peteyt

I use IDM to download files and that might be a reason why LiveGuard is not working properly on my PC. But I think ESET LiveGuard should support IDM in the future, as it is widely used.

You probably need to enable UPnP on your router. 

That means that your firewall/router is still blocking the connection from passing to your computer.
Check this website : https://portforward.com/softwareguides/minecraft/portforward-minecraft/
And then after you can look for your router model and they will explain with screenshots how to properly portforward.
Once it's done , then you would see the connections coming to your computer and then ESET will be able to catch them.

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.
 

Will post this in the feature request area but do you think it would ever be possible to get it to work with download managers?

do you clear cookies/cache regularly as this could cause issues

Simple one...rename the 'System Cleaner' to something more relavant/approrpiate to what it actually does, i.e., something like System Setting Restore or Suystem Setting Cleaner.
Just calling it what it is now gives the impression that it is a system cleaner in the larger sense of the phrase, i.e., cleams temp files, registory, shortcuts, etc....like many of ESET's competition now bundle into their suites.

Description: Re-enable the user to sort firewall rules (e.g. in alphabetical order) in interactive mode
Detail: When viewing the contents of a folder in Windows-Explorer, the user can sort the items by any of the categories that are shown in the "Details" layout, e.g. Name, Date Modified, Type, Size etc. That possibility to sort items is essential when working with large lists. Users of the interactive firewall mode are collecting dozens of firewall items, and I found myself missing the sorting feature several times now. To me, this is an essential feature, affecting the usability of the interactive firewall mode.
This feature has been requested way back in 2016 here: https://forum.eset.com/topic/7473-sorting-the-firewall-rules-list-by-name-date-etc/. As it seems, the list sorting feature was available in earlier versions. Please bring it back!
 

You don't need a fancy pc if all you want to do is test malware. You can pick up some cheap old computer off of places like eBay.
The problem with virtual machines and sandboxing is that some malware can be aware that it is running within them. So it won't expose its real real intentions if it thinks it is within one of those environments. Where as having a cheap disposable pc you can see the full effect of what the malware is doing with no risk. Then you can just wipe the system when you are done with testing.  

You failed to mention that is like 10 archives inside each other. By default context menu scan scans only X levels of archive. Maximum is 20 so if u set it to 20 in settings, it will detect it.
Not menioning realtime scan, it would be waste of time unpacking so many levels of arhive realtime

I was able to find a previous article on one instance of a hacked attestation signed driver: https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-whql-signed-fivesys-driver-was-actually-malware-in-disguise/ .
I specifically selected this article to show the "confusion" that exists in regards to attestation signed drivers. Neowin.net made a point to state this instance was a hacked Microsoft WHQL certified driver. In reality, the driver was not WHQL tested by Microsoft. However, reviewing the driver certificate it does state it is? This is because Microsoft wants to give the "illusion" that attestation signed drivers are actually tested by Microsoft when in reality, they were not.

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.

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.

Note that the "Number of users" process status indicates the number of Eset users that have run the software.
It appears Edge is not used as frequently as Firefox or Chrome among Eset users.
I have always viewed this "reputation" feature of Eset as useless since it is solely base on feedback from Eset installations.

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. 🤣 

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. 

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/microsoft-exchange-servers-worldwide-backdoored-with-new-malware/

Agreed.
Ditch using MS Azure servers deploying Eset M/L algorithms and use Joe Sandbox instead:
https://www.joesecurity.org/contact-solutions#oem-integration .

I see AV tests as great for marketing purposes but for little else. Many of the highest scoring AV vendors have dedicated test departments to ensure they get great test scores. I'm yet to read a sponsored AV report in which the sponsor fared badly.
I've been around long enough to when Wilder's Security Forum was the go-to site; developers and researchers would post in threads about test results, security news, AV trends etc.
Eset Nod32 was the first test darling, then Kaspersky, then Avira, then Bit Defender and so on.
People would swap their AV based on test results which I never understood. Has a product failed you in the real world? If not, why change? Has the AV product caused issues with your PC? If not, why change?
It's like changing cars because one car is faster to 100 km/h (or 60 MPH) or quarter mile in a group test. What about all the other aspects?
I use Eset because its never failed me, never perceptively slowed my PC down, never deleted key files due to a virus definition update error and never blue-screened my PC.
I'll take zero false positives, low system impact, little to no feature bloat (an area some AV suites go overboard with 'extra' features) and zero real world issues vs a high test score with FP's, system drag and whatever else it takes to be #1.

When I hover the mouse over ESET tray icon I get "ESET version....."
First, everyone knows that the icon if for ESET, no need for explanation
Second, displaying the version does not mean anything; we do not know if it is the last version or not, unless we search deep on the internet.
More useful would be a message like :
 
"ESET update performed at 10:25AM, 25.07.2022"

I would also add that nothing can ever be 100 percent, so it is always good to take things into your own hands.

Remove "More Tools" button and include all tools under the Tools option. "More Tools" button just does not make sense its an additional unwanted click to get into additional tools.

One thing I will add is I've seen mods ask people why they use eset when they question the product.
Personally I find this a bit of a bad practise. I know the mods on here aren't actually responsible directly for product development and not every feature people ask for can be implemented, but if quite a few users are asking for something then maybe there's a reason.
Surely any AV vendor is going to want to make their product as good as possible. This is also why I find it strange that some features aren't considered because they could be bypassed but anything could be bypassed. By this way of thinking a virus could bypass an AV so why have an AV.
Just to add I do hope no one eset wise takes this personally. I have no plans of stopping using eset and they have been good to me, I just want it to be the best it can be 
 
 
 
 

Another source to consider when evaluating anti-virus software are trusted third party web sites.
One such site is PC Magazine that has been reviewing AV software for as long as I can remember. The plus in PC Magazine reviews is it does its own malware testing and also factors in AV lab results in the final determination of a AV product's effectiveness against against malware. Also, by performing it's own ad hoc testing, PC Magazine is not constrained by the AMTSO testing standard that applies to AV labs. On this regard, Rubenking knows what he is doing. He's been performing this type of testing for years.
So what does PC Magazine think of Eset consumer product effectiveness against malware?
https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/eset-nod32-antivirus
Unfortunately, the current review by PC Magazine parallels its past like reviews of Eset in regards to software protection capability. The bottom line is if you're in the "take AV lab reviews with a gain of salt" camp, you would run away screaming from Eset if PC Magazine reviews were your only evaluation category. However, I have seen enough other third party reviews like this to seriously question AV lab test reliability.

Since we are the subject of A-V Comparatives, one test worth reviewing is the Advanced Threat Protection test for Consumer AV products: https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/advanced-threat-protection-test-2021-consumer/ .
In this test, Eset and Kaspersky had identical scores; each missing two samples.
The important point to note in this test is BitDefender's score which was poor. Now BitDefender traditionally scores high in the AV lab's Real-time tests. The point here being that all AV lab tests available must be analyzed in accessing an AV product overall effectiveness.
Also, Microsoft was not listed in this test. This means they either declined to be tested, or Microsoft Defender's score was poor enough to have the results omitted in the public published report.