Turning off User Accounts

[Taxed Mind]

Using Win XP:

Under Control Panel; User Accounts, I have 2 user accounts.

"My Name" - Computer Administrator, and

"Guest" - Guest account is off.

So when I turn on the computer I do not have to sign in and when the
computer hibernates I do, but with only one choice, "My Name". This is good
and the way I want it.

However I want to try something on a different user account, can I activate
the "Guest" account and then deactivate it later so that I never have the
choice of logging on to it later. I do not want the option of having two
accounts to chose between after my "experiment"

Thanks in advance

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Using Win XP:

Under Control Panel; User Accounts, I have 2 user accounts.

"My Name" - Computer Administrator, and

"Guest" - Guest account is off.

So when I turn on the computer I do not have to sign in and when the
computer hibernates I do, but with only one choice, "My Name". This is
good
and the way I want it.

However I want to try something on a different user account, can I
activate
the "Guest" account and then deactivate it later so that I never have the
choice of logging on to it later. I do not want the option of having two
accounts to chose between after my "experiment"

Thanks in advance

It would be better to create a dedicated "Test" account instead
of using the "Guest" account. To ensure that you do not need
to enter the password for your normal account, check out this
link: http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/win_xp_passwords.htm.

 

[Malke]

Using Win XP:

Under Control Panel; User Accounts, I have 2 user accounts.

"My Name" - Computer Administrator, and

"Guest" - Guest account is off.

So when I turn on the computer I do not have to sign in and when the
computer hibernates I do, but with only one choice, "My Name". This is
good and the way I want it.

However I want to try something on a different user account, can I
activate the "Guest" account and then deactivate it later so that I never
have the
choice of logging on to it later. I do not want the option of having two
accounts to chose between after my "experiment"

It is better to leave the Guest account disabled for security purposes.
Simply create a new user account - call it Test if you like. When you are
finished playing with it, you can delete it from the User Accounts applet
if you want. Or leave it and set your computer to log on automatically per
the following link. It will not hurt your computer to have more than one
user account.

Configure Windows to Automatically Login (MVP Ramesh) -
http://windowsxp.mvps.org/Autologon.htm

Malke

 

[PD43]

However I want to try something on a different user account, can I activate
the "Guest" account and then deactivate it later so that I never have the
choice of logging on to it later.

Yes

 

[PD43]

It is better to leave the Guest account disabled for security purposes.

Like, is the OP's home going to be busted into the minute the Guest
account is enabled???

 

[Malke]

Like, is the OP's home going to be busted into the minute the Guest
account is enabled???

No, but possibly his computer will be compromised. We have no idea of its
state and I try and give answers based on best practices. You can of course
disagree and do whatever you like. I stand by what I told him - and with
which Pegasus concurs - and that is to leave the Guest account disabled ad
make a Test user account instead. It will give a more accurate picture of
whatever he is testing in any case to use a regular user account instead of
Guest.

Malke

 

[PD43]

No, but possibly his computer will be compromised

HOW?

 

[Gordon]

HOW?

Guest is one of the two built-in accounts which cannot be deleted. The Guest
account provides a known, unprivileged account which can be attacked.

see here for more info:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/300489

 

[PD43]

Guest is one of the two built-in accounts which cannot be deleted. The Guest
account provides a known, unprivileged account which can be attacked.

The OP wanted to "experiment", which sounded like a short-lived thing
to me. Even if it weren't, if it is a stand alone computer, he is the
only user, and the computer is protected by a firewall if connected to
the Internet there is no problem that I can see. None whatever.

Once again, the MVP's knowledge complicates what should be a common
sense answer.

 

[PD43]

Guest is one of the two built-in accounts which cannot be deleted. The Guest
account provides a known, unprivileged account which can be attacked.

see here for more info:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/300489

BTW... there is nothing in that article that I didn't know. Also
there is not even the HINT of a note of caution about the use of such
account. It is there for convenience purposes from what I can tell.

 

[M.I.5¾]

Yes

provided what you want to do can be acomplished within the very limited
facilities that the guest account offers.

Don't leave the guest enabled longer than you need to as it is a secrity
liability.

 

[PD43]

Don't leave the guest enabled longer than you need to as it is a secrity
liability.

You're a day late. That has already been alleged by two MVP's and I
answered them with my own thoughts (in opposition).

 

[Bill Sharpe]

provided what you want to do can be acomplished within the very limited
facilities that the guest account offers.

Don't leave the guest enabled longer than you need to as it is a secrity
liability.

If the guest account has "very limited facilities" why is it such a
security liability?

Bill

 

[PD43]

If the guest account has "very limited facilities" why is it such a
security liability?

NOBODY who has posted the knee-jerk "security liability/problem" reply
in this thread has answered that question.

NOBODY.

They can't.

 

[Bob I]

If the guest account has "very limited facilities" why is it such a
security liability?

Bill

I'm guessing an old issue carried forward, see link.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/906574.mspx

 

[PD43]

I'm guessing an old issue carried forward, see link.

Right. It's an OLD issue that's irrelevant if someone is keeping up
with updates.

If they're not, they deserve what they get.

 

[Bob I]

Right. It's an OLD issue that's irrelevant if someone is keeping up
with updates.

If they're not, they deserve what they get.

More a case of "urban legend" now I would say.