Norton Need's a Sandbox let's say that norton does not have no reputation information Then Norton sandbox it then u can kill it..if it is unknown...when uploaded to norton data base just get rid of it...this will help norton in the long rub IMO
Norton Need's a Sandbox let's say that norton does not have no reputation information Then Norton sandbox it then u can kill it..if it is unknown...when uploaded to norton data base just get rid of it...this will help norton in the long rub IMO
I completely agree that it would have to be under user control, and not "on" by default. Norton has a bad habit (as do many developers) of including new features or making other changes which they expect the user to want (or are afraid the "average" user won't bother turning on for himself); perhaps they assume that "new is always better", or something. In any case, sandbox can be extremely frustrating when it comes out of nowhere and tells you that you can't save any changes you've made to a file, just because the program you're using isn't recognized by the AV software. (The little text warning at the beginning, "this program will be opened in sandbox mode" or whatever, is quite meaningless when you aren't expecting it--especially when no options are offered to *not* open it in sandbox mode.)
So... I would probably just turn the sandbox function off, if Norton added it, and unless Norton were *much* more explicit in their help instructions regarding how to "get out of the sandbox", I think the vast majority of users would find it counter-productive.
(I don't know if sandbox can be "added on", but if it could, it might be a candidate for an optional feature that users could download if they wanted to. Or, maybe it is possible by now for the AV program to scan files that are being saved, and then re-direct them back to the original "save file" location for the sandboxed program...? That way, users who didn't catch the sandbox warning wouldn't lose all of the work that they put into the file before trying to save it.)
Stef
I really like the sandbox idea. It doesnt need to be complicated. Currently I use a dedicated sandbox program and i can run files sandboxed from the context menu. That would be useful if the user doesnt trust the file.
Currently there are several options when a infected file is found. Add "Run in sandbox" or "Ask user to run in sandbox" is fine.
That would be a very good option because many infected programs are trojans. Either they were originally written as trojan progams or due to an infection. But the files they save often can't be infected (no executables)
Maybe add the option to put them on sandbox list so that they on next use are automatically launched in a sandbox.
StefCoulombe wrote:
(I don't know if sandbox can be "added on", but if it could, it might be a candidate for an optional feature that users could download if they wanted to. Or, maybe it is possible by now for the AV program to scan files that are being saved, and then re-direct them back to the original "save file" location for the sandboxed program...? That way, users who didn't catch the sandbox warning wouldn't lose all of the work that they put into the file before trying to save it.)
Stef