RENEWAL-EXP-20.17
Bitdefender Internet Security 2017 - Only $20.17 up to 3 devices, 1 year
Bitdefender Internet Security 2017 (1 Year Subscription) - $20.17
150
Lpeterlee89 on 18/02/2017 - 22:46 bitdefender.com.au (585 clicks)
Last edited 18/02/2017 - 22:59 by 1 other user
Last edited 18/02/2017 - 22:59 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
For those purchasing, be mindful auto renewal is selected. Make sure to disable if you don't want.
Bitdefender Total Security 2017 using same coupon come up to $20.17 AUD for 5 devices 1 yr
I've just started 90 day trial.. Do you know if I can purchase this deal now and activate it after my trial period? Would i need to wait 90 days to put in the activation code, or should it stack?
Also wondering this too as I just activated the 3 month trial.
I can confirm it doesn't stack. When you go to add the subscription code, it asks you if you want to activate it for 366 days (i.e. forfeit the current trial) or cancel until your trial finishes.
So you can keep the subscription code for a couple months and input later, right?
@chriise: Presume so. I assume there's no expiry date on the code. Just a pity that they make it slightly inconvenient here.
can you use this offer to renew?
So do you need to activate straight away after purchase? Or it's activated after success check out?
When I tried the 2016 version for free it defended my computer out of connecting with other computers (required a lot of googling to find out how to fix it), defended my computer from staying up (forced reboots), defended my from excluding files with rules so kept trying to quarantine the same files. It didn't defend my sanity.
I don't know why people think they need antivirus software these days. They cause more problems than they solve. Just back up your files and learn how to install Windows.
I've had drive by downloads from ads served by legit sites like dpreview. I don't know why people think they're immune. One mistake in the way you back things up and your files are toast if you're hit by a crypto virus.
Almost lost a stack of photo files - hundreds of GB - a couple of years back because I kept my second copy connected. Luckily for most files I had a 3rd off site copy, and I caught the software before it had eaten the rest. Was infected by shareware that included a timebomb.
It's definitely not about thinking I'm immune. It's about weighing up the cost of dealing with antivirus software vs the likelihood and cost of dealing with a virus. IMO the likelihood of dealing with a virus is very low, and the likelihood of it causing significant problems is also low. On the other hand, the likelihood of antivirus software causing problems with false positives is very high, and I've evaluated that from both reports like yours and my own experience. The last time I had Norton installed it decided that one of my system files had a virus and needed to be quarantined. Once it did that, my computer would no longer boot. In the end I had to reinstall Windows. In other words, Norton caused me a hell of a lot more problems than the virus was, if indeed it actually was a virus.
IMO you're better off without antivirus software. Not only will you save money, but you'll save the problems of dealing with its false positives, which you'll almost certainly have to do at some point.
I'm sure people tell themselves the same thing when deciding not to use a condom. "It's not likely", "I'm pretty sure my partner is safe", "It's too much expense and hassle dealing with condoms". And like not using a condom the effect of infections can be catastrophic.
Identity theft is a big one. Logging every keystroke without your knowledge, takeing screenshots. There is even malware that will tap your camera if you have one attached. Destruction of your files is another then blackmailing you to send bitcoins or the files get it. If you have anything personal or irreplacable - photos of a loved one that has passed, baby pics of your kids etc. what is the cost there? Are you absolutely sure you have multiple copies that a virus can't destroy? And if you want to talk about hassle - what about the hassle of having your searches redirected to sites trying to sell you shit, to the point where your search results are worthless, or the hassle of your computer being slowed down, or being used for illegal activity.
It's only going to be unlikely that you catch a virus if you don't actually use your computer in a connected way. Don't visit web sites, or receive email? Then you're probably okay. But why do you own a computer?
Dealing with false positives is easy. It's the buggy crap that doesn't allow you to deal with them that I object to. Bugs in the interface. Bugs in the rule processing. Bugs in blocking legit traffic (which i grant you is a kind of false positive).
You can get AV software for free. I'm using Avira. And there are others.
If you have anything personal or irreplacable - photos of a loved one that has passed, baby pics of your kids etc. what is the cost there? Are you absolutely sure you have multiple copies that a virus can't destroy?
Yes. This is what online backup with full history is for.
Here's a question for you: are you absolutely sure that antivirus won't do the same thing to you?
what about the hassle of having your searches redirected to sites trying to sell you shit, to the point where your search results are worthless
This is why you learn to reinstall Windows.
or the hassle of your computer being slowed down
You mean like the effect of most antivirus software?
Dealing with false positives is easy. It's the buggy crap that doesn't allow you to deal with them that I object to. Bugs in the interface. Bugs in the rule processing. Bugs in blocking legit traffic
Regardless of the cause, I still argue that it's more hassle than any virus I've dealt with, and I've dealt with several.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
Online backup? You mean large companies that dont care if they lose one person's data? And that suffer data breaches? Better have one hell of a connection. I have 1Mbps upstream on cable. And I have shot half a TB in a day on a few occassions. Do the math. Not feasible.
@CarbonTwelve: you'd likely have a different view if you've had to rebuild a laptop because your teenager accidentally downloaded a virus from a streaming site and your supposed AV (Mcafee, years ago, not long after it was sold and went from a quality product to junk - I think it has since improved but I'll never go back) wasn't up to date with the latest signatures. Even "harmless" intrusions can annoy the hell out of people by changing their browsers, home pages, desktops, sounds, colours etc.
Depending on your movements across the internet, your knowledge, who accesses your device(s), how often you update your software etc the likelihood of getting caught IS low, but the consequences can be high. The less experienced/more digitally naive you are the more an AV is necessary but personally I'd feel "naked" without the added protection of a serious AV. Very cheap (free if you want to go that way) insurance as long as you understand how they work, how to use them, and what their limitations are.
I've run Kaspersky and BitDefender plus Malwarebytes and various "stingers" for a decade and only had 1 false positive in all that time. Most good AVs have a range of settings which can be adjusted if for some reason you're getting regular false positives - not that this is a big issue to deal with in any case. It's (usually) good experience to learn how to check and deal with quarantined files although if Norton did as you say then I understand your angst. That's extremely unusual, if indeed it was the fault of the AV.
Some people have compatibility problems/conflicts with their AV and applications, some report large resource usage. Can't comment on the former because it has never happened to me but even this old, low spec laptop I'm using now has no problems with my KAS AV running in the background - on an old version of Windows no less. Again it comes down to your use. If you need maximum performance than invest in hardware which will do the job (it's dirt cheap and usually tax deductible), get a good AV and learn how to set it up. There are always exceptions and in those cases you might consider disabling your AV for a period.
I very much doubt you'll find responsible businesses not running a range of AV systems (and offsite backup etc). Individuals MAY have less to lose but for something which is either free or negligible cost, can work with minimal input and still provide good protection AV software seems a no-brainer to me, even with MS's improved Windows security.
Down-voted because I pointed out that online backups aren't under your control and shouldn't be trusted, or because I pointed out that if you're on a slow uplink they're not feasible? Some days I wonder why I bother with OzB. Shoot the messenger!
@syousef: Downvoted because of the hypocrisy of suggesting that online backups shouldn't be trusted, yet somehow antivirus software is, despite the numerous reports (including your own) of causing problems with connections, system stability, and unnecessarily quarantining files.
Another thing I don't get is how you seem to assume antivirus software is going to be a paragon of preventing any possible issues with virus. Look at any list of major computer virus outbreaks and you'll find that practically all of them circumvented virus protection software and infected computers worldwide, including high end businesses with much more sophisticated firewalls and protections than any of us would have.
As for the feasibility of online backup, personally I would say most people aren't shooting half a terabyte in a day. In your case, I would hope you have some other kind of backup strategy in place, because there are plenty of things you want backup for above just a virus/malware/ransomware situation. For me, I've found online backup perfectly fine with just a 1Mbps upload, and currently have 766GB of files uploaded.
As for the ludicrous comparison to that Black Mirror episode, do you seriously believe these online backup companies are going to scour millions upon millions of photos from thousands and thousands of users to try and find something compromising? And even if they do, do you really think I'm going to take compromising photos in the first place, let alone store them on my computer and upload them to an online backup server? And even if I did, just exactly what are they going to do? Threaten to show my boss photos of me with no clothes on unless I pay a lot of money? You're more likely to have my boss pay the ransom just to not have to look at them…
Wow. Someone failed comprehension. Not to mention playing nice with others.
Please point to the line where I said antivirus software should be trusted? It is one tool to use in keeping yourself safe.
Btw I don't shoot half a terrabyte every day. I shoot that when I'm at an action event. Typically an airshow. "It works for me" for my one use case is the absolute worst thing you can base advice on. There are plenty of people who shoot video and for them half a terrabyte might be a light day. If all you do is take happy snaps once in a while that's fine but telling other people to use online backup and not antivirus is dangerous and bone headed advice which won't work for many people.
And the Black Mirror episode was brought up because antivirus would have potentially helped some of those people, not because I think large legitimate online cloud companies will sell your nudie pics and show them to your boss. So you know what you can do with your straw man and reductio don't you.
@CarbonTwelve: you completely overemphasise the problems some AVs present to a very small number of users. Does nothing for your credibility.
Your second par also suggests you don't understand two basic things about internet security. 1)new viruses, more particularly viruses using new paradigms and not well-known attack principles, will invariably cause initial problems, until AV specialists examine them in detail and find ways to block them/limit their effectiveness. Sometimes the "viruses" aren't even especially sophisticated, they simply exploit known (or newfound) vulnerabilities in systems; (2) no retail AV will ever be able to initially block all malicious software, let alone half decent hackers. The aim is to make it harder for them so that they'll go elsewhere and find complacent/risk taking/ignorant businesses. Bit like car break-ins. Leaving your door unlocked is an invitation. Having modern locking mechanisms and alarms are decent deterrents but if a thief really wants to get in he'll either wreck your lock/door or simply smash a window.
@Possumbly: As for the extent to which people are negatively affected by AV software, you're right that I don't have any data to confirm it and hence I may be overestimating the issue. However I dare say that you too don't have any reliable statistics, so I don't think you can reliably make any claims about the number of users negatively affected either. The only thing I can reliably go on is personal experience and the experience of others I speak to (including, FWIW, syousef's first comment in this thread where he pointed out several issues he's had with this AV software). In my personal experience, AV is more trouble than it's worth. This has always been my point in this thread, and has been my only point.
I have no idea why you think I don't understand viruses based on what I wrote earlier. You have simply confirmed my point; AV software won't protect against new viruses, so it isn't a perfect solution as syousef seemed to be indicating. Again, in my experience it's more trouble than it's worth; it's been a long time since I've had to deal with a virus, and the last time I did it really wasn't that bad to just perform a reinstall and restore from backups. Others may have a different experience, but that doesn't invalidate mine.
@syousef: I tried to leave this as a difference in personal opinion (ie, 'agree to disagree'), yet even for that I get mocked by you both ('Some days I wonder why I bother', 'Blame the education system for too many multiple choice questions'), so I don't get why you're suggesting it's me who fails at playing nice with others.
As for recommendations of not using antivirus, if it's bone headed advice then I'm not the only one giving it:
https://www.cnet.com/au/how-to/i-dont-use-anti-virus-softwar…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/antivirus-software-1.36687…
https://www.wired.com/2012/03/antivirus/I particularly like the last one; 'JEREMIAH GROSSMAN … Chief Technology Officer at security consultancy White Hat Security … doesn’t use antivirus software. "If you asked the average security expert whether they use antivirus or not,” Grossman says “a significant proportion of them do not.” … Some security pros use it because they’re in regulated industries, or because they work with customers who require it. “If it weren’t for that,” he says, “almost nobody in the security industry would run it.” '
Now obviously online backups are not going to be a viable solution for everyone, however for one, I would argue that it is viable for the vast majority of users, and secondly the method of the backup is largely irrelevant; it's more about the point that backups are vastly more important than virus protection and should be performed whether you use AV or not.
Ultimately, and once again, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. If you want to use it and feel better for doing so, good. I'm glad. Personally I find it more trouble than it's worth.
@CarbonTwelve: your logic evades me. Human viruses are evolving, does that mean we shouldn't take precautions against the existing, controllable ones? Most virus attacks use well-known, preventable approaches which will be blocked by most decent AVs - even MS - and these are the ones we hope to prevent.
There are millions of global users of AVs. If compatability/system clogging etc were significant issues then they'd either not bother with them or scream from the rooftops. Anecdotally most "everyday" users won't encounter such problems. There are other good reasons for supporting AV providers but I'm sure you can look those up for yourself.
I have no problem whatsoever with well-informed, technologically smart users choosing to go naked or to rely on MS for protection, assuming they are aware of the potential costs and are prepared to spend the time/money rebuilding their computer systems. That's FAR from the norm however so it irks me when I see people on "everyday" forums advocating a particular approach to (un)safe computing.
I have purchased the same as an offer for 40 dollars a few months ago.I have problems with this total security version when installed in Windows 10.
In Auto pilot mode it never updates.
Poor support and when I contacted after several attempts the response came in German language!
Safe pay mode does freeze and crashes.
Wonder why they offer headaches to people even at 20 bucks!Sad thing is the engine is one of the best. The buggy interface and networking code ruins it.
You can get Bitdefender Total Security 2017-up to 5 devices, 1 year for AUD24.98.
I would stack it with this BitDefender Total Security 2017 - 3 Months FREE deal first though.