Sandboxie-Plus 1.11.0, 1.11.1 Pre-Release

Update: The 'about' screen glitch (post #40) appears with v1.11+(0, 0a,0b,0d).

 

either win7 specific, or you are using a different font and/or theme for windows. the window header is very different from default.

 

I've bought a licence (subscription type), and the Advanced Encryption Pack. I get a popup stating "The program UseSecurityMode started in box New_Box will be terminated in 5 minutes because the box was configured to use features exclusively available to project supporters.", and I don't know where to put the key for the "Advanced Encryption Pack". I feel really frustrated! I don't know if I bought the right licenses, but if I didn't your subscription model is way too complicated!

 

You enter the certificate from the main license in the top window:

and press ok,
once that saved you enter the udpate key for the encryption pack in the line edit below and press get
this will update the certificate to one with the advanced encryption feature.
then you can close the window with ok.

here is a guide how to apply a cert https://sandboxie-plus.com/applying-supporter-certificate/
I'll update it soon ton include the hew cert update mechanism

 

Thanks David. That worked. From the image you sent, I saw that I didn't have the latest version (I didn't have/got the edit field for the SBIE number), so I downloaded it from GitHub. Apparently you didn't update your download page: https://sandboxie-plus.com/downloads/. There 1.10.5 is still the latest version (which is where I got my installation from).

EDIT:
LOVING the new encrypted feature! Thx!

 

@stapp Thanks for your clear explanation.

 

I’ve tried the encryption option, and like it a lot. However, I cannot get Forced programs to work. When I force any program to load in the encrypted box, it gets suspended. When I Right click on the box and use the Run command for the same sandbox, it works just fine.

 

Win7x64, v1.11.0e (portable). Trying out an Encrypted CryptoBox with AutoDelete=y.
When contents are deleted, Sandman UI "Info" Column is blank (should show "Empty").
Un-mounting, then mounting Box Image did not help.
No such issue with a RamDisk Box.

 

New pre-release

Download: https://github.com/sandboxie-plus/Sandboxie/releases/tag/v1.11.1

Added

• added 'RamDiskLetter=R:' option allowing to mount the ramdisk root to a drive letter

Changed

• changed the new option layout to now be the default for non-vintage views (can be changed back in the settings)

Fixed

• fixed issue when re-creating a rambox junction
• fixed Sandboxie logo scaling in the setup wizards #3227
• fixed text cut-off in box creation wizard #3226
• fixed Windows 7 compatibility issue with ImBox.exe
• fixed issue with 'UseNewSymlinkResolver=y'
• fixed SandMan crash in Vintage View mode #3264
• fixed pinning of more than one shortcut that points at the same file #3259

 

Well that makes sense i assume you don't have the box root pre mounted right? When the box root is not mounted nothing can run in it, and to be mounted the PW is required so no way to auto mount it

 

Attention - use extreme caution when upgrading to v11.1.1 - Attention

This is still a preliminary report. But when upgrading to v.11.1.1 Sandboxie has played some pretty nasty trick on me!
After the upgrade from a running v11.1.0-system all of a sudden NONE of my installed Internet-browsers (Opera, Opera_Dev, Chrome, Firefox, even Edge and MS-ie) would start up any more!

Upon opening Sandman I got this:



Unfortunately I have to consider this "foul play" as I have not invoked any more advanced features after that upgrade than have been active under a standard-license before the upgrade - and now? "Rien ne va plus!"

Also no mention, not even a hint, which feature finally turned out to be "the straw that broke the camel's back". I can only assume that it might be correlated to trying out the newly introduced feature of "outsourcing" the Sandbox-contents to a virtual RAM-Disk. But no encryption has been applied here and so I have to consider it an unfriendly act that my efforts to figure out how to correctly apply the newly introduced RAM-Disk-feature are now "rewarded" by a crippled system without Internet access!

I still consider testing to be an input to the Sandboxie-project, too. Because when I decide to buy an advanced supporter license I can/would expect a working, mature product which does not require any further experimenting and testing. So if a prior standard feature is suddenly made "exclusive" to "advanced project supporters" with a new upgrade the least thing one could expect is a warning that certain features are no longer available for standard-users BEFORE MAKING THE UPGRADE and disabling these features automatically when the upgrade is made instead of leaving the user behind with a no-Internet-access-system.

The strange thing is, even after exiting Sandboxie altogether none of the mentioned browsers would come up UNSANDBOXED either. So for now I'm back to v.1.11.0 where things still work - still without a clue which settings would have to be taken back to make v.1.11.1 work again.

 

It is still a pre release build so things may not work as expected, the ram box should work with any supporter certificate.
So just to confirm you have a supporter certificate but ram disk fails for you?

About other issues, perhaps this change "UseNewSymlinkResolver=y" is not yet fully working as you can see here https://github.com/sandboxie-plus/Sandboxie/issues/3181 we run through quite a few tests and iterations. you can try disabling the new mechanism by adding "UseNewSymlinkResolver=n"

 

@algol1
I think I have found the issue, there is a bug when handling SUBSCRIPTION certificates, it will be fixed in the next build,
I assume your about dialog looks like this

level 0 int he sub text indicates an error

Further more I have sent out updated certificates to all users whom got a new cert of this type changed such that it should work with the existing builds.
Could you please confirm you got it and that now is working as it should?

Please excuse the issue but as said its a pre-release build, that's why we have pre-release builds to catch such things before the release goes mainstream.

Further more I would like to offer you a free upgrade to an advanced cert, just drop me an PM

 

I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding. I've been using the FREE version so far, so no subscription certificate of any kind and therefore I didn't receive any upgraded certificate either.

My "about"-dialog looks like this:


My current problem with certificates is that they currently can only be rented on an annual basis. Long ago I bought a "lifelong version" (whatever that is supposed to mean) still under the Ronen-Tzur-era and would be willing to do again for the new Sandboxie-Plus, however not on an annual-rental-basis as I do not RENT software at all on principle (not unlike you, I assume).

The thing is, like you correctly pointed out, as with today's SSDs I do not really need the RAM-Disk-feature either. I was just willing to give it a try and test it out. Would have been nice although if that new feature - if only meant for rental-certificate-holders - would have been indicated in v.1.11.0 as being unavailable in the free version in the first place AND THEREFORE HAVE BEEN GREYED-OUT.

Letting free-version-users first in to try it out - only to then practically disabling/crippling the whole Sandboxie-use automatically on the next upgrade was certainly not a good idea and I can only assume this happened unintentionally. As for comparison with encryption it was clear from the beginning that this was meant to be an advanced-only-feature (which I absolutely do not need either) and therefore standard-users were not even tricked into trying it out.

So summarizing I would suggest that new features meant to not be working for a certain certificate-level should be GREYED OUT in Sandman from the get-go until a proper certificate would be detected so that as a consequence a mere version-upgrade could never cripple the whole use of Sandboxie altogether again.

 

The Personal type certificate (formally Medium and also Large) are NOT a rental model, see the feature comparison table https://sandboxie-plus.com/feature-comparison/ they work for the current build + 1 year of updates forever. You only need to get a new one if you want to use a build compiled > 1 (2 for Large) year from the date of purchase.
So eider when there is a new feature you want or a fix you need.
If you are happy with the last eligible build you can keep using it as long as you want with all the features it had unlocked remaining unlocked.

I also don't rent software that's why there is and will always be the Personal certificate option.

Now to why does the Personal option only include a limited time of free updates, and not like in the Ronen-Tzur-era free updates for ever. That is because free updates for a product that needs constant maintenance is not a viable business model, that is unless your aim is to grow the user basis fast and then sell the Project/Problem to someone else what in the end Tzuk did by selling it to Invincia for a lot of $$$.
Infinite work for a one time payment is selling oneself into slavery. One performs some work another one pays $ for that work, if another one wants more work to be performed another $ payment is required, isn't that fair.

Sure for software which requires to be done once and not need constant maintenance a one time payment is ok, but Sandboxie is not this kind of software.

Look on for example windows, you needed to buy every new version upgrade separately, and as soon as MSFT decided to allow people free upgrades 7->10->11 they switched to collecting user data, showing ads in the start menu and well the users stopped being the customers and started to be the product being sold, I don't think this is desirable.


The ram disk option was previously deployed in the private insider build on patreon, hence it did not have all the required checks, in place, that has been corrected already with the 1.11.0.b or c revision
It indicated with an icon and a message box when no certificate is present that one is required, here:


and here



ups that one is still missing, will fix that for the next build.

again its a pre-release and as seen here https://github.com/sandboxie-plus/Sandboxie/issues/3181 the new "UseNewSymlinkResolver=y" broke any start of any program when a VHD was mounted to a folder in the root of C, some issues in special cases must be expected with a pre-release build, including such that completely break everything.
You are right in the case of the RamDisk feature bugs which are related to licensing have a particularly bad look, but in the end are just bugs like all other, the goal is to have all of them squashed by the time we make it a final release.

A large company would have the resources to run a lot of tests in all the thinkable scenarios and would not need pre-release builds, but I myself can only test so much hence there are the pre-releases to crowd source the testing, and sometimes not even that is enough.
In my excuse if you look on the quality of updates mega corporations like MSFT are releasing, they are not less buggy by any means.


Now this incident did actually gave me an idea, that is to create a official tester program, where users can apply and selected testers would receive free certificates, the expectation would be that in turn they run a set of tests and report back.

Also I wonder if github's marking of a release as pre-release is enough? Should I add idk. a pop up to the installer for a pre-release that its a pre-release, or to sandman itself?
I remember some time ago a user or two on github had a breaking issue with a pre-release and was complain not being aware that they installed a pre-release and issues are to be expected else it would be final.

What do you think?

 

A big extra disclaimer never hurts. Maybe something with a extra checkbox they have to click before they can install it.
I have an working backup [yes/no] and know that this is a pre-release that may lead to all kind of problems and I'm ok with that[yes/no]. If you then didn't get the message the joke (problem) is on you

 

On principle I agree with your remarks on a viable business-model and on the conclusion that Ronen Tzur's "lifelong" upgrade model did turn out as a ruse in the end and left those (no-longer-)-customers in the lurch in the end after the selloff and changing browser-behavior breaking compatibility rather sooner than later.

And that is also my problem still with the "Personal Option". If I decide to buy it now albeit not really needing all the advanced options I get one year of free upgrades - and then? When the next browser-"upgrade" would break compatibility once again (perhaps even because of an old, dormant Ronen-Tzur-coding-blunder/sloppiness as has already turned out to be the case in the past) - what then? As it stands now I would have to buy another "Personal Option" while the free-version-users would get the necessary fix for free - assuming you would still be on the job which to be honest isn't guaranteed either.

So logic would tell me that "Personal Option"-customers should never be worse off than the "freeloaders". Therefore as to compensate the former group and honor their basic contribution some kind of fallback-option would be required which would guarantee at least basic OS/browser-compatibility even beyond the respective upgrade-period while only stripping the product of all the less important advanced/premium-features but still maintaining basic functionality which the "freeloaders" would further get for free as well.

As for the "official tester program" I tend to be somewhat sceptical. Maybe a good idea - but then the exact scope of expected regular testing should be precisely agreed upon first b/c otherwise you might end up with a ton of alibi-testers who are in fact only after those free licenses.

Topic "pre-release-marking": from my perspective this is more than sufficient - even as of now. I certainly knew well that I was installing a pre-release and after - for whatever reasons - it had crippled my Internet-browsing I went back to v.1.11.0 again. While having that said I still hold that a mere upgrade should not render a system completely dysfunctional for meanwhile tightened licensing conditions which did work flawlessly under the previous version. So my suggestion still is - if a feature is not meant to work under the currently valid license model: -> GREY IT OUT in Sandman.

 

Well isn't the fallback as described not already the case you just install a newer version and it gets stripped of all the advanced/premium-features, i.e. fallback to free mode, as the cert is not being recognized as valid anymore.
What would you want to remain and what to be stripped?

 

Well, that would be up for you to decide - but at least it had to further work with the same scope of features as are present in the free version now. But just in case all of those extra features should be turned back off automatically then - that is exactly to avoid the unpleasant experience I had now that without a proper cert recognized all customary Sandboxie-services (like opening standard browsers) would bluntly and all of a sudden be stopped - even without any warning about the cause of the "phenomenon" - just to issue a message much later on (that is when opening Sandman manually) stating some of the currently selected Sandbox-features (whoever knows which) would exceed the scope of free-version-capabilities.

Perhaps a hint already as part of the installation-process should be mandatory warning the user that installation of the intended update would leave the scope of allowed updates under the current license and would require the purchase of a new one or otherwise advanced options would be stripped. For instance my current, well-proven editor called "ultraedit" does that and keeps me from inadvertently losing my licensed status by installing an unnecessary update no longer covered by the license once bought by me. Also upon reaching my update-limit I was offered the choice of disabling any auto-updates from then on. That example seems like the proper way to handle such a situation.

 

That sounds like a Great solution how ultraedit does it.
I’ll have to check them out.

Also thanks for the work on SandBoxie Plus.

 

Using "encrypt sandbox content" with box encryption and it is awesome. I have been trying to figure out the box protection tab in the security options for my encrypted browser box and have a query. When I check "protect processes within this box from host processes" - it seems that this decision is final and I cannot allow any other processes through in the allow/deny section below, once that box protection choice is checked above. What I really want to do it block out all the processes from my sandbox with one exception -- the process(es) that allows my browser (Firefox) to output hdmi audio stream. Looking at all the 1318/1317 messages blows my mind at the sheer number of access tries at the box root level. Bottom line - I have no clue which process to allow to hear audio from youtube, but if anyone has any ideas I would love it!