Gator, I trust Sandboxie and Invincea while I don't trust Chrome.
This is about whether the Chromium sandbox benefits from Sandboxie and if there is actual proof of that and not about your personal trust issues. Just because you trust something more doesn't make it more secure. Guess what, I trust the Chromium sandbox just as much as I trust Sandboxie. So who's trust is more important?
Should the OP run Chrome in Sandboxie because bo elam trusts Invincea and doesn't trust Chrome or shouldn't he do it because Der Moloch (FleischmannTV is my nickname on Wilders and not here) trusts Chrome just as much as he trusts Sandboxie?
If something in Chrome has to be disabled in order for Chrome to work under SBIE, so what.
Yeah, you have to disable the ability to restrict the creation of child processes and then set up start/run restrictions on your own in order to compensate the lacking of something which had already been there. So what, of course...
Besides, Sandboxie has nothing to prove to me, in over five years of using it, its record is outstanding as I have never seen anything to make me doubt or wonder if the program is doing what its supposed.
I have never been infected using Google Chrome either. In fact I haven't been infected in more than 15 years. I haven't been infected using Firefox without Sandboxie either. I have been using Firefox as my main browser without Sandboxie for years. So clearly there is no need for using Firefox in Sandboxie as well, but that's just your logic.
Five years from now, we still gonna have Fleishman talking about it but the end result still gonna be the same. Nothing.
You just don't get it, do you? I am not talking about bypassing Sandboxie. Again, this topic is about whether the Chromium sandbox benefits from Sandboxie and not if bypassing Sandboxie is becoming a reality. In fact I don't think bypassing Sandboxie will become a common reality any time soon either. Neither will bypassing Chrome. We won't see an attack which bypasses Chrome but is stopped by Sandboxie either.
The reality is that drive-by infections have become very rare now actually and this is because of proper application sandboxing (as in Chrome and the latest iterations of IE to some extent) and better OS security mechanisms like memory mitigations, integrity levels and UAC. Bypassing these protections is now more difficult and expensive than before, so it will mostly be restricted to the part of the corporate sector which is targeted by APTs and not to lock up some 70 year old's computer with an FBI lock screen while he is surfing for explicit material.
Aside from that the typical victims of drive-by attacks are turning away from Windows systems anyway and mainly use smartphones and tablet PCs now and the target audience is shrinking rapidly.
But this discussion isn't about whether there is actual proof that shows that Chrome should be run in Sandboxie. It's about trust issues
above all else. These trust issues mainly come from a lacking of understanding of how the underlying technology works. Same goes for the blind trust that is put in Sandboxie because the lacking of understanding of how things work will also inhibit you from understanding the deficiencies.
And if you don't understand how things work, trust, faith and fear is all you have left. On top of that anyone who disagrees is discredited and ridiculed on a personal level. It's just like you have insulted someone's faith.
One hour of FleischmannTV saves one square kilometre of precious peble wasteland.