10-21-2010 09:24 PM
The entire idea of a sandbox as part of the Norton products will always end up being a mixed set with no clear winner that can be picked. When weighing the development costs against the possible rewards, it is unclear whether it would be worth the effort. Many people do not understand the purpose and function of a sandbox well enough that they would even understand why the files they downloaded in the sandbox are not on their machine after they exit the sandboxed application. I've seen instances when users close their Sandboxie-protected IE session and select the option to close without copying their downloaded files from the sandbox to another location then complain that the files they downloaded are no longer there even when they were told that those files would no longer be available to them. Others will sandbox applications that do not need to be sandboxed (I've seen people slapping Notepad into a sandbox just because "the sandbox keeps their system safe".) When running multiple applications in individual sandboxes you end up consuming a great deal of hard drive space so users must keep a large portion of their hard disks free in order to run their sandboxed apps. Sharing a single sandbox with multiple applications can save on the drive space issue but has been known to cause other conflicts on occasion.
All of that aside, a sandbox option could be used as a selling point for the product. In a default installation the option should be turned off. For those who opt to turn it on, the most common browsers, download managers, torrent clients, and mail clients installed on the user's system should be automatically configured to run in a sandbox.. For sandboxed web browser sessions, the user's favorites should be automatically synced on entry and exit (as long as they passed the Safe Web check). On exit, the user should be prompted IN A CLEAR FASHION that anything with the exception of their Favorites that is not explicitly selected to be copied out of the sandbox will be deleted.
Other potential issues arise considering automatic updating features of certain products. Should they be sandboxed or not? For example, Windows Update, Symantec LiveUpdate, etc should be exempt from sandboxing, but updaters for other products, especially those that download executable installers probably should not.
Any way you look at it, it would need to be highly configurable which is only going to make the code much more complex and more prone to errors.
10-23-2010 12:53 AM
I agree on the fact that it won't be on by default. Tehre will be regular uusers who won't have any idea on what to do with it. But than people will have a choice. Now they don't
11-08-2010 10:54 PM
How about the option simply to create sandboxed browser sessions, similar to a private browsing function? I don't need a sandbox if I'm just going online to check a few trusted websites, but there are times when the added security would be a comfort.
The benefit of this approach is that a sandboxed session can have very restrictive settings turned on by default, because everyday users might only choose to use it rarely -- they will understand that their bookmarks aren't in there and that anything downloaded will be deleted once the sesison ends (if it isn't exported out of the sandbox). Power users could have the option to tweak the settings and use it as their preferred means of surfing the web.
01-25-2011 10:40 PM - edited 01-25-2011 10:47 PM
If you want a Sandbox. Run Sandboxie. Sandboxie author has made sandboxie fully compatible with NIS / NAV / 360
free version (limited to one sandbox) or full featured version for a one time lifetime license.
Before you push a sandbox into Norton. Explore and study the readily available proven viable sandboxie option.
NIS with Firefox sandbox'd writing this message. Norton + Sandboxie for those that want a sandbox.
Do you really want to bloat Norton....
02-21-2011 09:05 AM
Who here would like to see a sandbox in Norton Internet Security 2012?.Lets be honest the difference between Norton Internet Security 2010 and 2011 was very small. Sandbox is the next step up in making Norton the best internet security ever. It's a big change and worth spending £50 on. Kaspersky and Comodo has seen how much more protection is possible with sandbox. It's time for Norton to take the next step up in internet security, if they do not take the step up the competitors will move ahead, and we don't want that.
All Symantec want is the utmost protection for their users. Give us something big with norton internet security 2012, a big change, sandbox is the way to do that. Take the step and prove not only your the best internet secuirty option, but your willing to use any way possible to protect your users.
02-21-2011 10:46 AM
I certainly don't want to see a sandbox option, imagine how much resorces this takes, Kaspersky is now the norton of old in my opinion, BLOATED!
Keep Norton lean and mean is what i say, all the reviews say It's currently the best security software outthere, and thats without a sandbox!
02-22-2011 01:06 AM
A sandbox offers protection, proof is other security firms are using them. The option to put a sandbox on the web browser is very important. I'm sure Norton could create a user friendly sandbox.. It would be a big change for them, something we need after the small change with 2010-2011. Norton should be using every way possible to protect us its users. Norton cannot give us 100% protection, obviously my computer has been compromised by malware, with Norton 360V5 running on it.. It's time for Norton to have stronger browser protection, sandbox can give us that. What are you waiting for symantec it's time to make the change.