now.
I’m grateful that you take the time for dealing with this, but someone having to actively sort this out for each and every update can’t be the solution. This is going on for years now. The only solution can be BF improving their ‘detection’ (actually guessing) in a way that makes this unnecessary. Or at the very least letting their users know that they guess instead of having the continued audacity for years to call something malware without really knowing that.
Like I said, I don’t disagree that their detection should be more transparent. But being a devil’s advocate, they are aggressive as to detect new exploits and attacks that wouldn’t necessarily be detected otherwise. The reason I want it to work is that I was their costumer before being a vorpx costumer, and I had a valid 3 year subscription. I’ve used other alternatives, including Windows Defender, and I like BD’s features, ease of use an system impact. I’m annoyed as much as you are, as just yesterday it borked my update and damage my VorpX installation. But I reported it, complained about it, and they said it’s fixed in the next update. So I’ll try to be diligent and consistent and to give them a chance to correct the issues. The problem is that a lot of users never report the issue so it’s never fixed.
Just to note excluding vorpX folder fixes the issue with the update (and should apply to any future vorpX updates).
The main issue prior to this was that exclusions did not work at all. Ignoring the discussion of whether you need “advanced” detection or not, the inability to whitelist an app/folder from ALL types of checks was a defect in Bitdefender.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.