{"version":"2.1.234","anchor":"windows-sandbox-refusals-now-say-why-an-exclusion-did-not-ap","canonical_anchor":"windows-sandbox-refusals-now-say-why-an-exclusion-did-not-ap","heading":"Windows sandbox refusals now say why an exclusion did not apply","tier":"notice","area":"Windows","scope":null,"heads_up":null,"url":"https:\/\/changelogs.core-directive.com\/v\/2.1.234\/e\/windows-sandbox-refusals-now-say-why-an-exclusion-did-not-ap","release_url":"https:\/\/changelogs.core-directive.com\/v\/2.1.234","markdown":"### Windows sandbox refusals now say why an exclusion did not apply\n\nWindows strict sandbox refusals now explain that an exclusion needs an available permission prompt to apply.\n\n**What**\n\nOn Windows in strict sandbox mode, a refused command used to give one message regardless of cause. There are now two: the existing one for an exclusion that matched only part of the command, and a new one explaining that an exclusion only exempts a command when a permission prompt could approve running it unsandboxed, and no such prompt is available here.\n\n**Details**\n\n- Both paths still refuse the command with the `windows_policy_refusal` outcome.\n- Applies only on Windows, with sandboxing enabled in settings, the platform in the enabled list, and strict sandbox mode configured.\n\n**Evidence**\n\n`exclusions only exempt a command where a permission prompt can approve the unsandboxed run, and none is available here`\n\n- Area: Windows\n- Tier: You'll notice\n- Useful: 3\/5\n- Signal: 2\/5"}