Bitdefender TrafficLight for Firefox version 2.0 released

Martin Brinkmann
Feb 22, 2018
Updated • Feb 23, 2018
Firefox, Firefox add-ons

Security company Bitdefender has releaser Bitdefender TrafficLight for Firefox 2.0, a security extension for Mozilla's Firefox web browser today.

The new version of Bitdefender TrafficLight for Firefox is the first version that is based on the WebExtensions system.

It introduces new functionality such as whitelist functionality and a system and design update among other new features.

Bitdefender Trafficlight

bitdefender trafficlight for firefox

Bitdefender Trafficlight for Firefox is a standalone browser extension; a running Bitdefender security solution is not required to use the program.

The main feature of the browser extension is to inform you about the detected security level of web pages that you open in the browser.

This works similarly to how other security extensions handle it; whenever you load a site in Firefox, Bitdefender TrafficLight checks with Bitdefender to find out whether the page is flagged.

The extension displays a green icon for safe pages and a red icon for potentially malicious or risky pages. The extension checks each page for malware, phishing or fraud flags and reports its findings to you on page load.

malware flag bitdefender

Bitdefender TrafficLight displays its safety icons on supported search engines as well. It works on some search sites only; while you get the icons on Google Search, Yahoo Search, DuckDuckGo and Bing, you don't get them on Startpage, Yandex, or Baidu.

The extension adds the icon in front of the page title in the results. One issue that you may have with that is that this makes identification difficult on some search engines. DuckDuckGo, for instance, displays icons of the site as well which may lead to confusion and mistakes.

The third and final reporting feature that Bitdefender TrafficLight for Firefox supports is the extension's tracker detection feature. The extension detects loaded trackers and lists them in its interface.

The tracker feature is limited to the detection of trackers; functionality to block some or all trackers is not available.

The extension's settings page lists options to turn of any of the core features of the security extension. It does not make much sense to disable all three but you may use it to disable redundant functionality or features that you don't require. The Tracker Detector is probably the feature that is turned off the most considering that it is not overly useful (other than to reveal how many trackers a site uses).

You may add sites to the whitelist. BitDefender TrafficLight won't check sites that you add to the whitelist.

Closing Words

BitDefender TrafficLight for Firefox offers security readings for sites that you visit and sites listed by supported search engines. The extension is an informational tool only, it does not block you from visiting flagged sites.

The extension does display an intermediary page when you visit a flagged site. You can still proceed or whitelist the URL in question.

The newest version of the extension worked well during tests. The checking of individual visited pages and search results did not slow down the rendering of these pages noticeably. Some users reported higher CPU use after installing the extensions on some sites but I did not experience any of that.

Now You: Do you use security extensions?

Related articles

software image
Author Rating
4 based on 5 votes
Software Name
Bitdefender TrafficLight for Firefox
Software Category
Landing Page

Tutorials & Tips

Previous Post: «
Next Post: «


  1. bjm said on September 29, 2019 at 8:34 pm

    Please update review for Traffic Light 3.0 – Chrome & Firefox

  2. Anonymous said on November 19, 2018 at 4:28 pm

    I installed Traffic Light v3.0 and saw that it flagged my website, which has been legitimately selling specialized manufacturing software for a number of years. Bitdefender provided a convenient form for submitting feedback, and the false positive was removed within a day or two.

  3. KeZa_BE said on February 24, 2018 at 7:04 pm
  4. Pierre said on February 24, 2018 at 2:28 pm

    Yes, it exists for Chrome too

  5. Stefan said on February 23, 2018 at 11:10 pm

    Yet, another way to spy on You……(yes, i am paranoid sometimes !)

  6. Bill said on February 23, 2018 at 10:44 am

    How does it compare against WOT?

    1. Anonymous said on February 23, 2018 at 6:05 pm

      WOT is crap, just like Martin said.

    2. Martin Brinkmann said on February 23, 2018 at 12:13 pm

      WOT is based partially on user scores. Also, the parent company was caught selling the browsing history of users:

  7. Mike O said on February 23, 2018 at 7:56 am

    Martin, this article name is a bit confusing. When I first saw “Firefox 2.0”, I thought you were referring to Firefox version 2.0 (released all the way back in 2006!)

    Perhaps you could have used the term “Web extension” in the title?

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on February 23, 2018 at 8:31 am

      I have added version to the title.

      1. Garbo said on February 23, 2018 at 12:54 pm

        Mike O is saying that the title should be “Bitdefender TrafficLight version 2.0 for Firefox released” i.e. you have “version 2.0” in the wrong place.
        I agree with Mike O.

      2. Martin Brinkmann said on February 23, 2018 at 12:56 pm

        The name of the extension is “Bitdefender Trafficlight for Firefox”

      3. Garbo said on February 23, 2018 at 2:35 pm

        Ah! I see. You mean ‘ “Bitdefender TrafficLight for Firefox” version 2.0 released ‘. It is like one of those optical illusions where you see it differently each time you look at it :) No worries.

  8. Hy said on February 23, 2018 at 6:37 am

    I didn’t know about this–thanks for the article! I can already think of at least three people I know for whom this will be good… Thanks again!

  9. Bobby Phoenix said on February 23, 2018 at 2:21 am

    So it’s kind of like WOT, but without the selling of user data (that we know of). I like things like this. Just a quick notification on search results really help. Is this the Chrome version?:

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on February 23, 2018 at 6:35 am

      Bobby, yes that appears to be the Chrome version.

  10. Tom Hawack said on February 22, 2018 at 10:55 pm

    Cloud checking is an extension’s feature I dislike, be it within whatever extension category. I dislike having every page I visit automatically reported to a supervisor which will inform me of the available information, even should be it to proactively prevent me from accessing a site; I do appreciate all this with local databases and processing, and I accept t when performed from the cloud only when it is initiated by the user (per-site info request). I’m surprised by the number of extensions which very seldom explain if they follow you or if they are at your disposal only when you call them : this does make a huge difference.

    I know for instance a Firefox extension I’d use given its quality and the quality of the company, it’s called ‘Netcraft Anti-Phishing Extension”. But it follows me on every page, doesn’t slow down, excellently done… but it reports. And I happen to trust the company which has a notorious record of qualifications and integrity. So imagine how I feel when moreover I know nothing of the “supervisor” …

    On the other hand extensions such as ‘IP Address and Domain Information’, because they wait your click to transmit your request to their server and when they are pertinent to the users’ needs, are welcomed here.

    Many say the Cloud(s) is the future, that we’re bound to become terminals. Perhaps a conservative attitude but I’m not fond of that. Old school here : local, on my machine, magnetically fixed in a far analogy to physical presence.

    1. mike said on February 23, 2018 at 9:14 am

      With you on that.
      Anyone notice that Kaspersky does the same.

      1. Tom Hawack said on February 23, 2018 at 1:06 pm

        @mike, Kaspersky as well as all Web protection extensions or applications including or not a browser extension. In that case it’s different given we’re dealing then with such an amount of data that it would be inconceivable to have it all downloaded on local. I have in mind specifically extensions which deal with a database small enough to be included in the extension. Nevertheless, if I do understand Cloud process for heavy-weight extensions I still don’t like it and, accordingly, use no such extension, be it Kaspersky which is a reference of excellency together with 2 or 3 others, no more when we know what some so-called protection software ‘especially the free ones) appear to be nothing more than RAM+CPU fans.

      2. Klaas Vaak said on February 23, 2018 at 10:43 am

        Just Kaspersky, one of those vile Russky companies?

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.