I don't use a sandbox either other than for the [very] occasional test mentioned earlier. What's the big surprise about not getting infected? As I've said before, there are users here who manage not to get infected and some of those even run their systems "naked" i.e. without protection against malware, although there are arguments in favour of not doing this. [Edit: typo]
I always use a containment type of software (sandbox) It's either DefenseWall, SandBoxie or GesWall with other security measures for a layered approach.
Wondershare Time Freeze, Sandboxie, and the Auto Sandbox Technology in Comodo Internet Security 2012!
There was no surprise, if the surprise comment was meant for me. I was actually being sarcastic. If there's anything a few great people that come to this forum have shown, is that you can run fine only using what the O.S has to offer and make use of that same protection. I've been running only a standard user account and making use a low integrity level browser and that's it. I do scan programs when I download them; but, first I try to check their reputation. Hash verification and all that stuff. I suppose I am running a sandbox, but simply using security policies that the operating system already offers.
That's just to test malware in and all boxes have to be unchecked for complete isolation and I don't use it often maybe twice now! TH
Forgot to mention ShadowDefender, but that's more Light Virtualization then Sandboxing, still my preferred method.
Hmm... that makes me think of a few things how the sandbox could actually work. I'm not even sure if I suggested such things in the past. I don't keep a DONE list (as opposed to the TODO lists).
No. Why? Much more willing to be behind a standard account in Windows 7 with UAC on full. Plus, I'm fairly careful.
Nope. No extras for me. Using standard/limited account is a form of sandboxing and it's good enough for me.
