SeriousHoax

Hmm, that's not a bad point. I ran an unsupported browser where the green frame wasn't shown. So yeah, it could be useful in that scenario.

Hmm, that's not a bad point. I ran an unsupported browser where the green frame wasn't shown. So yeah, it could be useful in that scenario.

Smart App Control is not usable at its current state. It's very strict. The app as well as all the DLLs need to be signed in order for them to not get blocked by SAC. Also, you can't enable/disable it once you choose one. Mine was in evaluation mode after installation, but got turned itself off after a day as it deemed my device not suitable for SAC. It's not worth it at the moment. 

Maybe one more for firewall rules.

It would probably be easier if you could export specific stuff in general  or everything and when importing have the option to import everything or select certain stuff

Description: Allow an option to import and export user made HIPS rules only.
Details: Currently it's possible to export full product settings, which ESET users highly appreciate, but a setting to import and export HIPS rules only will be very helpful too. 

Description: Allow an option to import and export user made HIPS rules only.
Details: Currently it's possible to export full product settings, which ESET users highly appreciate, but a setting to import and export HIPS rules only will be very helpful too. 

New firewall filtering mode:
LiveGrid-based (reputation-based mode): Unlike automatic mode, reputation based mode uses reputation information from the LiveGrid. The firewall automatically allows trusted applications to make outbound connections and notifies users when unknown applications attempt to connect to the Internet.

Description: Allow LiveGuard to work with download managers
Detail:   Currently if you download via a download manager, LiveGuard will not work properly.
I downloaded a test file and it would not run, no are you sure you want to open this type of file alert but noticed the file has been sent by liveguard in the logs. This was with Free Download Manager (fdm). No alert from liveguard.
Correct behaviour worked when using Chrome to download the file. Liveguard popped up saying it was checking the file etc.
 

ESET has added a detection "A Variant Of Generik.NGIZHAK" for it. Too late. Also I don't think this Generik detection is able to cover future variants of this malware.

Yeah the thing is in a world where new viruses appear all the time, while no AV can offer full protection, if a user submits a possible malware it shouldn't take 2 weeks to get detected. If actual malware that could have infected multiple users in the meantime 

For me, this sums up the state of malware detection at Eset.
You have 32/71 VirusTotal vendors detecting it as malicious; first submission there was 8/14. There is at least one respected public cloud sandbox giving it a 100/100 malicious verdict. Yet, Eset VirusLab after hours of behavior observation can't determine if the sample is malicious.

Yeah, it needs to be analyzed manually.
 
I don't need replies as long as submitted samples get added to the database. Well, I have waited 2 weeks which is long enough. Too long I would say.

Yeah, it needs to be analyzed manually.
 
I don't need replies as long as submitted samples get added to the database. Well, I have waited 2 weeks which is long enough. Too long I would say.

Yeah, it needs to be analyzed manually.
 
I don't need replies as long as submitted samples get added to the database. Well, I have waited 2 weeks which is long enough. Too long I would say.

I can only say what I experience myself. Talking about malware submission experience, I sent this sample to ESET more than 2 weeks ago on 12 August but neither I have heard back nor a signature has been created yet. LiveGuard gave it a safe verdict, but it's not safe.

If possible, please improve the processing of samples submitted by users.
VT link of the sample: VirusTotal - File - d468b56da07173c69423973b706924187e134d0baea07e2ef8e7b49afcd5aacd

You probably need to enable UPnP on your router. 

This is different, I think. Pico aka streaming update is different. For example, Avast's protection update is entirely based on tiny streaming updates, and they push a full signature update once or twice per day.
ESET small signature size is probably related to its finely optimized engine. Someone official from ESET like Marcos or someone else might be able to give an accurate answer. 
But to answer OP's question, it's not related to the amount of signature. ESET's small signature size doesn't mean it detects less malware.

It must be malicious. Kaspersky wasn't detecting it. Then I submitted to them an hour ago and got a reply with 20 minutes stating that it's a malware and detection will be added. 
Hello, New malicious software was found in the requested file. Its detection with verdict Trojan.Win64.Agentb.ktqd will be included in the next update. Thank you for your help. Best regards, Alexander Kryazhev, Malware Analyst So, if you still want to use this file even after detections from all these top AV vendors, then that's your choice. Use at own risk.

It must be malicious. Kaspersky wasn't detecting it. Then I submitted to them an hour ago and got a reply with 20 minutes stating that it's a malware and detection will be added. 
Hello, New malicious software was found in the requested file. Its detection with verdict Trojan.Win64.Agentb.ktqd will be included in the next update. Thank you for your help. Best regards, Alexander Kryazhev, Malware Analyst So, if you still want to use this file even after detections from all these top AV vendors, then that's your choice. Use at own risk.

It must be malicious. Kaspersky wasn't detecting it. Then I submitted to them an hour ago and got a reply with 20 minutes stating that it's a malware and detection will be added. 
Hello, New malicious software was found in the requested file. Its detection with verdict Trojan.Win64.Agentb.ktqd will be included in the next update. Thank you for your help. Best regards, Alexander Kryazhev, Malware Analyst So, if you still want to use this file even after detections from all these top AV vendors, then that's your choice. Use at own risk.

It doesn't work. Gmail doesn't let you attach any type of zip file if the file contains file types of the above-mentioned formats. If you encrypt file names of the zip, then it doesn't accept that either. This is a big problem. ESET really needs a dedicated website for submitting samples like almost all other vendors have. I don't understand how come they don't have any. 

Outlook works, but still not a proper solution since many people just use Gmail. The best thing to do is to have a dedicated website for malware submission. 
Here's one example: https://submit.norton.com/ 

It doesn't work. Gmail doesn't let you attach any type of zip file if the file contains file types of the above-mentioned formats. If you encrypt file names of the zip, then it doesn't accept that either. This is a big problem. ESET really needs a dedicated website for submitting samples like almost all other vendors have. I don't understand how come they don't have any. 

Submissions via the ESET GUI do not receive high priority and can take days or months to be processed by lab experts (in many cases, they won't be processed by lab experts). 
Last time, I submitted a suspicious Android sample via ESET GUI and got a reply after three months. 🤣