Sandboxie 3.43.13 Beta

[jalaffa]

<img src="http://nsanedown.com/images/logos/Sandboxie.png" class="logo" alt="Sandboxie" title="Sandboxie" />When you browse the Web, changes occur to your computer system. Some of these might be harmful, like the unsolicited installation of malware. When you use Sandboxie to protect your browsing session, it catches all these changes just as the browser is about to apply them into your computer system. Sandboxie does record these changes on behalf of the browser, but it records them in a special isolated folder, called the sandbox. Thus, with Sandboxie, you can browse the Web securely while still keeping all your browser's functionality for active and dynamic content, such as javascript and ActiveX. All undesired side effects can be easily undone.

<a href="http://www.nsanedown.com/?request=12225906" target="_blank">Download</a>

[Night Owl]

Thank you for the update.

I'm just a little worried about what the author said two days ago about the 64-bit version:

And the new tune is this: Let's suppose that in the future 10% of malware (which would be a huge number) is going to be aware of Sandboxie on 64-bit and try to restart itself outside the sandbox. So (a you are still protected from the other 90% of malware. And (b I can play a game of arms race with that 10% of malware.

Now from a purist perspective that might not be good enough. So for the purists there are still 32-bit operating systems, either natively on the hardware, or in the new Windows XP mode. But life is compromise and I think it's quite reasonable to compromise on 90% protection with 64-bit Sandboxie, and not consider it useless by any means.

[Bizarre™]

@Night Owl:

Just wait for CIS v4... it has a sandbox available for 32 / 64-bit :thumbsup:

[HX1]

I think its just a lack of knowledge about to work around for 64 bit encryption and identification.. Same is going on for other apps who cannot even recognize 64 bit OS files..

[Night Owl]

According to the author, the problem is Kernel Patch Protection built into 64-bit versions of Windows.

[HX1]

Yeah, I stand corrected on that one... but it also enlightens me to an explanation I read somewhere else as to the problem in another piece of software... Also explains the reason for the changes in Virtualization, which used extensively on some 64 bit systems.. and the fact that they can be secure when doing so.. I actually went to Technet/MSDN and got a better explanation about it..

What I had read, was that in order for certain information to be read/altered/something else 'piggy-backed' [dll] or the file replaced on a 64 Bit system, that in fact the file had to read/interpret a certain either checksum, or something that had to do with encryption... in order to do so.. If in fact the program or process did not have the ability to either spoof it ID, or the use this method.. then in fact it could not be done as intended.. (I can't remember what program.. or what it pertained to)... BUT now I know..Basically the Dev that made the comment was stating that he lacked the knowledge himself to able to give his program that ability..

[Bizarre™]

@heath28m:

I believe it involves making a certificate for a certain program.

It's difficult since a lot of commands are involved just to make one.

Some of the commands are: makecert, signtool, certmgr, bcedit, etc.