SeriousHoax

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. 

Once again, ESET didn't take part in the ransomware test done by AV-Test. This make it look like ESET is afraid to take part in this test because they know very well that their product is weak against ransomware.
https://www.av-test.org/en/news/26-security-solutions-undergo-an-advanced-threat-protection-test-against-ransomware/

Once again, ESET didn't take part in the ransomware test done by AV-Test. This make it look like ESET is afraid to take part in this test because they know very well that their product is weak against ransomware.
https://www.av-test.org/en/news/26-security-solutions-undergo-an-advanced-threat-protection-test-against-ransomware/

I noticed even when a third party AV is installed and registered on Windows Security in Windows 11 22H2 which is now available on the Beta and Release Preview channel, Microsoft Defender's Antimalware Service still keeps running. Looks like it kind of runs in a hibernation mode, but I do see it using CPU sometimes. It also updates definition a couple of minutes after system booting. It's not just with ESET. I tried another AV products, and it's the same result.
I'm wondering if Microsoft has changed something regarding this? Is this going to be the norm now? Or is it up to the AV vendors to change something to permanently shut-off Defender? 
I guess ESET is already testing their products on 22H2 since it's already on the Release Preview build. Can you provide any info regarding this behavior? Without knowing the reason, it has become complicated for me to install ESET on 22H2 Release Preview build.

Ok, so ESET didn't detect it only for users living in China? That's interesting.

I think the issue is not the programing language. The problem is that this ransomware was not initially picked neither by ESET locally nor by the LiveGuard cloud sandbox which is a matter of concern. More so for customers who are paying extra for ESSP.

Tested it yesterday and today. Not working for me. Pre-release module didn't change the behavior on my system.
 
The site generates a new file with different hash every single time. So the file that's being tested is not exactly the same. Every single downloaded file on my system is not being sent automatically to LiveGuard for some reason. 

More likely something from one of the numerous JavaScript's running there. Quttera downloaded approx. 80 - 90 files that it analyzed.

Looks like bugs that need to fixed by ESET.
 
But the problem is, ESET has become worse at reacting to user submission. I used to get replies for all my submission back in 2020 and ESET used to add signatures within a few hours, but later that had stopped. No reply and no signature added. Checked my email history and turns out the last time I submitted samples via email was in April 2021. I stopped out of frustration. I even had to share samples to you a couple of times via private message due to this behavior. Recently found another member from another forum who also had this issue with ESET not responding to his submissions. 
Since ESET is a highly signature oriented product, user submissions should not be ignored. Three of your competitors Avast, Bitdefender, Kaspersky are reactive to user submission, specially the first two.

A detection for your sample was added yesterday. You can also submit samples via the built-in form, but I'd recommend not to submit anonymously. For some reason a lot of users submit anonymously without entering the email address, yet they expect us to reply.

Looks like bugs that need to fixed by ESET.
 
But the problem is, ESET has become worse at reacting to user submission. I used to get replies for all my submission back in 2020 and ESET used to add signatures within a few hours, but later that had stopped. No reply and no signature added. Checked my email history and turns out the last time I submitted samples via email was in April 2021. I stopped out of frustration. I even had to share samples to you a couple of times via private message due to this behavior. Recently found another member from another forum who also had this issue with ESET not responding to his submissions. 
Since ESET is a highly signature oriented product, user submissions should not be ignored. Three of your competitors Avast, Bitdefender, Kaspersky are reactive to user submission, specially the first two.

You're right on this. The test doesn't show offline protection capability.
 
My answer was only related to clarifying the tests done by AV-Test and AV-Comparatives. It was not about ESET or any other product's protection capability. 
Well to talk about ESET, I agree with what you said about its behavioral protection, Kaspersky comparison, etc. I also suggested on the forum that ESET needs to implement those feature but they haven't yet. I also said how useless the Ransomware Shield is. It has never managed to stop ransomware encryption in my tests. 

For AV-Test, the "Real-World testing" in the Protection category uses web and email threats. So every product's Web access protection is tested. For the "the AV-TEST reference set" a large malware pack is used, so here I think the web access protection doesn't play a part in stopping the malware from reaching the system. 
For AV-Comparatives, their "Real-World Protection Test" use live malware URLs so web access protection plays its part in stopping malware before it's downloaded and their "Malware Protection Test" use a large malware pack similar to AV-TEST reference set. 

For AV-Test, the "Real-World testing" in the Protection category uses web and email threats. So every product's Web access protection is tested. For the "the AV-TEST reference set" a large malware pack is used, so here I think the web access protection doesn't play a part in stopping the malware from reaching the system. 
For AV-Comparatives, their "Real-World Protection Test" use live malware URLs so web access protection plays its part in stopping malware before it's downloaded and their "Malware Protection Test" use a large malware pack similar to AV-TEST reference set. 

One thing that I don't like about LiveGuard is that it seems to send every new file created on the device to LiveGuard upon execution. Even if it's an old, trusted and safe file. As you soon as I try to execute a new file that wasn't on my device before, ESET sends that to LiveGuard. Eg: If I just extract a newly downloaded 7zip installer from a zip file where the installer exe is trusted by literally every AV, as soon as I execute it, it gets blocked and submitted to LiveGuard for analysis. What's the point of this? A ESET's reputation check shows that the file is old with reputation status being Fine & green and the number of users is also high with a green mark. 
ESET should feed from this LiveGrid status and determine that the file is trusted, whitelisted and not necessary to submit it to LiveGuard for analysis. This alone would massively reduce the load on LiveGuard's server. This type of unnecessary submission needs to be avoided. Kaspersky and Norton makes use of their cloud reputation appropriately, which is something ESET is not doing here. The LiveGrid reputation should mean something. The LiveGrid and the LiveGuard combo should communicate with each other to determine what needs to be submitted and what not. Otherwise, LiveGuard servers are going to be bombarded with excessive unnecessary submission. 
Unnecessary submission is going to annoy even expert users.

This is similar to Avast's (and AVG) CyberCapture feature, which is available even in the free version. The difference is that cybercapture is dependent on the Mark of the Web similar to Microsoft's Block at First Sight feature, while it seems with ESET it's for every file that is not known to ESET. So this is a nice feature and a good addition. But I can't really justify the decision to not include it in the Internet Security version. ESSP is ridiculously expensive. LiveGuard should've been made available to both EIS and ESSP. 

One thing that I don't like about LiveGuard is that it seems to send every new file created on the device to LiveGuard upon execution. Even if it's an old, trusted and safe file. As you soon as I try to execute a new file that wasn't on my device before, ESET sends that to LiveGuard. Eg: If I just extract a newly downloaded 7zip installer from a zip file where the installer exe is trusted by literally every AV, as soon as I execute it, it gets blocked and submitted to LiveGuard for analysis. What's the point of this? A ESET's reputation check shows that the file is old with reputation status being Fine & green and the number of users is also high with a green mark. 
ESET should feed from this LiveGrid status and determine that the file is trusted, whitelisted and not necessary to submit it to LiveGuard for analysis. This alone would massively reduce the load on LiveGuard's server. This type of unnecessary submission needs to be avoided. Kaspersky and Norton makes use of their cloud reputation appropriately, which is something ESET is not doing here. The LiveGrid reputation should mean something. The LiveGrid and the LiveGuard combo should communicate with each other to determine what needs to be submitted and what not. Otherwise, LiveGuard servers are going to be bombarded with excessive unnecessary submission. 
Unnecessary submission is going to annoy even expert users.

One thing that I don't like about LiveGuard is that it seems to send every new file created on the device to LiveGuard upon execution. Even if it's an old, trusted and safe file. As you soon as I try to execute a new file that wasn't on my device before, ESET sends that to LiveGuard. Eg: If I just extract a newly downloaded 7zip installer from a zip file where the installer exe is trusted by literally every AV, as soon as I execute it, it gets blocked and submitted to LiveGuard for analysis. What's the point of this? A ESET's reputation check shows that the file is old with reputation status being Fine & green and the number of users is also high with a green mark. 
ESET should feed from this LiveGrid status and determine that the file is trusted, whitelisted and not necessary to submit it to LiveGuard for analysis. This alone would massively reduce the load on LiveGuard's server. This type of unnecessary submission needs to be avoided. Kaspersky and Norton makes use of their cloud reputation appropriately, which is something ESET is not doing here. The LiveGrid reputation should mean something. The LiveGrid and the LiveGuard combo should communicate with each other to determine what needs to be submitted and what not. Otherwise, LiveGuard servers are going to be bombarded with excessive unnecessary submission. 
Unnecessary submission is going to annoy even expert users.

One thing that I don't like about LiveGuard is that it seems to send every new file created on the device to LiveGuard upon execution. Even if it's an old, trusted and safe file. As you soon as I try to execute a new file that wasn't on my device before, ESET sends that to LiveGuard. Eg: If I just extract a newly downloaded 7zip installer from a zip file where the installer exe is trusted by literally every AV, as soon as I execute it, it gets blocked and submitted to LiveGuard for analysis. What's the point of this? A ESET's reputation check shows that the file is old with reputation status being Fine & green and the number of users is also high with a green mark. 
ESET should feed from this LiveGrid status and determine that the file is trusted, whitelisted and not necessary to submit it to LiveGuard for analysis. This alone would massively reduce the load on LiveGuard's server. This type of unnecessary submission needs to be avoided. Kaspersky and Norton makes use of their cloud reputation appropriately, which is something ESET is not doing here. The LiveGrid reputation should mean something. The LiveGrid and the LiveGuard combo should communicate with each other to determine what needs to be submitted and what not. Otherwise, LiveGuard servers are going to be bombarded with excessive unnecessary submission. 
Unnecessary submission is going to annoy even expert users.

I just checked U.S. prices for Eset. ESSP costs $10 more per year than EIS. As such and for me personally, the increased price is not a major factor.
This important LiveGuard feature being included only for ESSP does "leave a bad taste in my mouth." For starters, Eset should have had LiveGuard capability in its consumer product versions long ago. Like feature capability has existed for some time in Eset competitor consumer products as you noted. This includes Microsoft Defender that doesn't cost anything. I also have no need for the extra features ESSP provides and feel upgrading to it for LiveGuard capability is shady marketing tactic.
It also should be noted that EIS costs on the average, significantly more than its competitor's equivalent products.
Bottom line to Eset - include LiveGuard in EIS or be prepared for a significant loss of your existing EIS product base.

@SeriousHoax  has explained it here and i also remember @itman discussing about this:
 

This is similar to Avast's (and AVG) CyberCapture feature, which is available even in the free version. The difference is that cybercapture is dependent on the Mark of the Web similar to Microsoft's Block at First Sight feature, while it seems with ESET it's for every file that is not known to ESET. So this is a nice feature and a good addition. But I can't really justify the decision to not include it in the Internet Security version. ESSP is ridiculously expensive. LiveGuard should've been made available to both EIS and ESSP. 

This is similar to Avast's (and AVG) CyberCapture feature, which is available even in the free version. The difference is that cybercapture is dependent on the Mark of the Web similar to Microsoft's Block at First Sight feature, while it seems with ESET it's for every file that is not known to ESET. So this is a nice feature and a good addition. But I can't really justify the decision to not include it in the Internet Security version. ESSP is ridiculously expensive. LiveGuard should've been made available to both EIS and ESSP. 

Still that's not good enough. Maybe we could ignore if it was one or maybe two. But 7 ransomware miss at the time of testing is a huge number. It shows again what the OP suggested that ESET's ransomware shield is very bad and almost not effective at all. ESET needs to improve.

Yes exactly. They are very sensitive about false positives and this is why they falling behind. Some other products are doing well in this regard while maintaining low false positives.