Come on ! 3 prompts to delete a shortcut ?!? Another I hate UAC thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Puppy Breath
  • Start date Start date
In message <[email protected]> DanS
Honestly, my PC clock gains time by about 1 minute a week. Right now it's
about 7 minutes fast, so I guess the last time I set it was about 7 weeks
ago. I have the time service disabled. Just because.

But seriously, that is one small detail. I'm sure there are 10's of other
things that you may adjust on your PC, for some reason or another, maybe
infrequently, that have similar procedure to go through now.
Click to expand...

Sure, but again, how often do you actually need to be changing system
settings on a regular basis?
 
Well, I have 24 years experience building and setting up personal
computer systems, and I say UAC is an idea whose time has come.
Did you know that up to 95% of all mail handled by servers is spam?
And that most of that spam email is sent out inadvertently from PCs
which have been compromised and taken over by remotely controlled
bots? So if UAC does its part by keeping the bad guys out, I'm all in
favor.

Gary VanderMolen
 
Malware uses many vectors besides IE. Even antimalware software such as
Norton AV and Zonealarm have been exploited to get malware onto a computer.
Most of the computers that I see with malware on them the malware came in
the form of a trojan. Drive by infections are becoming much harder as most
people are practicing at least minimal safe hex.

UAC is more about security than stopping malware. Stopping malware is a
byproduct of better security. UAC stands for User Account Control. That is
exactly what it does. It allows you to control what your account can do. It
is not perfect. It is better than running wide open as a administrator all
the time. The prompts that everyone is complaining about is the tip of the
UAC iceberg. UAC does much more in the background that isn't apparent to the
user. Turning it off stops the prompts. It also stops all the other features
of UAC.

I would not say Firefox is orders of magnitude more secure than IE6. When it
first came out it was targeted less and IE exploits didn't work on it.
Currently it has gained enough market share that is exploited almost as much
as IE6. There are exploits that work on both browsers through Java. There
are also exploits that only work on Firefox. You are no safer with Firefox
than IE6. IE7, especially in Vista with UAC on, is much safer (but not
orders of magnitude which I don't think you understand or you wouldn't have
used the term) than both.
 
That is not a statistically valid survey. I could easily come with twice as
many experienced IT pros with even more experience per person that think UAC
is excellent. Time and millions of users will prove if UAC works or not. At
present all anyone can say is if they personally like it or not.
 
Well, I have 24 years experience building and setting up personal
computer systems, and I say UAC is an idea whose time has come.
Did you know that up to 95% of all mail handled by servers is spam?
And that most of that spam email is sent out inadvertently from PCs
which have been compromised and taken over by remotely controlled
bots? So if UAC does its part by keeping the bad guys out, I'm all in
favor.
Click to expand...

I would be too, if it actually did what it is suppose to. <wink>
 
The smart person (after all if they are writing an article they should be
somewhat smart) would right click on the digital clock and select Adjust
Date/Time & click on that and from there click on the Change Date/Time
button which then does indeed pop up a UAC prompt but then it lets you in.

So there, a shorter process for doing the same thing, and it's 3 clicks.

So if you say 3 clicks ain't bad then it must not be bad ;)
 
UAC is more about security than stopping malware. Stopping malware is a
byproduct of better security. UAC stands for User Account Control. That is
exactly what it does. It allows you to control what your account can do. It
is not perfect. It is better than running wide open as a administrator all
the time. The prompts that everyone is complaining about is the tip of the
UAC iceberg. UAC does much more in the background that isn't apparent to the
user. Turning it off stops the prompts. It also stops all the other features
of UAC.
Click to expand...

You may not realize it but you're making the argument that UAC is
badly written and broken since you can't customize it to do what you
want, rather than it insisting on doing what IT wants to do. It is
also badly named. User Account Control? Geez, no way. The only control
I as a user have is either turning it off or on. <wink>
 
Adam Albright said:
Weren't you the one that accused me of trying to put words in your
mouth? Now look at you, the one that brought up airport security as an
analogy and now you seem defensive because I poked a hole in it.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that you had misunderstood my point. It looks like you
still do.
There you go again. I do things that provide REAL security that I'm
afraid are over your head. Way over. Yet you seem to have a need to
try to talk down to everybody that doesn't agree with your opinions.
Those silly MVP titles tend to do that to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I was not talking down to you. I was stating what you have already said in
many posts. You do not feel threatened by malware. If you don't feel
theatened then why would you feel a need for improved security? That was my
point. People strike a balance between security and a perceived threat. Your
balance is different than others. This doesn't mean you are wrong or they
are wrong. We all perceive things differently. Many people do feel
threatened by malware or even by their family members just screwing up the
computer, or whatever. For many people the increased security of UAC is
worth the inconvenience. For you it is not. Can you not understand that we
all perceive the world differently?

I manage hundreds of computers most of which have never seen any malware or
experience any problems. I manage web servers directly connected to the
Internet. I manage government contractors who need secure confidential
communications between many different locations. I work on home computers
that have been infected with malware every day. I know quite bit about
computer security. I have many years of education in computer programming,
networking, and security. If I know more than you I have no idea. You seem
to think that you know more than me. Maybe you do but some of your posts
show a lack of some rudimentery principles of security and how Windows works
that make me doubt your expertise.
 
That is not a statistically valid survey. I could easily come with twice as
many experienced IT pros with even more experience per person that think UAC
is excellent. Time and millions of users will prove if UAC works or not. At
present all anyone can say is if they personally like it or not.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on being so dense? I documented where UAC doesn't
work. So have others. If it fails to let me the user and the ultimate
authority over what MY computer does or doesn't allow, then something
is broke. Badly. While you can turn off UAC, that sir, obviously
defeats the entire purpose. It is already established FACT that under
certain conditions UAC DOES NOT WORK and you have to turn if off to
gain access to some of YOUR folders or files. Emphasis on the word
YOUR, my files are MINE, they don't belong to Vista which can
foolishly shake its finger at me and scold no, no, no, you can't do
that.
 
The smart person (after all if they are writing an article they should be
somewhat smart) would right click on the digital clock and select Adjust
Date/Time & click on that and from there click on the Change Date/Time
button which then does indeed pop up a UAC prompt but then it lets you in.

So there, a shorter process for doing the same thing, and it's 3 clicks.

So if you say 3 clicks ain't bad then it must not be bad ;)
Click to expand...

Didn't I read somewhere that Windows was suppose to be smart enough to
tie into some Atomic Clock and keep updating itself every so often so
it kept accurate time? Maybe it was a option or a third party
offering.
 
I was not talking down to you. I was stating what you have already said in
many posts. You do not feel threatened by malware.
Click to expand...

That's a hoot. Show me any post where I've said any such thing.
If you don't feel theatened then why would you feel a need for improved security?
Click to expand...

Just another of your many repeated self-serving statements and
strawmen to try to bolster your opinions.
That was my point. People strike a balance between security and a perceived threat. Your
balance is different than others. This doesn't mean you are wrong or they
are wrong. We all perceive things differently. Many people do feel
threatened by malware or even by their family members just screwing up the
computer, or whatever. For many people the increased security of UAC is
worth the inconvenience. For you it is not. Can you not understand that we
all perceive the world differently?
Click to expand...

We don't seem to see things the same, that's for sure. I simply object
to your style where you keep pretending I and others say what we
haven't said or imply we don't care about security. That's being
disingenuous. I'm sure you're a nice guy and I'm not looking to
nitpick, but it seems you blindly defend Microsoft no matter what.
That helps nobody. At least you now have admitted UAC needs work. That
for sure we agree on and is at least a start and differs sharply from
what you said just a couple weeks ago.
I manage hundreds of computers most of which have never seen any malware or
experience any problems. I manage web servers directly connected to the
Internet. I manage government contractors who need secure confidential
communications between many different locations. I work on home computers
that have been infected with malware every day. I know quite bit about
computer security. I have many years of education in computer programming,
networking, and security. If I know more than you I have no idea. You seem
to think that you know more than me. Maybe you do but some of your posts
show a lack of some rudimentery principles of security and how Windows works
that make me doubt your expertise.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. Which you are entited too of course. I find it funny
you need to list your resume to bolster your claim. If you know as
much as you claim about computer security you would be able to tell us
just EXACTLY what UAC brings in the form of security. Maybe you define
it differently than I and others do.

Hint: Microsoft has already admitted the concept of UAC was not
intended to deal with security directly, ie protect against malware,
which they have already been shown in at least one trade show to
easily be defeated if some clever hacker tries to break into Vista.

I have no desire to enter a pissing contest with you or anyone else. I
just wish you would be a little more up front and not always hide
behind the "it ain't Microsoft's fault" excuse. That's threadbare for
going on 20 years. The reason Windows presents a security risk is it
was never designed to be a "secure" operating system and wasn't
originally designed to engage its main source of attacks; the
Internet.

Source: Bill Gates. Maybe you head of him. ;-)
 
Adam Albright said:
Didn't I read somewhere that Windows was suppose to be smart enough to
tie into some Atomic Clock and keep updating itself every so often so
it kept accurate time? Maybe it was a option or a third party
offering.
Click to expand...

Windows has been doing that ever since XP came out.
 
And this is Vista's fault? Hmm...

Lang

DanS said:
Honestly, my PC clock gains time by about 1 minute a week. Right now it's
about 7 minutes fast, so I guess the last time I set it was about 7 weeks
ago. I have the time service disabled. Just because.

But seriously, that is one small detail. I'm sure there are 10's of other
things that you may adjust on your PC, for some reason or another, maybe
infrequently, that have similar procedure to go through now.
Click to expand...
 
how about this statistic?

The only person I have heard on this planet that actually likes UAC is you.

Blogs, emails, youtube videos, newsgroups... everyone is ranting about this
UAC thing.

The first thing people ask is how to turn it off... lol

Keep your feature and love it... its not for me or the rest of the world.
Sorry.
 
I guess you didn't read where I posted this: "Of course I agree that UAC
could be implemented better. I wish it didn't even exist.". I don't love
UAC. My point is that UAC is better than XP which had no security if you ran
as a administrator. It does improve the security in Vista. For the vast
majority of computer users they are better off with UAC enabled than
disabled. If you think otherwise then turn it off. That's why the ability to
turn it off exists. To deny that UAC increases security shows a basic lack
of understanding of how security works. Yes, it could have been implemented
better but it is the tool that we have and it works quite well at what it
does. Most people don't post when they like or are even ambivalent about
something. Most people only post when they have a complaint or problem. UAC
is new and causes some inconvenience. Many people didn't have a problem with
XP so they don't understand why this inconvenience exists in Vista so they
complain. That's human nature. It doesn't prove that UAC doesn't work or
isn't needed. All it proves is that some people don't like it. In that case
there is a way to turn it off.
 
I guess you didn't read where I posted this: "Of course I agree that UAC
could be implemented better. I wish it didn't even exist.". I don't love
UAC. My point is that UAC is better than XP which had no security if you ran
as a administrator. It does improve the security in Vista. For the vast
majority of computer users they are better off with UAC enabled than
disabled. If you think otherwise then turn it off. That's why the ability to
turn it off exists. To deny that UAC increases security shows a basic lack
of understanding of how security works. Yes, it could have been implemented
better but it is the tool that we have and it works quite well at what it
does. Most people don't post when they like or are even ambivalent about
something. Most people only post when they have a complaint or problem. UAC
is new and causes some inconvenience. Many people didn't have a problem with
XP so they don't understand why this inconvenience exists in Vista so they
complain. That's human nature. It doesn't prove that UAC doesn't work or
isn't needed. All it proves is that some people don't like it. In that case
there is a way to turn it off.
Click to expand...

You keep suggesting that UAC provides a level of security yet never
actually say WHAT it does beyond nag users to death, THEN let them
click through, which duh...allows them to do what they were going to
do anyway. I don't see how this makes you more "secure".

If you want to use your airport security analogy again, that would be
like somebody getting searched and the security people finding a
weapon and letting the person get on the plane anyway with the weapon.
What purpose is served then in searching?

Same with UAC. If you can turn it off or simply click continue, you
are only made AWARE of some potential threat, not actually PROTECTED
from it.

Since Microsoft is already on record saying UAC's intended purpose
really isn't to block malware or even provide any real security I fail
to understand why you keep pushing it.

There's a long running thread titled something like 10 reasons to buy
Vista. Can you give just 5 good reasons to turn on UAC?
 
Because when it pops up it ASKS you the user, not decide by itself how
to handle a particular event.
Click to expand...

Like the EULA claim that Windows Defender, if enabled, may automatically
delete programs it thinks are spyware ?

The EULA also states that by using Defender....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POTENTIALLY UNWANTED SOFTWARE. If turned on, Windows Defender will search
your computer for “spyware,” “adware” and other potentially unwanted
software. If it finds potentially unwanted software, the software will
ask you if you want to ignore, disable (quarantine) or remove it.

Any potentially unwanted software rated “high” or “severe,” will
automatically be removed after scanning unless you change the default
setting. Removing or disabling potentially unwanted software may result
in:

-other software on your computer ceasing to work, or
-your breaching a license to use other software on your computer.

By using this software, it is possible that you will also remove or
disable software that is not potentially unwanted software.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So my question is, why it it DEFAULT to automatically delete programs
DEFENDER thinks are a severe threat ?

I would think the intelligent thing would be to not make it the default,
but offer an 'Always do this' box when it finds things it thinks are a
severe threat.
 
There's a long running thread titled something like 10 reasons to buy
Vista. Can you give just 5 good reasons to turn on UAC?
Click to expand...


Here's a quote that has several good reasons for using UAC. It's based on
RC1 but it also applies to RTM.

"
File System and Registry Virtualization

In Windows Vista, many legacy applications that were not designed to support
standard user accounts can run without modification, using the built-in
file/registry virtualization feature. File/registry virtualization gives an
application its own "virtualized" view of a resource it is attempting to
change using a copy-on-write strategy. For example, when the application
attempts to write to a file in the program files directory, Windows Vista
gives the application its own private copy of the file in the user's profile
so the application will function properly.
Virtualization also provides logging by default for applications that
attempt to write to protected areas.
Microsoft's early testing of legacy applications running in standard user
mode using file/registry virtualization under Windows Vista has shown
promising application compatibility results. Although virtualization allows
the majority of legacy applications to run, it is a short-term measure-not a
long-term solution. Not only can a lack of compliance with User Account
Control affect the security of an application, but it can also reduce the
application's performance, require additional end-user training, and cause
application conflicts.

Over-the-Shoulder (OTS) Credentials

Whenever standard users attempt an administrative task, such as software
installation, they will be prompted for an administrator password. If they
know their local administrator password they may enter it then or ask an IT
administrator for assistance. This process is called over-the-shoulder (OTS)
credentials. IT administrators can disable this feature, in which case the
user is simply informed that they do not have the permission to perform the
operation.

Admin Approval Mode: Right Privilege at the Right Time

To help protect administrators while doing non-administrative operations,
the Windows Vista team has devised the Admin Approval Mode feature. This
feature allows administrators to perform normal day-to-day tasks such as
checking e-mail or browsing the Web while running with a standard user
token. If administrator privileges are needed for an operation, the
administrator will be notified and asked to provide either consent or
credentials, depending on system policy settings. The Windows Vista team
calls this approach "right privilege at the right time." There's no more
switching back and forth between standard user and local administrator,
juggling two user profiles.

No Need for the Power Users Group

The Power Users Group account in previous versions of Windows was designed
to give users specific administrator privileges to perform basic system
tasks while running applications. Unfortunately, this solution fixed the
symptom-application failure-but it did not fix the problem: applications
still fundamentally require unnecessary privileges.
User Account Control does not utilize the Power User mode because Standard
mode users can now perform most common configuration tasks. For legacy
applications that require administrative privileges under Windows XP, file
and registry virtualization in Windows Vista will help them run smoothly
without reconfiguration. For new, compliant applications, User Account
Control guidelines will define the correct protocol for file locations,
registry changes, and other common tasks.

Preventing Application-Based Shatter Attacks

Running in standard user mode gives customers increased protection against
inadvertent system-level damage caused by "shatter attacks" and malware,
such as root kits, spyware, and undetectable viruses. Shatter attacks take
over a user interface by using the Windows messaging system (how
applications communicate with the Windows operating system and each other)
to run malicious code or overwrite administrative processes. The primary
cause of this problem is that any application can send a message to any
other application on the same desktop. When the target application receives
a message, it has no way of discerning the process source or determining
whether the application sending the message is authorized to do so.
This class of security breach is not a single attack, but rather a type of
attack. Taken alone, each instance is not a critical problem. However, the
fact that this attack vector is present in many applications makes the
problem much more serious. The vulnerability lies in the way developers
write software that runs on Windows. Microsoft has always recommended that
software vendors refrain from using the messaging system for highly
privileged applications. Unfortunately, numerous software products still
haven't adopted this basic measure of protection.
User Account Control-compliant software applications isolate privileges by
design, reducing the attack surface of the operating system by reducing the
general set of privileges and helping prevent unauthorized applications from
running without the user's consent. A strictly enforced User Account Control
model makes it harder for worms and viruses to take over Windows-based
systems by ensuring that existing security measures are not disabled by
standard users running in Administrator mode.

Secure Desktop Prompting

In Windows Vista RC1 you will notice that, by default when User Account
Control prompts appear, the rest of the screen is darkened. The prompts are
being displayed in the Secure Desktop mode. The same mode you see when you
log on or press CTL+ALT+DELETE. Displaying User Account Control elevation
dialogs on the Secure Desktop helps protect the user from unknowingly
allowing a program to run with elevated privileges without their consent.
Without this protection, it is much easier to create malware that tricks the
user into approving an elevation request prompt that they really wanted to
deny. The Secure Desktop helps protect against this because other software
running on the machine is blocked from interacting with the user's
interface.
"

Quoted from:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa906021.aspx#EIC

Here's some more links about UAC. It's a lot of reading but if you read and
comprehend them you will see that UAC is much more than some annoying
prompts.

http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...8514-4c9e-ac08-4c21f5c6c2d91033.mspx?mfr=true

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...69-A648-49AF-BC5E-A2EEBB74C16B&displaylang=en

http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...2b2f-422c-b70e-b18ff918c2811033.mspx?mfr=true

Adam

I don't expect you will read all this material. Your mind is made up and I
don't think anything I can do will change it. I posted all of the above for
anyone else following the thread so they can read about UAC and make up
their own mind. You and I obviously disagree on UAC. Let's just leave it at
that and get back to helping people solve problems. I'm done with this
thread as it's turned into an argument rather than a discussion.
 
By using this software, it is possible that you will also remove or
disable software that is not potentially unwanted software.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So my question is, why it it DEFAULT to automatically delete programs
DEFENDER thinks are a severe threat ?

I would think the intelligent thing would be to not make it the default,
but offer an 'Always do this' box when it finds things it thinks are a
severe threat.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's a good question. Speaking of permission, I once had
Windows XP go ahead and update one of its security patches without
providing the usual prompts to ask if it was ok and I did NOT have the
automatic update feature turned on. Still waiting to hear from
Microsoft how that happened because it was one of those "critical"
updates that requires a reboot and I was in the middle of rendering a
large video project, had about 8 hours invested in it and I had
stepped away from the machine only to discover it went ahead anyway.
That didn't make me too happy.
 
Back
Top