I have this issue confirmed by other people, that's why i do not comment here.I don't want confrontation.As simple as that.And I will never comment SB again, here.
p.s.Sorry for my "trolling"!
Seems you weren't trolling...I was merely suggesting it, since you failed to reply (after making a very bold matter-of-fact claim). As stated, I have confirmed with tzuk that Sandboxie is NOT bypassed by this malware (in fact, there's absolutely nothing special about this piece of malware - there are thousands out there that are very similar). I can understand why "other people" think
it is bypassed (and why you did/do too), because it appears that the original file disappears after it is executed sandboxed. However, the original file remains as it is, and what you see disappear is all taking place in the sandbox.
If one doesn't have a good understanding of Sandboxie, one can make mistakes when interpreting how it performs. I suppose the hard part can be admitting that one did make a mistake.
Your comments here induce a feeling that the "issue" is still unclear. However, it is very clear. There is no bypass at all. The fact that you "will never comment SB again" is beyond my understanding. Let's think about why I accused you of trolling with this example:
1. I make the following statement on the Comodo forums: "CIS 5 RC is bypassed by this malware file
2. You send the malware file to egeman and he informs you that there is NO bypass whatsoever etc.
3. You post a reply saying that there is no bypass.
4. I fail to make any reply. Then when prompted, I write the following: "I have this issue confirmed by other people, that's why i do not comment here.I don't want confrontation.As simple as that.And I will never comment CIS again, here."