I can see your point of view. And btw, I'm not an MS fanboi (or fangirl).
However, logically looking at what UAC is and what its used for, the
deletion of a file (like in your example) and allowing UAC to always ignore
it would be defeating the purpose of what it is used for. If a mal user were
to access the pc and start to delete files, but you have 'always' allowed
the deletion of files, then UAC would not prompt the user to allow this. So
basically, UAC is worthless, it may as well be disabled.
Not deletion of files, deletion of desktop shortcuts which can't pose
any threat since they are nothing but a link to a file, not the file
itself. This is what I mean by not being well implemented. There
simply is no intelligence behind what UAC warns you about in many
cases. As far as deleting files themselves, UAC is all over the map.
I've seen in nag for no reason when I try to delete some files, then
let the next ones with the same file permissions and ownership in the
same folder slip past without nagging about them at all.
My biggest beef is UAC is a phony as a three dollar bill and can be
easily tricked or bypassed. Classic example I've mentioned before are
applications that bypass normal Windows calls and just do their own
thing. Case in point; Bounce Back, a backup utility that use to come
with Seagate external drives. I can fire Bounce Back up, it will scan
my entire system, all 3 TBs of it, compile a detailed list of what
files have changed, then blow out any file I tell it to delete or copy
those that haven't been copied yet regardless what file permissions
are set Vista doesn't utter a peep. So it other words it is totally
fooled and therefore USELESS as far as providing any real security.
I would assume any hacker worth being called a hacker could easily
write similar code to quickly, easily and without Vista even knowing
what was going on do the same kind of file handling with little
effort. So again I got to wonder, why so many seemed fooled by
so-called "security" that is little more than window dressing.
Lets say I like to run notepad by manually executing it (notepad.exe), and
I've told UAC to always allow the execution of this app. Some loser sends me
an email (I'm a dumb user in this scenario) saying "Updated notepad!
Improved and better!" with notepad.exe attached. Sounds great, I'll execute
it... Whoops no UAC prompt. But in this scenario, a dumb user would just
execute it anyway.
What I'm trying to say is, I think UAC is designed to give more control to
the user, but at the same time, you're right... It is annoying, but thats
why I disabled it. And yes, it would be nice to have a rules list like
firewalls have. In the end, why complain about it when you can have the best
rule, disable it completely rule.
Because I expert MORE from Microsoft as the world's biggest software
developer. They made a big deal about offering more security and it
boils down to being mostly a sham. This is dangerous in that less
experienced users may let their guard down thinking Vista is
protecting them when it isn't really.
You have to admit, software design is difficult at the best of times.
Actually it becomes difficult when you take the I've got an army of
programmers approach that don't have a clue what the guy in the next
cubicle is doing. That's the Microsoft way. Heck, they got employees
roaming around on campus just looking for the right building let alone
trying to find the right person to question about a problem. That
explains why Windows is now a bloated 50 million lines. Gee wiz that's
nuts. At that size no human has a clue how all that cutter reacts with
other sections of code. Windows has got to the point where you have a
bunch of people that know how a little piece of code works down to the
nth degree but have little or no knowledge how the rest of it works or
doesn't with what they've written. That's a blueprint for disaster and
sadly that is what Windows has evolved or devolved into.
