Sandboxie Acquired by Invincea

5.01.2 fixes apply to all systems. In 5.01.1, support for W10 was introduced. And the Known issues that you see under Fixes in 5.01.1, were W10 only.

Bo

 

So, v4.21beta = v5.xbeta
Should I stay on v4.20 as I'm W8.1 and Vista

 

4.20 is the last stable Sandboxie version, released to date. 5.01 is the current beta. Next stable version will be 5.02.

Bo

 

Aha, v4 was just settling in. By By 4. Hello 5. Thanks Bo

 

I've been using SBIE since 2004, I was the first one to open a topic about it (besides Tzuk). I stopped using it for about 2 years (2012-2014), because of compatibility problems with System Safety Monitor on Win XP. At that time, SSM was more important to me.

After switching to Win 8, which is more stable because of "Patch Guard", I started to use SBIE again, with no big problems. And don't forget, SBIE is not only meant to protect against exploits, it's also a handy tool to quickly test software.

 

I mentioned earlier in the thread about my issue and even asked if someone else also experienced it but no one replied.

In any case, my last issue was that all sandboxed programs did NOT have icons in the system tray. Inside - no system tray icons. Outside - icons in system tray appear correctly.
It happened after I installed some optional updates. I don't know if there is a relation and frankly I don't care.

I really can't remember all of the problems that I've had. I don't write them down when they happen. I just remember all kinds of errors and issues every once in a while. I had a problem when opening new tabs in Opera for quite some time. It got fixed but damn did it take forever.

My point is, at least in my case, Sandboxie was NOT a set and forget application. Well it was, up to a point. Afterwards things started breaking more frequently. They fix one thing, another breaks. Microsoft releases an update to something, and BAM, sandboxie no longer works properly. Have to wait for Invincea to fix any issues that have arisen. And they are not very fast at that.

I don't care whose fault it is or how difficult it is. I paid money for a lifetime license and expect for the program to work well. In theory it should, right? Invincea is a large company with a lot of money, resources and experience in the field. Surely they can develop Sandboxie correctly, patch it in a timely manner, and basically know how to implement its protection so it isn't fragile that one Patch Tuesday later it all goes down the toilet? Well... Practice shows that they cannot. At least in my opinion. It might work for everybody else, but isn't for me.

I might give it a try again maybe in a few months and/or after one or two stable versions have been released already. For the time being however, I decided to get rid of it. I just got sick of waiting for fixes or trying to find my own. Basically, I got sick of adjusting to the software, whereas it should be the software that should be adjusting to me, or at least not make my life more difficult than it already is.

 

OK I see, this is understandable. Often this is a case of conflicts with other software though. For example, on my system HMPA made SBIE malfunction. And it's not clear why, others don't seem to have this problem on Win 8. So yes it can be frustrating.

But keep in mind that not all apps are able to run sandboxed. I use it mostly to quickly test software, and to protect certain browsers. In the future I will also try to run office software inside the sandbox.

 

There shouldn't have been any conflicts in my case as I don't use any other 3rd party security software. My security setup was SUA + AppLocker + Sandboxie. Now it's SUA + AppLocker + EMET.

The thing is I'm angry also because Sandboxie was one of the very few security applications that I liked the concept of. Virtualization programs like Shadow Defender and ToolWiz TimeFreeze were just too inconvenient for me. There isn't a single HIPS program that works on a 64-bit version of Windows that is free, stable, up-to-date and respectable (for me personally). I consider all blacklist-based security software (antivirus/antimalware) to be obsolete or at very least sub-optimal for any advanced user/geek/nerd.
Sandboxie managed to hit a pretty good balance of configurability, resource usage, complexity and protection so I was happy for a while. Now that's gone too. Oh well, life goes on.

 

That is indeed a bit weird. BTW, I did that see you mentioned Opera, I also had problems to run it smoothly, same goes for the latest Vivaldi. Seems like some Chrome based browsers give SBIE a hard time.

 

Question about FF and Sandboxie. When I have FF sandboxed, it doesn't save the settings. Like, when I update ublock filters, every time I open FF, the filters are out of date. And other settings also.

 

Did you install FF inside or outside the sandbox? Perhaps you should also give FF direct access to the profile folder via Sandbox Settings ---> Applications.

 

I took FF out of the sandbox to update the filters. Seems ok now. Direct access to the FF folder?

 

Ok, Got it, I'll take a look, thanks.

 

I don't use ublock but I believe it saves its settings, options in file "ublock.sqlite"...look for that file inside your Firefox profile folder, giving sandboxed Firefox access to that specific file instead of the entire Firefox profile folder is probably more secure.

Bo

 

Hello,
Sometimes I run Firefox sandbox'd in Shadow Mode.
Sandboxie config is direct access to entire Firefox profile folder. I know most feel this is wrong.
Anyway, I Commit Firefox profile before exist shadow mode.
Normal mode finds all bookmark flavicons stripped and all bookmarks made in shadow mode lost.
I like running Firefox sandbox'd in Shadow Mode as no performance ding.
I just can't seem to Commit Firefox profile as expected.
Bookmarks and eg: changes to NoScript or ABP don't seem to consistently survive back to normal mode.
Does Commit before or after dump sand make a difference.
Perhaps, Commit Profile is too much.
Suggestions please...
Thanks SBIE 4.20 + SD .588

 

Peter2150,
Lets try a simpler approach. Suppose, I Commit bookmarks/places and cookies.
Does Commit before or after dump sand make a difference.

 

To make things simple, you could add your Firefox profile folder to the Exclusions list in Shadow defender. If you do that and continue to allow Direct access to the Firefox profile folder, you ll save bookmarks and changes done sandboxed and in Shadow mode to ABP and NoScript.

Or, you can instead (I suggest), Allow direct access and add to Shadow defenders Exclusion list the specific files where Firefox saves what you want to save when running Firefox sandboxed in Shadow mode:
places.sqlite
prefs.js
patterns

By allowing access to patterns, you ll save changes to Adblock done sandboxed and in Shadow mode. prefs.js does the same for NoScript and places.sqlite for bookmarks. This files are inside Firefox profile folder. patterns is inside an Adblock folder inside the Firefox profile folder.

Bo

 

Well, I cleared out my Exclusions because SD users prompted Commit as better practice.
Where can I find a listing of what all the Firefox/Chrome Profile files equate to eg: places.sqlite = bookmarks

 

This link can be helpful but it doesn't include anything about files where addons save their settings. Many addons save their settings in prefs.js, like NoScript does but many don't. To know where an addon saves its settings, etc, you have to kind of find out about that on your own.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_folder_-_Firefox#Files

I agree that is best not to add too many files or folders to the exclusion list. In my personal case, I only have an exclusion for Firefox bookmarks, nothing else. But you want to save a lot out of Firefox and using the Commit option to do all you want is kind of inconvenient, I think.

Bo

 

Well, to see what if..
I created three new bookmarks while Sandbox'd in Shadow.
I Committed places.sqlite. before I emptied sandbox.
Back in normal mode I had two out of three okay and one broken bookmark that would not delete. I used Places Maintenance extension to clean up the broken bookmark.
places.sqlite file is >10250kb. Is that too large.
What's the difference between places.sqlite file and bookmarkbackups File folder.
Guess, I need to take this back to Shadow Defender Topic.
Just don't know if there's something going hinky between Sandboxie direct access and Shadow Mode.

 

been there done that....simply curious again, whether sandbox in shadow consistently recovers data to normal volume for users....and if so, what might I be doing wrong...
I mean it's a bookmark ... set aside recover an ABP filter or NS whitelist.
I'd simply like to consistently recover un-corrupted bookmarks...that's simple.
Then I'll apply that protocol to other data.

 

If you allow access to the files I mentioned in post 1618, saving bookmarks, etc, out of Shadow mode should work smoothly with SBIE. The only time I had a problem saving a bookmark out of Shadow mode and Sandboxie was a time when I had created a new Firefox profile and had not changed the exclusion to the correct new file in Shadow defenders Exclusions list.

Bo

 

Yes, I was just about to thank you for 1618 and 1620.
I did notice last night that my Firefox bookmarks have a number of mirrors.
No idea if bookmarks in 6 places is as designed. I've imported from Chrome maybe twice+ and I've imported HTML maybe twice+. And I've run Places Maintenance and Flavicon Reloader several times. IDK if bookmarks in 4 places is WAD. Guess, I need a duplicate bookmark finder.

I think you mentioned Exclude profile folder. So, the size would not be an issue (in theory) or were you suggesting Exclude simply as logical alternative to Commit.
Have you or have you heard of any data loss as I've observed.
If we're all seeing data loss by sandbox in shadow Commit (profile) then sure, I'll switch gears.
I have no desire to bang my head.
However, if I'm the only user losing data then....kinda' like to sort it out.
I'm curious... as to best practice parameters for Commit.
I'll pursue Commit over at Shadow Defender thread. Thanks!!!