Anyone having problem running both in Firefox?
Is it recomended to have both Webrep and Sandboxie? Arent they pretty much the same? Doesn`t Avast 6 free have its own Sandbox?
Just curious.
Webrep works fine but I dont have sandboxie, so wouldnt know about that :-\
No, they are completely different. WebRep = website reputation rating (like WOT, SiteAdvisor or whatever), has nothing to do with sandboxing. (Avast Free has just autosandbox which cannot be compared w/ Sandboxie at all featurewise.)
So getting Sandboxie should be good then?
Does that mean it will conflict, or that I will have to turn off Avast! autosandbox?
Autosandbox in avast will only run if a suspicious program detected by avast.
Sandboxie is completely virtual by enable firefox to be fully virtualized in sandboxie settings.
Btw. I even disable the add ons but the FF is crashing.
Added.
Based on my experience i have encounter with avast autosandbox.
It will only activated if a program is suspicious.
On default Firefox is already excluded in filesystem shield which is autosandbox rely on it… I say this because one of the game im playing is detected as suspicious and autosandbox always poping up.
I did try excluding on autosandbox setting but it still detecting suspicious.
What i did is excluding the game on filesystem shield and no more suspicious detected.
if u want more security u can use google chrome which has built in sandbox else u can try sandboxie free if avast sandbox doesnt work for u.
Im using sandboxie.
I have chrome and run also by sandboxie.
Note: Chrome is not conflicting with sandboxie even it has a built in sandbox.
Im pretty sure its Webrep is the cause because Chrome is not crashing which is automatically run by sandboxie which avast has no webrep yet to chrome.
Google Chrome doesn’t have a true sandbox, basically it isolates the tabs so that should one tab crash it doesn’t bring down other tabs/the browser.
So it isn’t a sandbox in the true sense of the word in isolating the program from the system, so isn’t really any additional security measure.
This is incorrect information. Security is the key aim of Chrome sandbox, as discussed e.g. here:
A new approach to browser security: the Google Chrome Sandbox
Rolling out a sandbox for Adobe Flash Player
Playing in the Chrome Sandbox
The Chrome Sandbox Part 1 of 3: Overview ← highly recommend this one)
The Chrome Sandbox Part 2 of 3: The IPC Framework
Well from your first link.
[b]What are the limitations?[/b]As we said earlier, the sandbox itself is not a new security model; it relies on Windows to achieve its security. Therefore, it is impossible for us to prevent against a flaw in the OS security model itself. In addition, some legacy file systems, like FAT32, used on certain computers and USB keys don’t support security descriptors. Files on these devices can’t be protected by the sandbox. Finally, some third party vendors mistakenly configure files, registry keys and other objects in a way that bypasses the access check, giving everyone on the machine full access on them. Unfortunately, it’s impossible for the sandbox to protect most of these misconfigured resources.
So whilst it is better than I have been led to believe, it I would say doesn’t achieve what I would consider the definition of a sandbox and that it to completely isolate it from the system.
We’ve had this debate before, AFAICT. You seem to have some persistent misconceptions about Chrome sandbox (such as the one documented by “basically it isolates the tabs so that should one tab crash it doesn’t bring down other tabs/the browser” - this claim is manifestly false). Once again, read this article to get a basic grip of the Chrome sandbox concept. Has nothing to do with tabs, obviously.
in the browser hack contest (pwn2own) held every year, chrome has never been hacked for the past four years. also google offers 20 dollars to anyone who finds security flaw in chrome.thus whether it provides actual sandbox or tabbed sandbox, its the best security for a browser till date
http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/26
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71784.html