but I have to agree with him re: many questions that still exist and sandboxing is one of them indeed.
The previous thread was closed and I am again not sure why was that done?
The reason is simple – not all will test beta – you know that very well. Some users have strong opinion about not testing betas on their working computers / not all have a spare one.
So if this thread is just for those who are testing and “focusing” please do not forget those who just have questions and what to be prepared to switch later.
Probably there should be a separate dedicated thread for that … I don’t know?.. otherwise “just questions” kinda do not belong here based on “how it works” philosophy.
Finally, since I could not answer to arjunpa in the locked thread and my answer actually contains a question about sandboxing I will post it here
Its really isnt off topic because if u r not interested in CAV then u wont test the AV part of CIS v4(my guess).
So i just want to get a feedback sort of thing.
Why cant u just try?? Atleast what if it can exceed ur expectations??...
If you are insisting I 'll try briefly:
Yes, I will not test AV part of CIS v4 (I tested previous version);
I have not much expectations re: sandboxing as well based on mentioned implementation especially for x64 (for 32 bit I can use existing proven solutions). In addition to that I am not a fan of the “trusted approach”, so to speak, and its connection and work in conjunction with Defense+. My only hope is that disabling sandboxing will not break Defense's functionality and leave it “as is”
Basically the one and only product from current list of all Comodo’s developments I am still interested in - is the Firewall and nothing else.
A hope I answered your questions this time
======= just in case here is the questions being put a bit differently.
I hope developers and/or testers will answer:
Can one disable sandboxing so that will not break Defense’s functionality and leave it “as is” ? Or Is there an option during the installation like “Do not install sandbox…” or alike ?
As I remember, at the earlier stages of just mentioning sandbox as a future development it was said the the function will not be integrated and implemented as standalone.
There is not an option on the installer to not install the sandbox but the sandbox can be disabled after install. Whether defence+ functions normally after (like in version 3) i am not sure. I sure hope so.
What I don’t like about cis4 :
-the red theme hurts my eyes (red andblue colours are beginers choice)
-the icon in the tray is too fuzzy, blured
-the icons in the v3 interface looked better
-i can’t find an option to see what applications are running “right now” sandboxed (Please do something about this)
wow, reduced number of pop-ups, it feels realy goood
I will refrain from commenting in this thread since I am not testing yet.
Just a few notes at the moment:
Defense+ does work as normal. But it will ACT like how Defense+ in v3 did, meaning you will not get elevated privileges alert. I am not aware of the technical details.
the “but…” in the context makes it unclear – since implies contrasting/confronting with what has already been mentioned.
It would be nice on the contrary to have technical details from the developers…
…the “elevated privileges alert(s)” by … the system ? – that cannot be the case, by the Defense… why? – there were alerts about debug privileges for instance, or you are saying that now if say some program or installer granting itself debug privileges (or else) the Defense will be silent when sandbox is not in use?.. all that definitely requires clarification.
I'll likely disable Sandbox because it's more security tech than I need, not to mention it adds more to the file & registry system. More technology means more things to learn all over again.
First, I’m glad to see you back :-TU (I missed the “greeting thread” & discovered it only late last night)
Then, I am sure that you have enough technical skills and the ability to learn , so that’s not the main reason for disabling…
I will disable that too - I have more that just doubts that the processes can be invoked outside the box in this “non-hookable” implementation…
One thing is for sure - you are some hard working man!
I hope that the efforts here are beneficial and healthy for improving your ass-kicking karate skills ;D
… but another thing, which is definite(?) - that is not just because of alleged compatibility issues and being beta … there is much more to that - the thing most likely will never work properly… unless … a lot of “political” issues concerning MS approach will change (Yeah! Right! Aha!)
That 's how I see it and that’s why I’m not even go near & close to this sandbox.
p.s. However, I have to admit that I do understand current MS restrictions.
At the same time, I am absolutely sure that it can be done differently and many problems could be solved.
a bit !ot! This issue is actually easier to solve than the shameless MS excuse for dropping the support of more than 3.5GB memory on XP… (sad & repulsive at the same time)
I love the option to submit files for review straight from Defense+ alert. I also love how if you get an option for a signed file it gives the option to trust that vendor. I do hope however that files submitted from that screen will be analyzed and the vendor soon added to the trusted vendors list. This would be nice.
I was hoping that the problem of multiple alerts when installing drivers would be fixed. Perhaps an option could be added to temporarily allow driver installation. It is very annoying.