5.07 Beta Available (latest version 5.08 RC)

[famadeus]

5.07.4 is incorrectly detecting an iTunes installation on my system for some reason. Not a piece of software I've ever had installed.

[Craig@Invincea]

5.07.4 is incorrectly detecting an iTunes installation on my system for some reason. Not a piece of software I've ever had installed.

Yes, that's my fault on the export from powershell. It should detect GUID FBEB98F8-64E4-4FA3-A15E-4A9F42FF962E and it's incorrectly identifying. You can ignore that for iTunes.. We're fixing that at the moment.

[bo.elam]

5.07.4 has been released.

Nice fix.

Bo

[hottroc]

Hi,
When I download the file from the link in the first post it tells me the signature of the file is corrupt or invalid. I have tried several times. Is this a problem or can I still use the file?
Thanks.

[Craig@Invincea]

Hi,
When I download the file from the link in the first post it tells me the signature of the file is corrupt or invalid. I have tried several times. Is this a problem or can I still use the file?
Thanks.

What is telling your that the signature file is corrupt or invalid? I'm not getting any such indicators from any of the (3) listed.

[budfox9]

After downloading 5.07.4 windows I got an alert that the signature is corrupt or invalid. I then ran the program through virustotal and it was flagged at "Behaveslike.Win32.Tool.rc

Not installing this beta yet. Anyone else having this issue?

[bo.elam]

I then ran the program through virustotal and it was flagged at "Behaveslike.Win32.Tool.rc

Not installing this beta yet. Anyone else having this issue?

Well, the SBIE installer being flagged by one AV is not out of the ordinary. That has been the case for a long time. For what is worth, the 5.07.4 installer I ran, the result displayed McAfee-GW-Edition flagging the installer as BehavesLike.Win32.Tool.rc. If thats what you are getting, don't mind it.
https://www.virustotal.com/es/file/9cca ... /analysis/

I usually use the 32 bits separate installer, that one as the combined one are displaying same result at Virus total. Thats not always the case but that's how it is with this installer. If 5 or 6 AVs were flagging the installer then there might be a reason to be concerned but not when only one is doing it, specially since you got the installer from this site. The link above is for the combined installer.

Bo

[hottroc]

Hi,
When I download the file from the link in the first post it tells me the signature of the file is corrupt or invalid. I have tried several times. Is this a problem or can I still use the file?
Thanks.

What is telling your that the signature file is corrupt or invalid? I'm not getting any such indicators from any of the (3) listed.

My browser. I am downloading with Microsoft Edge. EDIT - also tried in IE 11, same message.

[Craig@Invincea]

Ah, yes. That's MS being MS and flagging SHA1 certs.

Mozilla did that earlier this month then realized there any many MANY out there and they have back tracked on that until June of this year. We're aware of that. The file(s) are secure and fine. It's the digital cert that one browser is flagging. More info here http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wik ... mping.aspx

If you downloaded from our Forum, the files are safe.

[hottroc]

If you downloaded from our Forum, the files are safe.

OK, great thanks, but will it affect the driver install (64-bit) as it might count it as an unsigned driver?

[Syrinx]

Ah, yes. That's MS being MS and flagging SHA1 certs.

Mozilla did that earlier this month then realized there any many MANY out there and they have back tracked on that until June of this year. We're aware of that. The file(s) are secure and fine. It's the digital cert that one browser is flagging. More info here http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wik ... mping.aspx

If you downloaded from our Forum, the files are safe.

*Assuming* there wasn't a MITM attack, yes it's nothing to worry about.

Personally, I'd never run a signed installer if the sig showed up as invalid/corrupt on my end [via a right click > properties > Digital Signatures > Details check]. 'Maybe' if it was valid but not authenticated/confirmed. I do see how the timestamp condition could cause issues but there shouldn't be anything saying the file (installer) is corrupt or invalid [instead it should act 'as if the code did not have a time-stamp signature' which might still raise some flags]! Glad to see MS backtracking there but I didn't see any such errors on my end via the windows check of the installer though it appears the original issue might be related to the browser instead. Regardless, HTTPS is looking better with every word- can't wait till the upgrade! :P

[Craig@Invincea]

If you downloaded from our Forum, the files are safe.

OK, great thanks, but will it affect the driver install (64-bit) as it might count it as an unsigned driver?

It will not. The driver is signed and VALID. MS has just assumed to mark these that way. Mozilla tried last week. Blew up in their face. Google has said 2017, but they may aim towards July 2016.

We will be updated our cert. But that does not mean they are compromised in any way.

[hottroc]

Thanks, I installed it and it works.
Like the last version I installed I had to go through a few hoops as the install kept failing. It would say something about being unable to delete a registry key, then it would stop at the point where it is trying to extract Licence.txt, then a dialogue would say that a program was using sandboxie (which it wasn't). I tried with my AV disabled but the result was the same. This was an Upgrade(Overwrite) install. The same happened if I tried the fresh install. The only way I could get it to install is to run the fresh install option to uninstall the old version, then reboot, then run it again and it worked.

[bo.elam]

hottroc, the process you go thru to reinstall Sandboxie is rare but you are not the only one who does it like you. I know of one other user who has to do it like you described to reinstall Sandboxie. I know you disabled the AV, but its likely another program is interfering with the overwriting.

Bo

[Syrinx]

Just got around to installing 5.07.4 and even though the notes don't suggest any changes there, suddenly my 'startup' lag that began with 5.07.1 [with the timing/hook changes] and persisted with 5.07.2 (I didn't bother with 5.07.3) are gone. Nice work whatever ya'll did between .07.2 and .07.4 but I sure wish it was in the notes someplace or I would have installed it earlier...!

I was greeted with an iTunes conflict alert but I recalled seeing you're already aware of this. I was worried for a moment, how did apple get on my pc?!