NewbyUser

Kind of ridiculous putting all the work on the end user. 

Next time this updating issue occurs, use a network connections monitor to ensure ekrn.exe has a solid connection to port 8883. You can use Eset's Network Connections tool or TCPView. I prefer TCPView since it will show if there are sync issues with the connection to port 8883, ekrn.exe is trying to establish. Eset uses port 8883 with fallback to port 443 for Push Notifications. If there are issues with getting that connection, it will cause this bork Eset updating behavior some are experiencing.

Kind of ridiculous putting all the work on the end user. 

This error has been around for quite a while, namely since the Windows 10 May Update.  
I find it really, very strange that the Eset developers/coders do not notice this and this error is taken over by Eset from build to build, as well as other bugs and all this moved me to stop constantly sending logs etc. and not to engage me so much anymore, 

Tip - if you delete your credit card info in your US eStore account, there is no way for Eset to perform an auto-renewal.

That is disappointing. This problem has been known for so such a long time, and a fix has been promised (and not working) also for a long time. I'm not interested in deploying an 'only briefly tested' version to hundreds of customers computers. Will the dll fix be able to be deployed by ESET Protect? Will this affect future 'uPCU' updates?
Whatever happened to automatic program updates by the way? This feature has been in policy for a long time and also has never worked. Wasn't this supposed to be fixed in version 8.0?

Costs me $5 a month, that's why.

The type of 2FA I want is the same as my bank provides and it does not require a smart phone to use.
When I log onto my bank web site, it requires me to select which phone number I have registered with them to receive a text message from them that contains a 6 digit security code. I can also receive a voice call containing the code instead. They then send me the code to my "vintage" non-smart phone. I then enter the code on the web page and the logon to the full bank web site proceeds. 
Note the 2FA elements deployed. The first is valid user id and password. The second is a one-time use served up security code.

I didn't do that but I did disable Eset from notifying about Windows updates and it seems to have gotten better.

Done. Yes I goofed, but so did eset by allowing a signin that was detected as being suspicious to begin with. Also 2FA should be implemented by now, it's allegedly been on the to do list for 6 months now  almost to the day.
 

Again as I've said while this could be an okay move there are plenty of VPNs out there compatible with Eset. A lot of people prefer their AV to only work as an AV

The below comment sums it up nicely:
In other words, you shouldn't disable it. If you do so, it needs to be done on the router.

Yes, I tested it and get same results here. If DOH is enabled I get no alert, when disabled alert returns (using Cloudflare or Quad9).

100% there is no problem of my system, there are one or more Eset problems and these are already running through several builds as confirmed by me and other users here!

I did a Firefox Reset and now Eset also properly alerts. Very strange indeed.
Of note, "Goback" button works sometimes and other times it does not.

When it's ready. In general they release new major versions in October, towards the end of the month, but there isn't a specific date set afaik.

It seems some are seeing Eset scanning for updates in the taskbar icon but eset itself in the update area isn't looking for updates. I've had issues myself with updates taking a while but I've never seen the icon claiming to be looking and eset itself not, but I've seen screenshots showing that it can do this

Yea, that was my favorite setup too. 

Bit of history right there

2.7 Was a game changer for many reasons. Nod32 & Sygate Firewall  ......... Perfect Combo in that time 😍

Me for one , and i am sure there are still a few others lurking around. 😉

Anyone else remember these days?

A simple test to determine the effect Eset has on your system at startup, disable the scheduled task to update at start up, restart your system. If start up time is drastically reduced than Eset may be the culprit. You can do the same with the scheduled start up scan. 

How long should it take though because generally speaking on bootup eset is taking often in the region of 20 minutes to update. I've supplied some logs and understand that it is using less resources but something under 1mb should be quick. I can imagine a lot of people thinking something was wrong with their AV due to this.

You're right. It confirmed that update is run with very low priority, ie. if more CPU intensive processes with normal priority were running, they would use more of the CPU while the update less which could result in update taking longer than usual.

Very helpful thanks