Talk:Bitdefender

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Spam?[edit]

Hi! the Bitdefender article was re-written, can you remove the spam tag?thanks Lamarmote (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was add more spam? 12.235.42.131 (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion as per Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles. 12.235.42.131 (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if a "criticisms" section on the main page would be NPOV or not[edit]

IT guy who just discovered the deduplicator tool destroyed our product's save file structures... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.61.2 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SSL/TLS "MITM attack"[edit]

When helping a friend get a custom CA cert to be trusted in Chrome, I noticed that sites using certificates signed by the custom CA were still not trusted. I then realized that the browser was seeing a forged certificate, and learned about this (Bitdefender having inserted its own CA cert in the browser, and acting as a man-in-the-middle). It seems that an additional step is needed for Bitdefender to also trust the custom CA, and that it actively monitors SSL/TLS connections (for malware scanning, but this also means that a compromised installation is a spyware haven). A good and a bad thing at the same time, but technically significant. Possibly not ready for inclusion in the article yet without more references, but here is more text describing the situation [[1]]. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

incompatible with comodo firewall?[edit]

hmmm, that's news to me. i'm running bitdefender free antivirus with comodo firewall, and they work perfectly together. perhaps this was a past problem that has been fixed? Newtonsghost (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bitdefender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The company claims"?[edit]

The language used throughout the article, "the company claims" this and "the company claims" that, seems rather unusual. I can't see this kind of language being used in the articles of any other antivirus software, only this one. Why the difference in tone? It almost feels like some kind of passive-aggressive attack on this software in particular; a tone that is not used anywhere else. It almost feels like the "neutral point of view" language is abused to indirectly discredit this particular company or something. I don't understand why.

Just search for the word "claim" in the articles of any other antivirus software, and contrast it to this one. The difference is striking, and incomprehensible.

I don't believe this is a true NPOV. It almost feels like some kind of attack on the reputation of the company masqueraded in seemingly NPOV language. (Even if that was not the intent of the author, it still gives that impression, which is what matters.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.36.248 (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@84.251.36.248: I've reworded a bit of the lead but it's still promotional. This article might need a whole rewrite. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! The article needs a complete re-write, and it needs to be re-written on a factual basis, instead of relying on hearsay and marketing hype. This is not up to the standards that I've been led to believe are in place in the Wikipedia organization. Many of the References are documents and data that Bitdefender themselves have published! How is that credible? Many of the other references are 8 years old now. And an interview with the CEO - when the gist of the interview is how much money he wants to make?!?! And why is there no mention of the fact that Apple removed an iOS app published by BitDefender named 'Clueful' from the App Store? And does it strike anyone as "odd" that BitDefender offers a rather pricey "service" to install their product on your PC? Does that incentivize them to make the installer work more reliably? And why is it that when one has (typical) difficulties with installation, BitDefender will put you in touch with clueless pawns having absolutely no skills or knowledge? When one has installation issues with BitDefender, why is their only solution to have you run a program that collects mysterious "log data", and they cannot tell you where their log files reside, or what is in them? I could go on. And as far as documentation and "sources" go, how about using logs of chat sessions with actual paying customers... something to illustrate factually the sort of nonsense their so-called "tech support staff" serves up?

The most disappointing thing about this article is that Wikipedia even allowed it to be published. By comparison, the Wikipedia article on bagels is a tower of journalistic integrity compared to this.

Seamusdemora (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bitdefender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChristineBD (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)==Updates 2021== Hello, fellow Wikipedians! The Bitdefender article was re-written and updated, can you please remove the two issues from the header and citation issues? Thanks and Happy New Year! ChristineBD (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristineBD: Welcome to Wikipedia. Do you have an independent source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) that the MIT Technology Review article is flawed? A denial from BD itself isn't very relevant. Many targets of a critical article deny the assertions in such articles, but Wikipedia doesn't just take their word for it, as many of these will be self-interested denials. A third-party source defending Bitdefender would be much more relevant.
Also, I read the BD blog post, and it's not very convincing anyway. It seems to confuses the issue - of course sharing security holes is important, but not of ransomware is the point the MIT Technology Review article was making, and even if you disagree, that's still the slant the authors have. I certainly wouldn't agree that the original article absolves DarkSide itself of blame, either, just states that Bitdefender's action was foolish and made things even worse, even if it was well-intentioned. SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Hello! There has been quite a lot of debate on the subject, here are the most relevant external articles: ITWorld Canada [1] an article explaining both sides of the issue – guest commentator stated “I think what we must do as security professionals is think about the victims first in every single case. That might mean in some cases that we do make the decryptor available. And other times we keep it more close to the vest and still help as many people as possible.” Bleeping Computer [2], reporter presents the debate fairly from both sides.The Washington Post [3], reporter presents both sides from the MIT article – Sean Lyngass’ supporting tweet is also included. Cyberwire also spoke on the subject, mentioning the MIT accusations are too strong [4]. I still have some suggestion edits to this last restored version. As for the awards section that was completely dismissed from the article, please provide details on why this is irrelevant. Any other antivirus article on Wiki has this section published, no issues whatsoever (see [5]). Thx for your input!(ChristineBD (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@ChristineBD: Hello again. Sorry, looks like one of our banned users was out fishing for articles tagged for cleanup to get some "good" edits in. I looked at the sources. Most of them seem to just acknowledge the spat exists, which the article already does. CyberWire does seem to take BitDefender's "side" and is sympathetic to BD's points - but CyberWire is also kind of an obscure organization, they don't seem to even have a Wikipedia article on them, and they are only cited in one other Wikipedia article, which is kind of a warning sign. Unfortunately, I don't think that's really enough.
For the awards section, I didn't wipe it out completely, but I did cut it down to just "received some awards." I'm not convinced all those awards listed on Avira's article are proportionate coverage, either! Anyway, how relevant are these awards? The "problem" is that tons and tons and tons of studies and tests are being done constantly, every day. The odds of any one company "winning" one of these approaches 100%. So Wikipedia prefers to keep it to the really notable awards. This is maybe more clear for, say, fiction & literature, where only "relevant" awards are mentioned because there are some shops that just give awards to every single vanity published book that wants them. SnowFire (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire:Hello and thanks for all your updates! I appreciate you taking the time to revise the section on DarkSide and add a milder description of the case, as there has again been quite some noise in social media and tech publications on the subject. There are, however, some aspects worth considering. The notion that DarkSide wouldn't have figured out that there was a decryptor out there but for an AV company announcing it seems a little far-fetched. The announcement Bitdefender brought out reached potential victims who otherwise wouldn't have any idea how to deal with such an infection. A somewhat analogous situation happened in April when Jack Cable, a Stanford student found a glitch in the payment system used by the QLocker attackers. He was able to reach a large number of people and decrypt their files because he announced on Twitter he had a workaround scheme.Article Here. It would be very strange to claim that Jack shouldn’t have drawn attention to the glitch he found, because the attackers would have figured it out anyways. How else could Bitdefender make a tool available to victims and still keep Dark Side away from knowing it? I think it’s fair to state both sides of the story, but what’s relevant aferall is that AV’s and all their developers are still dealing with cybercriminals as we speak.:) I have added some minor edits to the text, have a look and let me know what you think. Best,ChristineBD (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/cyber-security-today-week-in-review-for-may-28-2021/447838
  2. ^ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/the-week-in-ransomware-may-28th-2021-the-decryptor-debate/
  3. ^ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-cybersecurity-202-could-less-publicizing-of-ransomware-fixes-have-prevented-the-colonial-pipeline-attack/ar-AAKmqDz
  4. ^ https://thecyberwire.com/newsletters/daily-briefing/10/100
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avira#Awards_and_Reviews

Promotional edits[edit]

I am troubled by ChristineBD's editing. This edit is promotional, and sections of it look lifted from the company website. The Company milestones section I removed was almost a copy of the Company Milestones on the company website.VikingDrummer (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert recent article changes[edit]

Hello, @Millbart, could you please revisit the "revert" changes to my recent article contributions? This article was outdated and I just brought strictly informative updates on Bitdefender's global contribution to fighting cybercrime. I hope that's not a crime in itself :) Please advise on how to improve the quality of this article. Thanks, ChristineBD (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously being paid for your edits on Wikipedia and it's not my job to educate you on how this works, instead it's yours. You mention that you "intend to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines, including those on WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, very closely", yet you ignore these consistently. --Millbart (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute - DarkSide ransomware[edit]

I just came across this article and noticed that this section has a strong editorialised tone, with a lot of wording that seems opinionated. - Triskelios (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the section. Note that the MIT Tech Review / ProPublica article has a strong slant so Wikipedia is only reflecting other's opinions here, not making its own opinions. SnowFire (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitdefender&oldid=1206315046"