Help shape the future of Box
Welcome to Box Pulse, our product feedback tool powered by UserVoice. Got an idea for how to improve Box? Share it with us and gather support or vote on other people's ideas. Your feedback is essential to informing roadmap decisions and shaping the future of our products. Thanks for joining our community!
See user guide here.
- or
No existing idea results
- ~ No ideas found ~
10051 results found
-
Security & Governance Risk Caused by Retained Collaborations After Folder Moves
To help prevent unintended external access to internal-only content and strengthen data governance, we would like to request a feature that either controls collaboration inheritance when folders are moved or restricts folder moves within designated folder hierarchies.
In the current Box environment, my understanding is that when a folder is moved, any collaborations directly assigned to that folder are retained.
This behavior may lead to situations where folders with different access policies become mixed within the same hierarchy. For example, a folder collaborated with external users could be moved into a directory intended exclusively for internal use. As a result, external collaborators may continue to have access within an area that is expected to be restricted to internal users only. We believe this introduces a potential security and governance risk.
To help mitigate this risk, we would like to request consideration of one of the following options:
A configurable setting that automatically removes existing collaborations when a folder is moved.
A configurable setting that prevents folders and their entire descendant folder tree from being moved under specified parent folders.
More generally, administrative controls that allow organizations to enforce folder placement and collaboration governance policies when folder moves occur.We understand that similar requests have previously been discussed on Box Pulse and were not adopted, partly due to concerns regarding the complexity of collaboration changes and the volume of user notifications that could be generated when folders are moved.
However, we have not found any recent discussions addressing this concern. Given the increasing importance of data governance and the prevention of unintended external access, we would appreciate it if Box could reconsider this capability.
Additionally, we are not necessarily requesting these specific approaches. Any solution that achieves an equivalent level of risk mitigation would be equally appreciated.
Thank you for your consideration.
Japanese：
社内専用領域への意図しない外部アクセスを防止するため、フォルダ移動時のコラボレーション継承制御、または指定フォルダ配下への移動抑止機能の提供をご検討いただけないでしょうか。現在のBoxの仕様では、フォルダを移動した際、そのフォルダに直接付与されているコラボレーション設定は維持されると認識しています。
この挙動により、異なるアクセスルールを持つフォルダが同一のフォルダ階層内に混在する可能性があります。例えば、外部ユーザーがコラボレーションされているフォルダが、社内専用として運用されているディレクトリ配下へ移動された場合でも、その外部ユーザーのアクセス権は継続されます。その結果、本来は内部利用を想定している領域内に外部ユーザーがアクセス可能なフォルダが存在することになり、セキュリティおよびガバナンス上のリスクにつながると考えています。
このリスクを軽減するため、以下のいずれかの機能の実装をご検討いただけないでしょうか。
フォルダ移動時に既存のコラボレーションを自動的に削除する設定
指定した親フォルダ配下への移動を、対象フォルダおよびその配下階層を含めて制限する設定
より広義には、フォルダ移動時に組織のアクセス管理ポリシーやコラボレーション管理方針を強制できる管理者向けの制御機能過去にBox Pulseにおいて同様の要望が議論され、フォルダ移動に伴うコラボレーション変更処理や、それによって発生するユーザー通知の煩雑さなどを理由に採用されなかった経緯があることは認識しております。
しかしながら、近年ではデータガバナンスの重要性や、意図しない外部アクセスを防止する必要性が一層高まっています。また、直近では同様の要望を見受けなかったため、改めて本機能についてご検討いただければ幸いです。
また、上記の実装方式に限定するものではなく、同等のリスク低減効果を実現できる代替的な機能や制御手段についてもご検討いただけますと幸いです。
ご検討のほどよろしくお願いいたします。
To help prevent unintended external access to internal-only content and strengthen data governance, we would like to request a feature that either controls collaboration inheritance when folders are moved or restricts folder moves within designated folder hierarchies.
In the current Box environment, my understanding is that when a folder is moved, any collaborations directly assigned to that folder are retained.
This behavior may lead to situations where folders with different access policies become mixed within the same hierarchy. For example, a folder collaborated with external users could be moved into a directory intended exclusively for internal use. As a result,…
2 votes -
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。23 votes -
If there is only one app which can open a file, let the “open” button call that app.
Having to click the “open” button to hit the “open” button is infuriating. Perhaps, consider just opening the file when I click on it from the list and skipping this entire step all together? Skipping this page would be especially helpful when the preview does not reflect the current state of the document.
3 votes -
Box Search Returns Partial-Match Results — Unable to Search for Exact Folder/File Name Only
Summary: When a user searches for a term in Box that is also a substring of another folder or file name, Box returns both the exact match and the partial matches in the search results. There is currently no way to perform an exact-match-only search in Box, which makes it difficult for users to isolate specific content when similarly named items exist.
Problem Description: Box search uses partial/substring matching by default. When a user types a search term, Box returns all items whose names contain that term — not just items whose names exactly equal the term. This behavior cannot be overridden by the end user through the UI or any available search syntax.
Example Scenario: A user has a collaborated folder containing the following two subfolders:
データ (Data)
データ移行 (Data Migration)
When the user searches for "データ", both folders appear in the search results. The user only wants to find the folder named exactly "データ", but there is no way to exclude "データ移行" from the results using Box's current search functionality.This is particularly problematic in migration or data management workflows, where users need to precisely identify and act on a specific folder without confusion from similarly named items.
Summary: When a user searches for a term in Box that is also a substring of another folder or file name, Box returns both the exact match and the partial matches in the search results. There is currently no way to perform an exact-match-only search in Box, which makes it difficult for users to isolate specific content when similarly named items exist.
Problem Description: Box search uses partial/substring matching by default. When a user types a search term, Box returns all items whose names contain that term — not just items whose names exactly equal the term. This behavior cannot…
2 votes -
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 callsWhat 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 callsWhat 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…21 votes -
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/44224534926355To 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。21 votes -
Distinguish “Content Access” and “Download” events
In the User Activity Report (and related activity logs), “Content Access” and “Download” events currently do not clearly distinguish between:
1) Actions explicitly initiated by an end user, and
2) Records generated by Box internal processing (e.g., system/background processing, thumbnail generation, programmatic/chunked access, or other non-user-facing operations).
As a result, admins cannot reliably interpret audit logs for security monitoring, compliance, and incident investigation. False positives or ambiguous records make it difficult to determine what a user actually did.
Request:
Please enhance the User Activity Report / activity log records for “Content Access” and “Download” so that user-initiated actions and Box-internal processing can be distinguished. For example:
- Subdivide event types (e.g., user download vs internal/system access), and/or
- Add identifiable fields/attributes (e.g., initiator/source type: user action vs internal process; reason/context such as thumbnail generation, chunked content access, automation/app, etc.)
Why this matters:
- Accurate audit and compliance reporting
- Reduced noise in security monitoring and investigations
- Clearer understanding of true user behavior vs system-generated activity
We would appreciate any approach that makes these records distinguishable and filterable in reporting/exports (and ideally also in the Events API, if applicable).In the User Activity Report (and related activity logs), “Content Access” and “Download” events currently do not clearly distinguish between:
1) Actions explicitly initiated by an end user, and
2) Records generated by Box internal processing (e.g., system/background processing, thumbnail generation, programmatic/chunked access, or other non-user-facing operations).
As a result, admins cannot reliably interpret audit logs for security monitoring, compliance, and incident investigation. False positives or ambiguous records make it difficult to determine what a user actually did.
Request:
Please enhance the User Activity Report / activity log records for “Content Access” and “Download” so that user-initiated actions and Box-internal…2 votes -
We want users to easily obtain a list of file IDs
We need a way for users to bulk obtain the ID information of files located in folders for which they have permissions.
Currently, when users want to check a list of file IDs, they have to contact the Box administrator, who then exports a “Folders and Files Report” and shares it with them. Since there are many such requests, handling them is burdensome.
Could you add the “Folders and Files Report” to the reports that can be obtained from the Folder Insights screen?
--
ユーザーが、アクセス権限を持つフォルダ内にあるファイルのID情報を一括で取得できる方法が必要です。現在、ユーザーがファイルIDの一覧を確認したい場合、Box管理者に連絡し、管理者が「フォルダとファイルレポート」をエクスポートして共有してもらう必要があります。このような依頼が多数あるため、その対応に手間がかかっています。
フォルダとファイルレポートを、フォルダインサイト画面から取得できるレポートの種類として追加していただけませんか。
3 votes -
Enforce signer-only access and security controls in Box Sign
It would be helpful to have the ability to restrict access to Box Sign documents to signers only.
Currently, additional protections such as password or login can be configured, but access itself is not strictly limited to the intended signers, which may create a risk of unintended access.
It would be great if admins could enforce signer-only access at the organizational level, ensuring that only designated signers can view the documents sent via Box Sign.
5 votes -
Add a normal Search Bar to Hubs
The AI is not great. I have written instructions for staff to follow to troubleshoot something. The AI mixes steps and adds incorrect information so that it makes it useless.
We need a normal Search Bar that can be typed into to find matching key words. It can just have up and down arrows just like "find in page" that allow you to skip through the hub to the related content.4 votes -
Exclude Specific Content from Box AI
As a law firm we need to segregate certain client data from the ability to use Box AI due to legal agreements in place with their clients to not be able to use AI on their data. Currently we would need to turn off Box AI on the whole account in order to achieve this requirement, which is not ideal.
134 votes -
Feature Request: Add File Size Sorting Option to Box Search Results
Currently, Box's search results page does not offer the ability to sort results by file size. Users have a need to sort search results by file size, particularly for identifying large files or managing storage. We request the addition of a "File Size (ascending/descending)" sorting option to the search results page.
2 votes -
Feature Request: Display Per-Folder Result Count in Box Search
Currently, Box's search results page does not provide a breakdown of how many files match a search query within each folder. This makes it difficult for users to identify which folders contain the most relevant results and to efficiently locate target files. We request the addition of a feature that categorizes search results by folder and displays the number of hits per folder.
2 votes -
Streamline process of adding collaborators to content
Our users often create their own personal folders and then attempt to share them with their colleagues via shared links. If their colleague has not been added to the file/folder as a collaborator, they will hit a page that says "This shared file or folder has been removed or is unavailable to you." They will then email/message the content owner to request access and/or ask if they have the wrong link. This creates a lot of ad-hoc messages and emails.
It would be great if there was some kind of real-time notification process wherein the content owner was prompted to extend access to the user who was attempting to access the file (ideally, via pop-up). Or, a button for the user to proactively request access to the content, which would trigger an in-app notification for the content owner.
Our users often create their own personal folders and then attempt to share them with their colleagues via shared links. If their colleague has not been added to the file/folder as a collaborator, they will hit a page that says "This shared file or folder has been removed or is unavailable to you." They will then email/message the content owner to request access and/or ask if they have the wrong link. This creates a lot of ad-hoc messages and emails.
It would be great if there was some kind of real-time notification process wherein the content owner was prompted to…
3 votes -
Schedule Retention Policy Disposition Report
There are several common reporting capabilities which appear to be missing from Retention / Disposition reports:
Ability to name & save a report configuration for future re-use
Ability to schedule a report to be run regularly - Seems like a no-brainer for topics like disposition, which inherently continuously needs review as content falls out of retention
Ability to collaborate individuals on a report so that business stakeholders can review regularly scheduled reports without needing an admin
3 votes -
Request for UI improvement of Box AI for Hubs
Content: Currently, in Box AI for Hubs responses, sharing reference materials is displayed as a number, which requires a click each time and makes the display difficult to understand.
We would like to request improvements to make it easier to access reference materials, such as by changing the subject line instead of the number.件名：Box AI for HubsのUI改善要望
内容：現在Box AI for Hubsの回答で参考資料の共有は番号で表示される為、都度クリックが必要となり、表示がわかりにくいです。
番号ではなく件名等へ変更する等、参考資料をわかりやすくアクセスできるよう機能改善要望をします。28 votes -
Shuttle job specific permissions
We would like to grant specific individuals the ability to view specific jobs, but not all jobs.
2 votes -
Collections View - Bring back view of all folders
Bring back the folder view on collections. As someone who utilizes collections for many different purposes, the new view with folders showing at the very top and needing to expand is not helpful.
2 votes -
Box Automate: Support for “Form Metadata Template”
When a large number of metadata fields are captured via Forms, mapping each variable to metadata fields within the workflow becomes time-consuming and complex.
It would be highly beneficial to support applying metadata to files using a “Form Metadata Template,” similar to Relay, to simplify workflow creation.
formsで入力するメタデータフィールドが多い場合、ワークフロー内でフォームで取得した変数をメタデータフィールドにマッピングするのに手間がかかってしまいます。
Relayと同様に「Formメタデータテンプレート」を使ってファイルにメタデータを付ける操作もサポートしてほしい。5 votes -
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.
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.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。
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。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.
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.Increased Character Limit…
21 votes
.png){kind=link}
- Don't see your idea?