Poll: Is Sandboxing in v4.0 Necessary or Desired?

Please give your opinion on the Sandboxing feature of CIS v4.0.

Zero informational value + Blocking unknown apps = Useless

Not necessary, but welcomed as an (working) option.

I don’t really see why it’s needed since CIS is pretty darned secure as it is without it. I don’t think it will always have usability benefits in it’s current form either. In fact I think the opposite might wind up being the case for a lot of people, especially the gamers among us. I don’t have a problem with it being an option though. I just hope that disabling it will not have adverse effects on security and will just revert CIS4 to the behavior we now have in V3 which is fine for me.

We were told this is a patent pending feature but not told what the feature is. It ment to be an invisible option to reduce the number of pop-ups but seems to me llike not integrated into CIS. Or I don’t understand it at least.

I don’t think they know what they’re doing.

Or they are beeing misdirected by who’s in charge.

I think it’s going to be integrated with the behavioral blocker. In that regard I think it will be very useful.

What I would like to see added is the ability to see which files are currently being sandboxed.

Being a relatively new user of this product but having read a lot of the forum entries, especially the wish list, it seems to me that the sandbox has been implemented at the cost of a great many user requested features.

It also seems to me that the main goal of this addition is to reduce the number of popups that some people moan about and not much else.

I welcome the “idea” of anything but a suspect program in a security system is a liability that compromises the system as a whole. If it’s working as it should as an option, fine, if not, admit it and move forward. Don’t leave it as a “viable” program and deny there is a problem and leave it. (CTM) >:(

It’s a nice idea in theory but usability needs to be much improved before CIS v4 is released.

I voted Not necessary, but welcomed as an option. For me it is not needed that badly. The ideal implementation for my situation would be to have the sandbox as an option in the D+ alerts with the sandbox disabled by default.

That being said I think sandboxing as a way of reducing alerts is an interesting way to go and has a strong potential for the users who don’t want to know about the nuts and bolts.

I agree with andyman that usability definitely needs improvements. Luckily Comodo is working on that. My guess would be that we might see usability improvements in a next RC…

In theory, I like the idea of reducing number of alerts using sandbox and use it to run risky apps.

However, the current sandbox implementation cause strange behaviour in sandboxed applications as described in the post below and I must disable file system virtualization in order to delete a file. >:(


Good idea but bad implemetation. So cannot make a vote!


One simple way to reduce popups is to have 2 buttons on any D+ alert. 1. Trust publisher (= no more popups for this program) 2.xyz.exe is a Trusted Program (=program is added to safe list=> no more popups).

Its a little weird. The various popups were created to pass leaktests as designed by matousec (i’ve been reading/using since v2) and now that we have an AV we are going the way of a traditional AV (which is evolving into one where everyone is AV+ Behavioural blocker).

This popup fascination is a little troubling.

+1 slangen


In my opinion, the sandbox are necessary.

Less, the CISv4 its no more different of the CISv3.

Virtualisation is the futur…sandbox to.