Administrator verses User accounts

[RScotti]

Hi,
I see a lot of posts where people prefer to use a user account rather than an Administrator.
Why do they do that? What's wrong with just being logged on as a Administrator?
I am still using XP for the moment while waiting for drivers and I am always logged on as Administrator.
Am I doing something wrong?



Have a good day,
RScotti

remove "nospam" in order to email me.

 

[Ken Gardner]

Hi,
I see a lot of posts where people prefer to use a user account rather than
an Administrator.
Why do they do that? What's wrong with just being logged on as a
Administrator?
I am still using XP for the moment while waiting for drivers and I am
always logged on as Administrator.
Am I doing something wrong?

The short answer is that using a user account is more secure. You are much
less likely to do the type of things that used to wreck the OS in previous
versions of Windows. Even when you have Administrator privileges, the UAC
prompt reminds you that what you are about to do may result in significant
system changes that are not necessarily good. It makes you THINK about what
you are doing.

In XP as well, it is best security practice to log on with normal user
privileges rather than as an Administrator -- for the same reasons. But
almost no one does it if they have a choice. Vista changes this. It treats
you like a normal user, but allows you to "run as administrator" if you have
administrator privileges.

Ken

 

[Dale White]

Just to echo what Ken said, it's a means of protecting you from yourself.
With admin, you basically can destroy your OS if you went crazy, Under a
user or power user account, you're much less likely to cause a critical
problem.

Of course, there are those of us, who have done it long enough that we don't
liked to be bothered with all the safety features. In Vista, the UAC makes
it a little tougher to put yourself in God mode, so in order to do so, you
basically have to be knowledgeable enough to turn of the UAC and reassign
permissions as you want them.

I'd say 90-95% probably don't need that kind of power. The other 5-10% just
like to drive without a seat belt or wear a helmet

 

[Tom Crooze]

I don't want to highjack this thread , but I did post a similar question not
too long ago and didn't really receive the responses I was hoping for.
My question at that time was if you run under a limited account in XP , how
do you manage things like virus program and Windows Updates ?
If your antivirus software is set to install updates automatically ,does it
still happen in a limited user account or do you have to switch to Admin
and check for updates manually ?

 

[Xenomorph]

many people who use computers have no idea what their operating system will
allow them to do, and they dont know what to *not* run.

being logged in as an Admin all the time increases the chance of them
messing something up on their system.

 

[TomC]

You are on the net, do you want to
allow hackers full admin rights, worms &
trojans free access to install & operate
in the background? Internet banking?
passwords & usernames to spy on......hmmmm.
No AV is perfect. Malware writers are
getting more devious,
AV writers are usually playing catch-up.
Surf as a LIMITED User.
It is safer..... but u still have avoid
"happy clicking"

Windows Updates is installing patches so
u must be logged on as Admin. AV's
should update & protect in LIMITED User
accounts.

cheers Tom

 

[RScotti]

Thanks everybody for all your inputs,
Since I was a beta tester years ago I do have some idea on what to do so I will leave it the way it is.
Thanks again.

You are on the net, do you want to
allow hackers full admin rights, worms &
trojans free access to install & operate
in the background? Internet banking?
passwords & usernames to spy on......hmmmm.
No AV is perfect. Malware writers are
getting more devious,
AV writers are usually playing catch-up.
Surf as a LIMITED User.
It is safer..... but u still have avoid
"happy clicking"

Windows Updates is installing patches so
u must be logged on as Admin. AV's
should update & protect in LIMITED User
accounts.

cheers Tom

Have a good day,
RScotti

remove "nospam" in order to email me.

 

[Rick Rogers]

Hi,

In XP those sorts of routines are managed with admin rights. They have to be
installed with admin priviliges, and when they run it is with that level of
privilege so that things like automatic updates work without any action on
the part of the standard/limited user.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Rick Rogers]

Hi,

Normal users should not run everyday operations in admin mode. When you
logon as admin or as a member of the admin group, any operation or routine
you run executes with that level of privileges on the system. With most
software this is fine, but if the code being executed happens to be a
malicious activex control or email virus, then you just gave it free rein on
the system. Running in a standard user account prevents this, as the code
will not have sufficient privileges to make alterations to the system.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

The short answer is that using a user account is more secure. You are
much less likely to do the type of things that used to wreck the OS in
previous versions of Windows. Even when you have Administrator
privileges, the UAC prompt reminds you that what you are about to do may
result in significant system changes that are not necessarily good. It
makes you THINK about what you are doing.

In XP as well, it is best security practice to log on with normal user
privileges rather than as an Administrator -- for the same reasons. But
almost no one does it if they have a choice. Vista changes this. It
treats you like a normal user, but allows you to "run as administrator" if
you have administrator privileges.

Ken

You know I hate to be the negative voice here but the blackhats don't take
that seriously so why should users?

 

[Ken Gardner]

You know I hate to be the negative voice here but the blackhats don't take
that seriously so why should users?

I don't understand your question. Who are the blackhats here, and what is
it that users should not take seriously?

Ken

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:44:40 -0500, "Dale White"

Just to echo what Ken said, it's a means of protecting you from yourself.

Not necessarily "yourself" - the real risk is any code that gets to
run in your session that you did not intend to run, i.e.
- spoofs system via exploit; runs as code
- spoofs you by mis-representing risk

Vista inherits the user-login model of security, i.e. everything that
happens in the logged-in user's session gets the same rights as that
user, but it is beginning to wise up beyond this (at last!)

--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

I don't understand your question. Who are the blackhats here, and what is
it that users should not take seriously?

I didn't say "the blackhats here" as in this newsgroup.

They don't take seriously that being on a limited account will stop them
being able to install rubbish on your machine as opposed to being on an
Administrator account.

 

[Alexander Suhovey]

Hi,
I see a lot of posts where people prefer to use a user account rather than
an Administrator.
Why do they do that? What's wrong with just being logged on as a
Administrator?

If you need a short answer and clear evidence of benefits in running under
standard user, take a look at table on following blog post:

http://silverstr.ufies.org/blog/archives/000913.html

Note that "LUA" mentioned in blog post above stands for Limited User Account
and is a concept of running under standard user accounts rather than members
of Administrators group.

This graphic basically represents a result of running various versions of
Windows without any antivirus software while actively visiting dodgy web
sites and running all kinds of executables from questionable sources. Quite
impressive, isn't it?

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

If you need a short answer and clear evidence of benefits in running under
standard user, take a look at table on following blog post:

http://silverstr.ufies.org/blog/archives/000913.html

Note that "LUA" mentioned in blog post above stands for Limited User
Account and is a concept of running under standard user accounts rather
than members of Administrators group.

This graphic basically represents a result of running various versions of
Windows without any antivirus software while actively visiting dodgy web
sites and running all kinds of executables from questionable sources.
Quite impressive, isn't it?

Sorry but keep searching. So far, XP limited account doesn't stop the
blackhats when you are on the web. I know that isn't Vista limited but it
certainly should make you remain awake and not rely on Vista limited to be
what you think it is.

 

[Alexander Suhovey]

Sorry but keep searching. So far, XP limited account doesn't stop the
blackhats when you are on the web.

Same applies to any security feature alone like firewalls, antiviruses,
patching etc. There's no single silver-bullet solution that will protect you
from all attack vectors and threats. Hence the need of layered "security in
depth" approach and of thinking about security as a process, not a product.

My point is that LUA is one of powerful layers of security that is largely
underestimated.

Lets say it got to the point where malware is successfully executed (which
means that there are either no other levels of security or it has passed
them). In case you are running under admin, your computer is owned
completely, period. In case you are running under LUA, the damage is limited
to user who runs the malware and there's still a level that malware has to
pass to damage system as a whole including other users data. It would
require additional work on part of malware author. Until recently, most of
malware were assuming user who runs them is an administrator, which resulted
in either complete failure of malware to perform whatever it is intended to
or in very limited damage in worst case scenario. Table I was referring to
shows it quite clearly.

Black hats are catching up, no doubt about it, but you can't deny a fact
that LUA is one of most basic but most powerful security concepts that
should not be ignored.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Diamontina Cocktail"

Sorry but keep searching. So far, XP limited account doesn't stop the
blackhats when you are on the web. I know that isn't Vista limited but it
certainly should make you remain awake and not rely on Vista limited to be
what you think it is.

At best, it makes cleanup easier...

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

Same applies to any security feature alone like firewalls, antiviruses,
patching etc. There's no single silver-bullet solution that will protect
you

That is the point. However, in this thread, people are talking like it IS
the answer to all security problems. Limited accounts, however, offer little
that common sense and a reliable firewall dont and then you dont have to put
up with the limitations of a limited account.

from all attack vectors and threats. Hence the need of layered "security
in depth" approach and of thinking about security as a process, not a
product.

My point is that LUA is one of powerful layers of security that is largely
underestimated.

Lets say it got to the point where malware is successfully executed (which
means that there are either no other levels of security or it has passed
them). In case you are running under admin, your computer is owned
completely, period. In case you are running under LUA, the damage is
limited to user who runs the malware and there's still a level that
malware has to

That is just plain wrong. You make a blanket statement there. What you say
can be true in some cases but it isnt in every case, at least with XP
limited accounts. The whole machine could be pwned on a limited account. I
am not sure about Vista limited but then as I said, if they can do it with
XP it isnt smart to assume that Vista limited accounts are safe.

pass to damage system as a whole including other users data. It would
require additional work on part of malware author. Until recently, most of
malware were assuming user who runs them is an administrator, which
resulted in either complete failure of malware to perform whatever it is
intended to or in very limited damage in worst case scenario. Table I was
referring to shows it quite clearly.

Unforunately, once more, not true. Not all malware is stopped by limited
accounts.

Black hats are catching up, no doubt about it, but you can't deny a fact
that LUA is one of most basic but most powerful security concepts that
should not be ignored.

Yes I can. It is really only a misleading concept. At best it is only 1
minor level of security you can add that has SOME effects on SOME malware.
Added to that, it actually stops you being able to do some stuff that you
want to do meaning there is a lot more mucking around.

 

[Alexander Suhovey]

Can you be more specific on how whole system could be owned from standard
user account without additional effort put into finding and exploiting a
flaw in Windows security system? Standard user cannot write anywhere outside
his profile so how do you do that? How do you infect system executables, how
do you make malware auto start for all users, how do you own the whole
system?..

And why do you call it minor? It is not clear from your statements. The idea
of LUA is so basic and obvious (thinking "running with scissors" here) that
I have hard time trying to understand your POV without additional
explanations.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Alexander Suhovey"

Can you be more specific on how whole system could be owned from standard
user account without additional effort put into finding and exploiting a
flaw in Windows security system? Standard user cannot write anywhere outside
his profile so how do you do that? How do you infect system executables, how
do you make malware auto start for all users, how do you own the whole
system?..

Well for one, most malware doesn't need to do much of what you described
above. All much of the stuff out there today does is need to run for a
commonly logged in user, and have the ability to connect out on various
ports (25 being the big one)

Raising the bar from infecting a "PC" to infecting each user's account
isn't raising it very high, especially with fast user switching and
Vista's preference toward standby/hibernate rather then restarting.

Even spyware can live happily in this world, spyware can still read the
user's favourites, history, documents and other personal data and upload
it to the web just the same.

Having users run as limited users just makes disaster recovery as simple
as deleting the user profile, rather then a full OS reinstall (Which I
will go on record as saying is the *only* way to be sure you've cleaned
a system properly -- Even if you know a specific malware's tracks, and
how to remove it, once a system has been compromised you can never know
if a black-hat has gotten in and done further damage, for degrees of
never including levels of analysis in reach of those who get infected in
the first place)