9725 results found

1. Request for Improvement of BOX Drive Proxy Server Authentication Response Function

   BOX Drive is not working properly in our environment.
   We recognize that BOX Drive is designed to read Pac files, but the communication is succeeding up to the proxy server according to the Pac file.
   However, it seems that it is not able to respond to the authentication response of the proxy server.

   As a result, when we open files in our Office products (Excel and Word) that cannot be opened in a web browser, we have to download the file once from
   BOX.
   This method is not productive for us.

   As a solution, we would like to be able to use BOX Drive to open files directly from Office products (Office desktop applications).
   Please consider improving the support for proxy authentication responses.

   Please note that SSL decoding is not performed for communications to BOX.

   Thank you very much for your time.

   (Japanese)
   BOX Driveのプロキシサーバー認証応答機能改善のお願い

   弊社環境において、BOX Driveが正常に動作しておりません。
   BOX DriveはPacファイルを読み込む仕様と認識していますが、Pacファイルに従ってプロキシサーバーまでは通信が成功しています。
   しかし、プロキシサーバーの認証応答に対応できていないようです。

   これにより、弊社ではWebブラウザ上で開けないファイルをOffice製品（ExcelやWord）で開く際、
   BOXからファイルを一旦ダウンロードする必要があります。
   この方法では生産性が低下してしまいます。

   解決策として、BOX Driveを活用し、Office製品（Officeのデスクトップアプリ）から直接ファイルを開けることが望ましく、
   プロキシ認証応答への対応機能の改善をぜひご検討いただきたく存じます。

   なお、BOX宛の通信に関してはSSLのデコードは行っておりません。

   お忙しいところ恐縮ですが、何卒よろしくお願い申し上げます。

   BOX Drive is not working properly in our environment.
   We recognize that BOX Drive is designed to read Pac files, but the communication is succeeding up to the proxy server according to the Pac file.
   However, it seems that it is not able to respond to the authentication response of the proxy server.

   As a result, when we open files in our Office products (Excel and Word) that cannot be opened in a web browser, we have to download the file once from
   BOX.
   This method is not productive for us.

   As a solution, we would like to be able… more

   109 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   researching  ·  3 comments  ·  Box Drive  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

2. Admin-controlled AI model governance

   Public sector and other regulated customers need stronger admin governance over Box AI model behavior. While admins can select a primary AI model today, they cannot control what happens if that model becomes unavailable. For FedRAMP, CJIS, and procurement-constrained environments, automatic failover to an unspecified model introduces compliance and risk concerns. Box should allow admins to select a primary (default) AI model, restrict usage to an approved model list, and explicitly define fallback behavior if the primary model goes down: either fail over to an admin-approved backup model or automatically disable Box AI. That the list of AI Providers in the AI settings tab MUST include all families of LLMs This ensures deterministic, compliant AI behavior aligned to agency authorization, vendor approval, and risk management requirements, while preventing exposure to unapproved models.

   Public sector and other regulated customers need stronger admin governance over Box AI model behavior. While admins can select a primary AI model today, they cannot control what happens if that model becomes unavailable. For FedRAMP, CJIS, and procurement-constrained environments, automatic failover to an unspecified model introduces compliance and risk concerns. Box should allow admins to select a primary (default) AI model, restrict usage to an approved model list, and explicitly define fallback behavior if the primary model goes down: either fail over to an admin-approved backup model or automatically disable Box AI. That the list of AI Providers in… more

   23 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Box AI  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

3. Add Ability to Duplicate an Existing Box Form

   Please add a feature that allows users to duplicate an existing Box Form, including all fields, structure, metadata mappings, and settings. Users should be able to clone a form, rename it, and make edits without rebuilding from scratch.

   Why This Matters

   Saves significant time when creating similar forms across departments, programs, or agencies.

   Reduces errors by ensuring consistent fields, metadata, and logic across related forms.

   Enables scalable templates, especially for public sector workflows like procurement, HR, inspections, grants, benefits, and compliance.

   Accelerates PS SE and customer builds, allowing faster demos, labs, and solution rollouts.

   Supports versioning needs, since agencies routinely update forms as policies and regulations change.

   Impact

   Faster solution deployment, higher form adoption, reduced build errors, and more repeatable patterns for enterprise and public sector customers.

   Please add a feature that allows users to duplicate an existing Box Form, including all fields, structure, metadata mappings, and settings. Users should be able to clone a form, rename it, and make edits without rebuilding from scratch.

   Why This Matters

   Saves significant time when creating similar forms across departments, programs, or agencies.

   Reduces errors by ensuring consistent fields, metadata, and logic across related forms.

   Enables scalable templates, especially for public sector workflows like procurement, HR, inspections, grants, benefits, and compliance.

   Accelerates PS SE and customer builds, allowing faster demos, labs, and solution rollouts.

   Supports versioning needs, since agencies routinely… more

   25 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   on roadmap  ·  2 comments  ·  Box Forms & Doc Gen  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

4. Enable True/False Metadata Mapping for Checkboxes and Radio Buttons in Box Forms

   Description:
   Today in Box Forms, checkbox and radio button inputs are not natively mapped to Boolean metadata fields (true/false or yes/no), which limits the ability to trigger workflows or create metadata-driven views based on user responses.

   Feature Request:
   Allow checkboxes and radio buttons in Box Forms to map directly to Boolean metadata fields:

   If a checkbox is checked, metadata should reflect “true”; if unchecked, “false.”

   For yes/no radio button questions, allow mapping directly to true/false metadata fields.

   Impact & Value:

   Streamlines workflow automation with Box Relay (e.g., trigger based on form input).

   Enables metadata-driven views (e.g., show only records where “Sensitive Data” = true).

   Reduces reliance on workarounds to parse and apply Boolean logic from form responses.

   Supports regulated and high-volume environments with binary decision routing needs.

   Example Use Case:
   In a procurement request form, checking a box labeled “Over $10,000?” would automatically set metadata to “true” and trigger an approval chain through Box Relay.

   Description:
   Today in Box Forms, checkbox and radio button inputs are not natively mapped to Boolean metadata fields (true/false or yes/no), which limits the ability to trigger workflows or create metadata-driven views based on user responses.

   Feature Request:
   Allow checkboxes and radio buttons in Box Forms to map directly to Boolean metadata fields:

   If a checkbox is checked, metadata should reflect “true”; if unchecked, “false.”

   For yes/no radio button questions, allow mapping directly to true/false metadata fields.

   Impact & Value:

   Streamlines workflow automation with Box Relay (e.g., trigger based on form input).

   Enables metadata-driven views (e.g., show only records where… more

   57 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   not planned  ·  2 comments  ·  Box Forms & Doc Gen  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

5. Box Shield MIP Integration with GCC High

   For customers with GCC High environments (Microsoft), Purview is not currently able to be integrated using the Box Shield integration (as it can be with the commercial version of Purview) to map the MIP Sensitivity labels with Box Shield's classification labels. We would like to see Box Shield to be able to integrate with Purview when it lives in Microsoft's non-commercial environments, including GCC High and DOD.

   29 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Partner Integrations  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

6. Ability to log and review user-entered prompts in Box AI

   After deploying Box AI to users, it would be very helpful to have the ability to log and review the prompts that users enter.
   This would support security and compliance needs, such as detecting potential malicious usage and enabling proper auditing when required.

   Since Box is a platform where sensitive and confidential information is often stored, having this capability is important for safely leveraging AI features.

   49 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   researching  ·  0 comments  ·  Box AI  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

7. Movable preview screen toolbar

   When the preview screen is opened, a toolbar appears at the bottom of the screen showing the zoom factor and page number, but since it is fixed at the bottom of the page, the preview screen is partially hidden in some documents, making it difficult to see.
   If this toolbar could be temporarily hidden or moved, it would make the preview screen easier to see.

   （日本語）
   プレビュー画面を開くと、画面下に拡大率やページ数が表示されているツールバーが表示されるかと思いますが、
   ページの下に固定されているため、ドキュメントによってはプレビュー画面が一部隠れてしまい、見づらいです。
   このツールバーを一時的に隠したり、移動できるようにすれば、
   プレビュー画面がより見やすくなると思うので、改善を希望します。

   40 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   researching  ·  0 comments  ·  Web App  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

8. Past password changes included in the report.

   Currently, it is possible to check the date and time of the last password change, but we have confirmed that past password change history is not included in the report.
   Being able to check how frequently passwords are changed will also help improve security.

   現在、最後にパスワード変更した日時を確認することは可能ですがこれまでに変更された実績がレポートに載らないことを確認してます。
   どれくらいの頻度で変更されているのか確認できることでセキュリティ向上にも繋がります。

   13 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Admin Reports  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

9. Ability to specify who will be notified when a password is changed.

   As part of security operational reviews, administrators may occasionally check whether passwords have been changed multiple times within the same day, when necessary.
   Currently, I believe password change notifications are sent to users with administrative privileges, including group administrators.
   For operational reasons, we would like group administrators not to receive these notifications, so we would like to be able to optionally configure the recipients of password change notifications.

   セキュリティ面の運用見直しの一環で、管理者で同日内に何度もパスワード変更していないか等を必要な時にチェック行うことがあります。
   現状、グループ管理者含めた管理者権限のあるユーザー宛にパスワード変更通知が届くと思います。
   運用上の理由からグループ管理者がこれらの通知を受け取らないようにしたいため、任意でパスワード変更通知先を設定できるようにしたいです。

   13 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Notifications  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

10. Shield - Malicious Content alerting should provide greater details

    Malicious Content alerts within Shield should provide more information on why a file is considered "malicious", to aid the process of sandboxing and investigation (such as threat type, family etc).

    11 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Shield  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

11. The ability to search by creator when searching workflows in the “Relay” section of the management console

    The administrator will check whether there are any problems with the workflow settings owned by each user, and if there are any problems, they may discuss with the user what needs to be corrected.
    Currently, workflows can be searched by name, but users cannot view a list of workflows they individually maintain, which lacks convenience.
    Searching by workflow creator improves work efficiency.

    管理者では各ユーザー毎の所有するワークフローの設定に問題がないか確認のうえ、問題があればユーザーと一緒に修正箇所を議論することがあります。
    現在はワークフローの名称で検索か可能となっていますが、各ユーザー毎に保持しているワークフロー一覧を出すことができず利便性に欠けます。
    ワークフローの作成者単位で検索できることで作業の効率化が上がります。

    16 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Admin Console  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

12. IP Address Restriction for Webapp and SELECTED API calls

    We want to enable IP address restrictions only for the web app and selected applications.
    Possible methods include submitting a list of client IDs exempt from restrictions during application, or providing a UI to specify an app list excluded from IP address restrictions.

    Currently, only the following two options are available.
    - Enable only for Webapp
    - Enable for Webapp and All API calls

    What we truly want is to apply IP address restrictions to the web app and BoxDrive. However, selecting “All APIs” renders nearly all other cloud-based integration apps unusable.
    For example, losing integrations that significantly boost productivity—like Salesforce, Zoom, or Box connectors for Zapier and n8n—is a major issue. While we could ask providers for their IP addresses and allowlist them all, maintaining a list of potentially changing IP addresses is impossible.
    Box itself recommends setting rules by domain in its firewall configuration support article, acknowledging IP addresses can change.

    The reason IP address restrictions via SSO cannot solve this is that they cannot prevent scenarios where employees authenticate internally, then take their device outside and access the company Box from an unspecified access point. Box's own IP address restrictions are powerful because they can prevent this, and it is essential to configure them to work alongside various integrations.

    We want to enable IP address restrictions only for the web app and selected applications.
    Possible methods include submitting a list of client IDs exempt from restrictions during application, or providing a UI to specify an app list excluded from IP address restrictions.

    Currently, only the following two options are available.
    - Enable only for Webapp
    - Enable for Webapp and All API calls

    What we truly want is to apply IP address restrictions to the web app and BoxDrive. However, selecting “All APIs” renders nearly all other cloud-based integration apps unusable.
    For example, losing integrations that significantly boost productivity—like… more

    21 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Security  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

13. Request for Improvement of the “People with the Link” Feature in Box

    Request for Improvement of the “People with the Link” Feature in Box

    We would like to request the following improvements to the “People with the link” option within Box’s Share Link feature, which is used to grant viewing or downloading access to folders or files for organisations or email addresses that do not have a Box account or existing folder permissions.

    At present, requiring the link creator to manually set a password is rather cumbersome, and as a result, many users choose not to do so. Since there is no enforcement mechanism, some organisations restrict or even prohibit the use of this feature due to concerns over security management.

    Furthermore, when compared with other file transfer services, the People with the link option provides somewhat limited functionality for securely sharing files with users or organisations that do not have a Box subscription. Consequently, some organisations opt to use existing external file transfer services instead of relying on the People with the link feature.

    For these reasons, we would like to propose the implementation of the following enhancements.

    1. Enable password protection for the “People with the link” option. 　※No further action should be required from the user.
    2. The generated “People with the link” URL can then be sent to the recipient via email or other means.
    3. When the recipient accesses the link, they are prompted to enter their email address in order to receive the password.
    4. The recipient receives the password notification via email and enters it on the access page.
    5. After entering the password, the recipient is granted permission to view and download the file.

    By providing the above functionality, it would become possible—through administrative console activity logs—to identify, via email address, who accessed or downloaded files shared through the “People with the link” option and when.

    This would enable organisations to verify that files have not been downloaded by unintended recipients, thereby strengthening overall information security management.

    ＜日本語＞
    共有リンク機能にて「リンクを知っている全員」を設定し、パスワード設定を有効化した場合の機能改善を提案します。

    本来、「リンクを知っている全員」はBoxのアカウント持たない組織または人達にファイル送信する際に利用され、ファイル転送サービスの代替方法として活用を提案するものです。

    しかしながら、「リンクを知っている全員」のパスワード設定は、共有リンクを作成した本人がパスワードを任意で設定する必要がありとても操作が煩雑です。

    また、パスワードを設定したとしても別のメールで連絡をしなくてはなりません。
    更に、送信した相手が本当に参照したのか、ダウンロードをしたのか知る方法もないためセキュリティの観点から、ファイル転送サービスを利用した方が安全にファイル送信できると判断し、利用を禁止している組織も多いはずです。

    そのため以下のような機能を提供するのが良いと考えています。

    １．「リンクを知っている全員」を設定。パスワードの有効化を設定。
    　　※ユーザーの操作はここまで

    ２．上記で生成された共有リンクのURLをメール等で相手に送信

    ３．メール受信者は、共有リンクにアクセスするとパスワードを送信するためメールアドレスの入力が求められる。

    ４．メールアドレスを入力すると、入力したメールアドレスにパスワードが送信される。

    ５．受信したパスワードを入力するとファイルを参照またはダウンロードできるようになる。

    上記の機能を提供することで、「リンクで知っている全員」でファイルを送信したとしても、入力されたメールアドレスをログで確認できるようにすることで、いつ誰がファイルを参照しダウンロードしたのか管理コンソールのレポート機能で確認できるようにすることで、意図しない相手がダウンロードしていないかチェックすることも可能となり、組織全体のセキュリティ強化に繋がると考えます。

    Request for Improvement of the “People with the Link” Feature in Box

    We would like to request the following improvements to the “People with the link” option within Box’s Share Link feature, which is used to grant viewing or downloading access to folders or files for organisations or email addresses that do not have a Box account or existing folder permissions.

    At present, requiring the link creator to manually set a password is rather cumbersome, and as a result, many users choose not to do so. Since there is no enforcement mechanism, some organisations restrict or even prohibit the use… more

    16 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Security  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

14. I would like Box Sign to have more flexible permission settings.

    When Box Sign is enabled for a user, he/she can send sign requests, check the contents of requests shared with them, and view their inbox.
    However, there are users for whom I do not want to allow sending sign requests, but I do want them to be able to check their inbox.

    For example, our executives who frequently approve or sign documents in Box Sign but do not need to send signature requests by themselves.
    I believe it is a potential security risk to give users the authority to send signature requests even though they do not need it.

    Currently, Box Sign does not have a function to control external Sign sending. It would be great if we could have more granular control, such as allowing users to view the Sign inbox but not send requests.

    After signing, users can download and review the signed document and signature log via the sign completion email.
    But searching through the email inbox for them is inconvenient, so I would like to be able to complete everything within Box. So want to allow users to check the past signed document in Box via inbox of Box sign.

    I understand that with Shield access policies it is possible to restrict Box Sign request sending both internally and externally. However, since Box Sign may also be used for internal approval processes, I think making it completely impossible to send is too much.

    When Box Sign is enabled for a user, he/she can send sign requests, check the contents of requests shared with them, and view their inbox.
    However, there are users for whom I do not want to allow sending sign requests, but I do want them to be able to check their inbox.

    For example, our executives who frequently approve or sign documents in Box Sign but do not need to send signature requests by themselves.
    I believe it is a potential security risk to give users the authority to send signature requests even though they do not need it.

    Currently,… more

    24 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Box Sign  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

15. Regarding the time it takes for scheduled reports to be generated

    Content: The Box support site mentions that report generation can take up to 12 hours.
    　　　　Most reports are usually generated within a few minutes to a few tens of minutes, but scheduled reports often take about 12 hours to be output.
    　　　　Although it is within the expected range, waiting half a day for the output affects business operations, so we request a functional improvement to shorten the time it takes for reports to be generated.

    (日本語)
    件名：スケジュールされたレポートが出力されるまでの時間について
    内容：Boxサポートサイトにレポートの生成には最大で12時間かかる場合があると記載されております。
    　　ほどんどのレポートは数分から数十分程で出力されることが多いですが、スケジュールされたレポートの場合出力されるまでに12時間程かかることがとても多いです。
    　　範囲内ですが、出力までに半日かかるのは業務に影響がある為、レポート出力されるまでの時間帯を短縮されるよう機能改善要望をします。

    27 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    not planned  ·  1 comment  ·  Admin Reports  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

16. Retrieve logs of users who uploaded files via the file request link

    The file request link is extremely useful in our daily operations. It is a great feature that allows users without a Box account to upload files to Box. However, under the current specifications, if logging in to Box is not required in the settings, no information about the person who uploaded the file via the file request link is recorded in the logs. This poses a significant problem from an audit and compliance perspective.

    For example, if a user enters their email address in the email field at the time of upload, it would be very helpful if that email address could also be displayed in the “details” field of the User Activity Report. This would allow administrators to keep logs of who uploaded files and make the feature much more useful.

    --
    ファイルリクエストリンクはBoxアカウントを持たないユーザーがファイルをBoxにアップロードできる優れた機能ですが、一方でファイルをアップロードした人の情報がログに記録されず、監査とコンプライアンスの観点から重大な問題となります。

    例えば、ユーザーがアップロード時にメールアドレスを入力項目に記入した場合、その情報がユーザーアクティビティレポートの「詳細」欄にも表示されれば非常に有益です。

    The file request link is extremely useful in our daily operations. It is a great feature that allows users without a Box account to upload files to Box. However, under the current specifications, if logging in to Box is not required in the settings, no information about the person who uploaded the file via the file request link is recorded in the logs. This poses a significant problem from an audit and compliance perspective.

    For example, if a user enters their email address in the email field at the time of upload, it would be very helpful if that email… more

    10 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Admin Reports  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

17. I want to save Copilot for Microsoft 365-generated content directly to Box

    Currently, when I use Copilot’s generative AI features, the only default save destination is OneDrive—Box isn’t even an option. For those of us who live and breathe Box it would be fantastic if we could save Copilot-generated content directly to Box and keep everything in one place.

    Right now, every time Copilot asks, “Save to OneDrive?” I feel like saying, “Nice try, Copilot, but my heart belongs to Box!” Please help us Box fans avoid this daily heartbreak and make Box a first-class citizen for Copilot saves. Thank you!

    〈Copilot for Microsoft 365で生成したコンテンツを直接Boxに保存したい〉
    現在、Copilotで生成AI機能を利用し作成したコンテンツの保存先は、OneDriveがデフォルトとなっており、Boxを選択することができません。
    Boxでコンテンツを一元管理するため、Copilotで生成したコンテンツの保存先にBoxを追加してほしいです。

    21 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Other  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

18. AI-Powered Confirmation Before Adding Collaborators/Sending Links

    I’d like Box to add an AI-powered confirmation step when users invite collaborators to a file or folder or send shared links to other users. The AI would quickly scan the content, detect PII or sensitive information, understand the context, and check whether the invited collaborator seems appropriate (e.g., external domain, personal email, unrelated teammate). If something looks unusual, Box would display a confirmation prompt asking the user to verify the invitation. This would help prevent accidental oversharing and reduce security risks caused by human error, while still keeping the collaboration workflow smooth.

    12 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Box AI  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

19. Function to disable the display of the login authentication screen for Box for Microsoft Office co-editing features on a per-user basis.

    The following is a request regarding the seamless login feature.
    https://support.box.com/hc/ja/articles/44224534926355

    To avoid displaying the login authentication screen, we understand that enabling the co-editing feature for only certain users in the tenant settings will resolve the issue.
    However, if the number of users enabling or disabling the co-editing feature increases, managing user and group additions or removals through tenant settings each time becomes extremely cumbersome and impractical.
    Implementing this feature enables end users to handle issues immediately on their own, reducing the burden on administrators.

    下記シームレスログイン機能に関する要望です。
    https://support.box.com/hc/ja/articles/44224534926355

    ログイン認証画面を表示させないためには、テナント設定で一部のユーザーにのみ共同編集機能を有効にすれば回避できると認識しています。
    但し、共同編集機能を有効/無効にするユーザーが増えたりした場合に都度テナント設定からの制限ではユーザーやグループの出し入れ等の操作が非常に手間となり現実的ではありません。
    本機能を実装することでエンドユーザー自身で即時に対応できるようになり管理者の負担を減らすことができます。

    18 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Box for Office  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

20. Enhance Metadata Input Fields in Box Forms (Multi-line Support & Character Limit)

    [Background and Problem]
    A customer is looking to migrate their FAQ management system from Microsoft Lists to Box. Their plan is to store the FAQ answers as metadata. However, we have received feedback that this is impractical because the metadata input field in Box Forms is restricted to a single line, making it difficult to enter long answers.

    Below are our feature improvement requests.

    1. Multi-line Input Support
       We request the ability to either adjust the height of the text input field for metadata, or to select the same format as the "Long Text" field for metadata fields.

    2. Increased Character Limit (Optional)
       We also have a comment from the customer regarding the character limit for the metadata field in Forms:
       "While 400 characters for Japanese is sufficient for basic needs, it would be even better if it were expanded to around 1,000 characters to allow for more detailed information and broaden its use."

    ＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
    【背景と課題】
    現在、Microsoft ListsでFAQ管理を行っている顧客がBoxへの移行を検討しています。 この際、FAQの回答をメタデータに格納する計画ですが、Box Formsのメタデータ入力欄が単一行であるため、「これでは長文の回答が入力できず、実用的ではない」というフィードバックを受けました。

    以下、機能改善のリクエストです。

    1. 入力フィールドの複数行化
       メタデータ用のテキスト入力フィールドの高さを調整できる、または「ロングテキスト」フィールドと同じ形式をメタデータフィールドでも選択できるようにしてほしい。

    2. 入力文字数の拡張　※オプショナル
       Formsのメタデータフィールドに入力できる文字数に関しても、顧客からコメントをいただいております。
       「日本語で400文字あれば最低限の用途では問題ないが、より詳細な情報を記述できるよう、1000文字程度まで拡張されると活用の幅が広がり、さらに良い」

    [Background and Problem]
    A customer is looking to migrate their FAQ management system from Microsoft Lists to Box. Their plan is to store the FAQ answers as metadata. However, we have received feedback that this is impractical because the metadata input field in Box Forms is restricted to a single line, making it difficult to enter long answers.

    Below are our feature improvement requests.

    1. Multi-line Input Support
       We request the ability to either adjust the height of the text input field for metadata, or to select the same format as the "Long Text" field for metadata fields.

    2. Increased Character Limit… more

    19 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    not planned  ·  1 comment  ·  Box Forms & Doc Gen  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating