Sandboxie-Plus 1.0.8

I agree. No to the new 'special upgrade mode'.

'Mr.X said: ↑
@DavidXanatos
No to that new feature suggestion.'

'I adhere to @stapp 's @plat1098 's @sevenstar 's and @Freki123 's comments.
Same here. Don't use the "special upgrade mode" I proposed and continue to do it the way you prefer and/or did before.'

 

Not exactly sure what you mean? Any faked updater from inside the sandbox would not be able to willfully execute this newly proposed "special upgrade mode" as only a human admin-user from outside the Sandbox could do this. And if that "fake updater" on the other hand could perfectly feign the legitimate update-process - well then you would fall for it, too and disable "forced folders" yourself to let it run outside of the Sandbox purposefully. What I've suggested is just a new and more convenient mode for doing exactly that. And again - you are completely free to never use it if you dont't trust it. That new mode would have to be willfully triggered from outside the box and therefore would not be able to be exploited in any form from some malware-process running within.

 

Nothing would change for you as long as you don't willfully use it. if that mode would really be such a disaster as the overwhelming majority here seems to agree - then why is there an explicit option to run a program outside the sandbox in that right-click-menu at all? Only thing is it is implemented in a somewhat inconsequent way as, if selected, it does not overrule any "forced-folders"-setting.

 

Please understand, David has introduced many features I consider great or useful. But they somehow, has introduced bugs/, issues too. Also David works a lot to fix them.

If this feature you wish David thinks it won't cause issues then it's fine. I'm not against the feature per se but the issues it might provoke.

 

In my mind, I am wondering how much more DavidX can justify keeping this wonderful software "free." That's my main hesitation. I recall paying for Sandboxie back when Sophos had it and it never ran this cleanly or securely (according to the changelogs I've read).

It's not the updater revision request--believe me--so much as the work that goes into developing it and incorporating the requests and then, as already stated, having to issue new builds to fix what went wrong in the old ones. I don't think Sandboxie is his day job, is it? Sorry, don't want to seem overly familiar here but it's a meaningful point to make.

 

If I were the betting type, I'd wager a poll would suggest that an overwhelmingly vast majority of Sandboxie users would neither care about nor miss a "special upgrade mode." AFAIK, no other sandbox or virtualization app has the need for the proposed implementation.

 

My vote would be: no.

 

I vote no also. I appreciate new features but I keep thinking of other software that just becomes bloated and hard to maintain with so much stuff. Maybe I'm just a keep it simple guy but I like Sandboxie just the way it is without overcomplicating it. I actually prefer to update my apps outside of Sandboxie. To me that's a feature. If this is being considered then lets at least put it to a vote to see if people want it and if it's worth the time invested in programming and tracking down bugs.

 

Another no here.

 

Now that is understood. But since my proposal would only affect a very special branch of operation (enhanced right-click-menu) I wouldn't expect its implementation to cause any issues in the normal course of operation. And any initial bugs in the new code-segments should only affect those who would consider using that new pathway.

 

Those concerns are understood, too. To remedy this situation I can think of 2 future strategies. First it would perhaps be a good idea to split the whole project - as already put into practice in a preliminary manner - into two branches. One stable version, mostly as is, with mainly bugfixes once the necessity for those occurs - and one experimental version with more enhancements for supporters of the project. When I bought a life-long license from the initial developer things (and software) used to work quite flawlessly. Most of the so-called issues were introduced only later by browser-"improvements" (such as creating their own low-reliability-sandboxes), subsequent OS-changes and under the Invincea/Sophos-rule. And the second strategy would be to offer such enhanced versions, once they become stable enough, as newly payed upgrades.

 

Well, concluding from the reactions I've received so far you might be right. And still the fact remains that until roughly one year ago I could upgrade my browsers within Sandboxie without issues. And there still remains the nuisance of Chrome auto-updating at unexpected time-intervals and thereby getting crippled when that auto-update is initiated within a Sandbox by Sbie-"forced-folders"-section.

 

So what is your solution for updating Chrome? No problem to do it outside the sandbox - as long as you know WHEN that is going to happen. Because if you're unaware of a pending update you would start Chrome sandboxed as normal - only to have it crippled by an untimely auto-update.

 

Same here. No need for you to use that feature if you don't like it.

 

Hi algol1. I realise this question wasn't directed to me, but in the interests of offering a potentially helpful solution, I'll tell what I do. My habit each morning is to open an unsandboxed instance of Edge/Chrome/Brave i.e. whichever Chromium browser I'm planning to use, and checking for updates, then checking for updates to extensions, & finally checking to updates to my ad blocking solution filter lists. Once I've done that I can be confident that an update won't occur in the hours I'm planning to use the browser sandboxed. Some may find this cumbersome, but it's been my practice ever since Sandboxie & Chrome updates got broken the first time around, which was back in Sophos days (possibly even Invincea - it's hard to remember now). It was fixed temporarily before breaking again, but I've just kept that habit going. I'm usually doing other stuff at the same time, so for me it's not really a time consuming thing. I haven't had a single episode of Chrome or any Chromium browser breaking as a result of checking for/trying to apply an update while sandboxed in all the years I've been doing this.

 

There's probably a good reason the developers of all current sandboxing and virtualization software have never considered the implementation of a "special upgrade mode." And the most likely reason is that their users really don't need it to stay safer.
Ergo, woefully unnecessary overhead and consequently a waste of time.

 

@stapp..Very well said.

 

Why do you have to disable the "forced-folders"-mode first and then re-enable it again?

The "Disable Forced Programs" function, which has always been included, pauses (for an adjustable period of time) both "Forced Programs" and "Forced Folders". You can access this function via "Sandboxie Control" or via the context menu of the tray icon.

I honestly don't see any real difference to the pause function you asked for.


https://sandboxie-plus.com/sandboxie/programstartsettings/
Quote: "Forced Folders can be temporarily suspended using the Disable Forced Programs command."
https://sandboxie-plus.com/sandboxie/filemenu/
https://sandboxie-plus.com/sandboxie/trayiconmenu/
I assume that this function is also available in the Plus version.

 

Thanks for the advice - although I have to say that I find this approach most cumbersome indeed. I also remember having set the Google-update-service to manual mode as an interim solution long time ago but it got set back to autostart again without my permission after the next willful Chrome-update. So a mythological figure named Sisyphos comes to one's mind

What has been fixed again once could perhaps be fixed one more time - just saying.

But what I really do not understand in this thread is the strong aversion from all sides against a proposal that would automatically pause sandboxing for 2 instances of forced calls ON EXPLICIT USER DEMAND and then re-enabling it again automatically - when practically everyone here seems to agree, that this is precisely what he/she does manually and in many steps to update their browsers outside the sandbox. I could imagine that in particular users with your tedious approach to the problem would profit most from my proposal. But of course everyone is entitled to his own favorite solution. I have absolutely no intention of indoctrinating other people.

 

Well, disabling Sanndboxie "forced-folders" first to update browsers outside the sandbox and re-enabling it again afterwards is certainly not a matter of two clicks against one. We're closer to 10 clicks each time for that purpose IIRC and shouldn't create downplaying false narratives here. And some seem to even undergo that procedure every day as has been described above. So automating that step to some degree would be quite helpful, I assume.

As for my perceived "assault" on DavidX with the split into two branches I have to say that this has pretty much been his own idea. We have to keep in mind that now - once a stable release v1.0/v1.1 has been established - the time and effort for keeping this free "as-is version" maintained should shrink considerably and for the more innovative extended branch he could at least generate additional money to somewhat compensate his efforts. The more powerful new features could be added the more people would be ready to pay for further development, one would assume.

 

BUMMER!!! I really haven't been aware of that one. So what I've been proposing and what everybody here seems to dislike - has already been implemented in a different way. Holy cow, thanks for this lesson learned and end of discussion.

One more question though. There is a value of "60" pre-selected in "Sandboxie Control". Does that mean seconds? So default would be pause for 1 minute?

 

Yes, 60 seconds. You can change it in whatever you like.

 

Thanks for the info. I must confess I've really been unaware of this time-field-entry in "Sandboxie Control"/Sandman_GUI and therefore always mis-interpreted the right-click-tray-option to "Disable Forced Programs" as totally prohibiting the programs in the forced-list from running at all. And since my false interpretation of that option didn't make much sense to me I've never used it and didn't even try it out.

Perhaps it would then be a good idea to rename that tray-icon-option into - more precisely - "PAUSE ForcING Programs".

 

A suggestion for David: It should be added a clarification relating to this fact: "in seconds" or something like that.

Just for clarification too:

The possibility to choose the period of time for disabling forced programs is available only when chosing the command "Disable Forced Programs" via "Sandboxie Control", not when chosing it via context menu of the tray icon. I missed it there and I found the following hint on David's page:

(source: https://sandboxie-plus.com/sandboxie/filemenu/)

I do not know if there is a specific reason for this distinction. If not, perhaps this possibility should be available wherever I choose the command "Disable Forced Programs" (either in Sandboxie Control or in Tray Icon Menu).

And just I see the following suggestion:

Hmmm. I know what you mean and I support a renaming. But because of my limited English I misunderstood your suggestion too. So perhaps a small addition: "Pause Forcing OF Programs" or "Pause THE Forcing OF Programs" or "Pause PROGRAM FORCING" (if this is correct English ). So it is still a little bit more clear that with this command you don't pause programs but their running within Sandboxie.

And (to my mind) a possible renaming should not only happen in the tray-icon-option but also in the command via Sandboxie Control (as it is the same functionality).