McMcbrad

While I completely agree with your statement, nothing can be 100 percent, but does that mean we shouldn't put in things to try and stop it? By that logic couldn't we argue that why bother with protection if some kind of malware could theoretically be designed to bypass or disable an AV (yes I know my comparison is slightly different to the issue we are talking about and AVs have tech to stop these).
I do think we will see a lot more people requesting a folder system for ransomware protection. As mentioned before I'd love to see a better system for advanced users for warning them about files with no to low reputation. I get that eset doesn't want to cause issues and confusion for average users but surely that shouldn't mean the more advanced users should go without. Just make it harder to find and enable these things and make it clear when enabling the risks.

I am not here to talk about TrendMicro or Windows Defender Smart Screen and neither are you, as this is the Eset's forum. I am here to provide a finding and feedback on how Eset's products could be improved. I can accept any sort of product failure, as this is technology. Important thing is to learn from it and avoid it in the future, which clearly Eset refuses to do.

The fact that malware could inject into trusted process can be mitigated in other ways. Creating a HIPS rule that allow only certain apps to access certain folders is madness. Can you list all apps that I have to add to this list? This is a paid product and securing people is your job. It's not their own job to add HIPS rules. That's why we are paying you. If I wanna write HIPS rules I will come join your team.