microsoft
[Bug]: Windows is not activated inside the sandbox.
Windows Sandbox version
-
#!/usr/bin/env pwsh Get-AppxPackage MicrosoftWindows.WindowsSandbox -
Architecture : X64 Version : 0.5.3.0
Windows build number
If you refer to the Sandbox: ^1
-
Get-ComputerInfo | Select-Object -Property 'OsBuildNumber' | Format-List -
OSBuildNumber : 27975
Other software
Inside the sandbox:
-
Get-AppXPackage windows.immersivecontrolpanel -
Version : 10.0.8.1000
Steps to reproduce the bug
-
On the host:
#!/usr/bin/env pwsh WindowsSandbox -
Inside the sandbox:
Start-Process 'ms-settings:activation'
Expected result
The sandbox should be activated, because the host is:
Actual result
The sandbox is not activated:
reddit.com/r/WindowsHelp/comments/1bzwj2g corroborates that this situation is not unique to my installation.
Included System Information
If you refer to the host: ^1 ^2
-
#!/usr/bin/env pwsh Get-ComputerInfo | Select-Object -Property @('OsName', 'OsBuildNumber') | Format-List -
OsName : Microsoft Windows 11 Enterprise N OsBuildNumber : 27975
If the Sandbox was activated, either one of the following options would have to apply
- A generic key (and activation process) is used
- The host PC's key and activation data would be used
With the first option, it would be abused by people and used in a non-sandbox environment, so it's unlikely to ever be supported by Microsoft.
With the second option (which I believe you are suggesting), the sandbox wouldn't be an anonymous playground; It would be using the host's keys. Sandboxes are designed to be isolated from the host, and this would be a rather risky move should untrusted code be ran inside the sandbox (one of the reasons for a sandbox).
This is expected behaviour in any sandbox environment. It's designed to be a temporary Virtual Machine.
@realJoshByrnes, it's not particularly useful if such a glaring difference between a real environment and the Sandbox exists. Very, very few people run Windows without activation, because most purchase Windows when they purchase their pre-built hardware. Regardless:
With the first option, it would be abused by people and used in a non-sandbox environment, so it's unlikely to ever be supported by Microsoft.
Faking a keyserver is already trivial. I can activate the Sandbox within PT5M. However, when I'm frequently creating new sandboxes, this becomes painful.
I find it quite useful. I use it to run untrusted code, check apps or DLLs I write work out of the box, etc.
Maybe it's not the best fit for your use case; It sounds like you may be better off with a clonable (activated) VM.
Maybe it's not the best fit for your use case; It sounds like you may be better off with a clonable (activated) VM.
@realJoshByrnes, I'm already running Windows under libvirt. Therefore, the lighter the nested hypervisor, the better. Sandbox appears to fit that niche quite well, since I solely utilise it to test whether software installs cleanly.