Why doesn't Box offer this feature, is it an intentional "security" safeguard. Seems pretty silly otherwise???

This should be an obvious feature of removing access to an individual subfolder. My staff have access to the entire drive and only require a few folders to be restricted. Please make this possible immediately.

We recently hit a problem where someone was securing what they considered to be their own sub-folder and removed access to hundreds of people from that sub-folder. But because of the upwards waterfall problem, no-one in the organisation could access anything at all. It was a nightmare to restore all the required accesses. Please provide a means to secure sub folders.

Being able to organize projects by the project and not by active external collaborator sets would be a huge win. It would simplify and flatten folder organization and I would not have to jungle folders around and redo folder permissions based around external collaborator groups, instead I could just make singular updates when collaborators change scope or status.

We're switching our company to Dropbox because of this

I agree that watefalls only go downwards. Please introduce this

I want to be able to disconnect the inherited access - to allow me to remove access without affecting the other folders

Unfortunately, this may be an overall deal-breaker for us.

Please add this feature, It is much needed.

Please Please Please do this. We did indeed follow instructions to "plan our structure carefully". The end result is that many of our staff have 40 or more folders where their content might be located. Those folders may or may not be named in a way that is meaningful to each employee, and no one can tell another employee where a particular file or folder might be located, because everyone sees the structure differently. Waterfall is a nightmare.

I'm also trying to allow a collaborator to see everything in a top level folder (as a Viewer) -- but to only be able to edit items in a subfolder (as an Editor). Having to put the subfolder at the same folder as the project itself in order to accomplish this complicates teamwork substantially.

It's plainly logical to allow users lower down to have more rights. Our internal corporate servers function this way -- we can't change things at the top level, but we have complete rights in certain folders lower down. I expect most corporate servers work this way.

I know our company has been considering contracting with Box to provide full remote server services. But we certainly won't be able to unless top level folders can be tightly controlled, with subfolders that allow the same users more rights.

Please rectify this. "Waterfalls" only fall down -- they don't also travel upwards.

Box is the only system that I have ever encountered that has permission inheritance work up as well as down. Typically, a "child" inherits from the "parent", and not the other way around. This behavior makes it difficult to share files with collaborators without giving them more permissions than they need. E.g., We want everyone to have View rights on a Budget folder, but Edit rights only in the current subfolder. But when we make someone an Editor on the subfolder, they are promoted to an Editor on the parent folder, and every other subfolder. I have brought up this behavior to tech support several times and each time I'm told "that's just the way it works". The workaround of breaking a subfolder out isn't a very efficient solution.

If I understand this correctly, this is something that would make things easier in my company with our current folder structure templates that we (try to) use.

You could keep the waterfall permission structure and introduce a feature, to restrict users/groups from files/folders, that would have precedence.

There are already classifications that can override the main permissions, so it should not be so complicated to add a function - restrict, that would be used exactly the same as the share function.

The lack of support for this feature makes it difficult to enforce least privilege access to child folders. It's pretty surprising that with so many other good security features that Box does not support this.

It is the main reason why we are looking at Dropbox. Would like to see this feature.

Absolutely an oversight to not allow this in some form. Simple example, if you want to have a folder of reports, or sales, or salary info for each employee, you would have to have one folder for EACH employe at the top level of your file heirarchy. Can we put them all in a folder marked "Employee sales reports" or whatever? NO. Because then EVERYONE could see everyone elses information. This is broken. Other services allow it. MUST be resolved.

Unbelievable that this was presented to Box back in 2016 and still no progress. I understand if you do not want to offer this feature to your free users or lower tier customers, but for ENTERPRISE users this should be an option.

I find it hard to believe that this would require significant resources to develop. All competitors already have this feature in place. No need to reinvent the wheel here.

Think it is time to reconsider near-term roadmap!

Absolutely unbelievable that this is not available. Will probably need to switch services.

It is enormously inconvenient not to be able to give someone "viewer" access to some files/folders and "editor" access to others. This ridiculous permission scheme -- which is totally out of sync with industry-standard cloud storage (Dropbox, Drive)--results in absurd proliferation of top-level files and folders which could all be avoided with simple granular permissions at every level.