New_Style_xd

If the test you really come to the conclusion that LiveGuard has some problem I get very worried, because I made some downloads did not return anything. oh I thought either that it was not detected or the file is clean. I always have this doubt.

I will also note that both these .bat scripts have 0 detections at VirusTotal.
This again leads me to believe that LiveGuard is again operating in "LiveGrid mode" in certain instances. That is, data harvesting activities are being performed for locally detected benign, but potentially dangerous unknown files. If this is the case, Eset should publicly state this.

It appears that the file was detected as malicious/PUA by one of Eset local detection methods. You should have received an Eset popup detection alert for this download. Check your Eset Detections log for an entry related to this file download.

If it was blocked by LiveGuard, then it had most likely been already submitted under your license and evaluated as malicious.

I have the same problem and have been patiently waiting for "the fix."
 
 
 

Another point I should clear up is my prior assumption that there was some Eset local suspicious file detection threshold in regards to file submissions to LiveGuard. There isn't one. I have deleted that posting.
I was reviewing LiveGuard Advanced on-line documentation. It clearly states that if Eset local scanning of the file download is not 100% malicious or safe; and the file has not been previously submitted to LiveGuard via file hash verification; the file is uploaded to LiveGuard for scanning.

I finally got LiveGuard to work as expected.
Yesterday, the software developer whose previously downloads were mentioned in this thread released his production version. Upon download of this version, LiveGuard worked as expected:


First, note that I had extended LiveGuard verdict rendering time to 10 mins. versus the default 5 mins. when I installed ESSP. Hence, the verdict decision being received from the Eset cloud.
Next and notable, there were no Firefox downloaded .part file submissions to LiveGuard.
Three events have transpired prior to this current Firefox download:
1. Firefox updated to ver. 99.
2. An Eset module update occurred to ver. 15.1.12.
3. I set existing Firefox setting entries in the Application section to their default values:

At this point, I believe that my prior Application entry settings were the cause of this issue with LiveGuard functioning properly. Why I don't know. But modification of browser file download behavior should not impact LiveGuard functionality.

The thing is nowadays anyone can put together a website and put whatever they want on it. You need to do some research before putting any trust in anything you see posted on the web. If the review sites income comes primarily from the anti virus vendors themselves then do you think they will post a bad review? No because if they do the anti virus companies will see this as damaging to their brand and stop paying for their products to be tested.
This is the reason some review sites have a disclaimer that this user received the product free of charge. That way you can see if a product is actually good or not if there is a lot of bad reviews mixed in with good.
As for defender it isn't a revenue generator so you can't expect it to be as well maintained as a company who's whole business relies on that one product.   

Defender is always targeted by good developed malware and it is disabled very fast
Recently only Microsoft added the Anti-Tamper protection that would let Defender protect itself from modifications that would completely render it useless , but I don't know if the Anti-Tamper is still good enough
Windows Defender can be completely shutdown by a registry entry, or from Group Policy , I don't know if that still works.
But still ESET or any other popular vendor still perform better than Windows Defender , if you remove the cloud access to Defender it will weaken it so much, still have much more false positives and for sure other AVs have more protection modules than what Defender would offer.

Oh I agree. Every AV will attempt to market their product as the best, so AV results can and do play a part. However I always take them with a pinch of salt. People say data doesn't lie but it can be shown in certain ways to make things look a certain way.
i.e a test could look good for one particular AV but someone could have made sure they used samples they knew would make that particular AV look good and another bad. I'm also wary on some of the review sites as certain ones you come across look paid for. It makes me think about a lot of these VPN review websites that are actually owned by VPN companies.
But my main point was that personal preference should also play a part. If you use a particular AV and have never had any issues/never been infected, is it worth moving when one AV scores slightly higher on 1 test. It's down to what works for the user really.
That being said, while I've never been infected with Eset, I do think there are some features that are missing, and I've mentioned this before. My main concern with Eset is it doesn't put things in that could be seen as confusing and possibly risky for general users. @itmanhas in the past suggested a kind of professional version to avoid those issues 
Just to check, your not using more than one AV at the same time are you?

You have to trust somebody or something , other than the AV producer , which will claim that its AV is the best thing since sliced bread.
Look at Defender: silent, modest, free, yet 99.9-100% detection in any test in the last 3-4 years. What it is not to like????

Also a good test result can be good marketing. Some people will put too much trust in tests however and move AV depending on results. A bad testing AV is obviously not a good thing but for me it tends to come down to your own preference and being safe also plays a part.
The scary thing is that many non professionals are testing AVs these days i.e via YouTube. A lot of these testers can manipulate the results e.g. by not showing everything they did. I saw one YouTuber who got accused of trying to show a virus that a particular AV had missed but the tester had apparently put the virus into the AVs exceptions, but not shown this

The reasons and that I believe ESET can be better than these tests show each time it is tested.

Most commercial concerns IT auditing sources require that an AV product be certified by a major AV lab.

Err........ I posted three examples already in this thread with the latest being: https://forum.eset.com/topic/31893-more-liveguard-concerns/?do=findComment&comment=148981 .
Note: these downloads were all .exe based signed installers; not individual .exe programs.

As far as the MRG ramsonware simulator test goes, the two of the four samples Eset detected by behavior after some files were encrypted are actual ransomware:
Chaos is also a hybrid ransomware/wiper variant as noted below:
https://blog.qualys.com/vulnerabilities-threat-research/2022/01/17/the-chaos-ransomware-can-be-ravaging
Assumed here is files were also "trashed" prior to Eset behavior detection.

As far as Eset commercial product AV labs tests go, one might want to refer the latest MRG Effitas 360 Assessment test: https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MRG_Effitas_360_Q4_2021.pdf .
Eset did not get certified due to failure of the ransomware tests.

Yes in AV-Test , you won't find ESET , You can find for Endpoint version - https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/business-windows-client/windows-10/february-2022/eset-endpoint-security-9.0-222112/
Here you will find it also consumer: https://www.av-comparatives.org/

Since tests are quite costly, it's at vendor's discretion to decide in which paid test they will participate.

It would be beneficial that Eset published a change log when modules are updated. If for no other reason than incorrect information is not conveyed in the forum ...............

Our position is clearly laid out on the linked page, so with that being said, we'll close this topic before it gets nasty and political.

"What have the citizens of russia done to eset or anyone?"
As for me, I believe, the government is there to do things on behalf of me, and if so, every citizen of every country is responsible, not only their presidents.
I suggest to not continue this thread, it could lead to political debates, and ESET security forum is not the right place for that.

Re your announcement , is this not cutting your nose off to spite your face  so to speak , and also discrimination? And Who in the end pays for this loss of business, the rest of us no doubt ? https://www.eset.com/int/ua-crisis/

I'm still getting the same ram usage on 1439 on Edge and Chrome. spike to to 270 or so and stay there until I play a game or use something ram intensive.
Not sure if that's a problem? 

You are still missing what the issue is here.
Eset SSL/TLS protocol scanning initiated exploit processing for a vulnerability that never existed in Firefox. Again, Eset SSL/TLS scanning stays disabled on any browser that I use.