UAC should have been a Business class feature, not for Home Users

[JD Wohlever]

I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
for, is going
to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.
Example, my mother is your basic Internet User. She just graduated from AOL
to
a normal broadband connection after me telling her for years how much better
broadband would be for her. She bought a PC that had Vista Home Premium on
it.
Suddenly dial-up became a major pain in the butt because Vista is geared
more toward a constant net connection. No problem there, I agree.
However, 2 days later she calls me up and asks me to put Windows XP back on
her computer.
When I ask her why, the response " I'm sick of the computer asking me
questions every 5 seconds. It didn't do it before. I have an anti-virus, a
firewall, and a anti-spyware program running. Why do I have to OK every
single thing I do?"
I tried explaining the benefits, but she would hear none of it. She has been
told by the Norton's and the AdAware's of the world that as long as she runs
their programs and practices safe netting that she is ok. So it was either
turn UAC off or install Windows XP for her, she was that serious.
And to be honest, I understand how she feels. In 5 years she has never had a
virus, has only had very light malware (Which SpyBot SD quickly removed),
and has nothing of hi-value on her PC for a hacker to have much interest in
other than family photo's of the dog etc.
My point being is that the average user who buys Windows HOME versions are
not going to WANT this elevated security, and as soon as they find a way to
remove it, they will.
MS should have made UAC a Business / Enterprise feature and left the
standard user and admin feature set of XP for the Home licenses of Vista.
I build PC's for a living so I know the problems that John Q Public can make
for their selves on a PC on the net with no protection. But simple education
and running the big 3 (Anti-virus, Anti-spyware and Firewalls) should be
more than enough to protect them. Now if they are stupid enough to store all
their financial information or work related trade secrets and not have the
"the big 3" then they certainly aren't going to tolerate UAC.



--
Thank you,
JD Wohlever

Techware Grafx
techware(dash)grafx(at)hotmail(dot)com

 

[Chad Harris]

Not a setup install issue.

CH

I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
for, is going
to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.
Example, my mother is your basic Internet User. She just graduated from
AOL to
a normal broadband connection after me telling her for years how much
better broadband would be for her. She bought a PC that had Vista Home
Premium on it.
Suddenly dial-up became a major pain in the butt because Vista is geared
more toward a constant net connection. No problem there, I agree.
However, 2 days later she calls me up and asks me to put Windows XP back
on her computer.
When I ask her why, the response " I'm sick of the computer asking me
questions every 5 seconds. It didn't do it before. I have an anti-virus, a
firewall, and a anti-spyware program running. Why do I have to OK every
single thing I do?"
I tried explaining the benefits, but she would hear none of it. She has
been told by the Norton's and the AdAware's of the world that as long as
she runs their programs and practices safe netting that she is ok. So it
was either turn UAC off or install Windows XP for her, she was that
serious.
And to be honest, I understand how she feels. In 5 years she has never had
a virus, has only had very light malware (Which SpyBot SD quickly
removed), and has nothing of hi-value on her PC for a hacker to have much
interest in other than family photo's of the dog etc.
My point being is that the average user who buys Windows HOME versions are
not going to WANT this elevated security, and as soon as they find a way
to remove it, they will.
MS should have made UAC a Business / Enterprise feature and left the
standard user and admin feature set of XP for the Home licenses of Vista.
I build PC's for a living so I know the problems that John Q Public can
make for their selves on a PC on the net with no protection. But simple
education and running the big 3 (Anti-virus, Anti-spyware and Firewalls)
should be more than enough to protect them. Now if they are stupid enough
to store all their financial information or work related trade secrets and
not have the "the big 3" then they certainly aren't going to tolerate UAC.



--
Thank you,
JD Wohlever

Techware Grafx
techware(dash)grafx(at)hotmail(dot)com

 

[Guest]

I like this thread as it explains very well, (thank you JD) my biggest
complaint with this new Vista. I'm assuming UAC is user admin. control and it
sounds like we can turn this annoying thing off totally! Yippee.... where can
I find directions for doing that and maybe uninstalling it forever? And if
so, does that mean our level of security will be only less the "improvements"
and only that of my old XP? (thank GOD I still have and use that computer
too) AVG and Spybot have served me well in over 10 years. That and a little
common sense go a long ways.

Also a simple drop/drag to create a shortcut on my desktop from the program
files pops up two windows... are you sure you want to do this? Does anyone
know how I can stop that popup too?

I do like the "program compability feature"-- Except, when we are installing
a program that is Not compatible and there's no solution---then what? Is it
half installed, do I need to uninstall what was started?

I had trouble finding the add/remove programs section and I notice it does
NOT list everything. That is another big issue with me. It took quite awhile
to remove all the ISP junk and advertising off this new computer and I don't
even know that I did remove it all since MSN, AOL and that other junk were
not listed in add/remove. Everything has been reorganized to the point that
it is difficult and not easier. I am seriously considering the idea of
removing Vista and replacing with Xp, since HP finally mailed me the restore
disks from that class action suit.

Sorry for so many questions. Thank you in advance for those of you that help
answer my questions.

ceece

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

JD

Open up Help and Support.. type UAC in the search box.. the second entry
deals with turning UAC on and off..

People ask for more security, and they get it.. UAC was set as default in
the hope that users stop automatically using administrator rights which can
leave the system wide open to security breaches..

Note from the above how easy it is to turn UAC off if required.. no fuss, no
panic.. am I supporter of UAC? well, to be truthful, I sit on the fence re
UAC.. do I use UAC on my own system? when hell freezes over, I may start to
use it..

I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
for, is going
to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.
Example, my mother is your basic Internet User. She just graduated from
AOL to
a normal broadband connection after me telling her for years how much
better broadband would be for her. She bought a PC that had Vista Home
Premium on it.
Suddenly dial-up became a major pain in the butt because Vista is geared
more toward a constant net connection. No problem there, I agree.
However, 2 days later she calls me up and asks me to put Windows XP back
on her computer.
When I ask her why, the response " I'm sick of the computer asking me
questions every 5 seconds. It didn't do it before. I have an anti-virus, a
firewall, and a anti-spyware program running. Why do I have to OK every
single thing I do?"
I tried explaining the benefits, but she would hear none of it. She has
been told by the Norton's and the AdAware's of the world that as long as
she runs their programs and practices safe netting that she is ok. So it
was either turn UAC off or install Windows XP for her, she was that
serious.
And to be honest, I understand how she feels. In 5 years she has never had
a virus, has only had very light malware (Which SpyBot SD quickly
removed), and has nothing of hi-value on her PC for a hacker to have much
interest in other than family photo's of the dog etc.
My point being is that the average user who buys Windows HOME versions are
not going to WANT this elevated security, and as soon as they find a way
to remove it, they will.
MS should have made UAC a Business / Enterprise feature and left the
standard user and admin feature set of XP for the Home licenses of Vista.
I build PC's for a living so I know the problems that John Q Public can
make for their selves on a PC on the net with no protection. But simple
education and running the big 3 (Anti-virus, Anti-spyware and Firewalls)
should be more than enough to protect them. Now if they are stupid enough
to store all their financial information or work related trade secrets and
not have the "the big 3" then they certainly aren't going to tolerate UAC.



--
Thank you,
JD Wohlever

Techware Grafx
techware(dash)grafx(at)hotmail(dot)com

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Richard Urban]

You build computers for a living but your MIL bought a PC with Vista on it -
and didn't ask you for advice first?

 

[Dustin Harper]

I do have to agree that UAC can be a pain in the butt. But, it was
designed as a security feature, which Microsoft has been trying to push
a lot lately. To me, security should be strong, yet as transparent to
the end user as possible. UAC kind of goes against that.

Do I have it turned off? Yes. I also run a Smoothwall firewall with
several good modules on the firewall as well as Windows Firewall.
Security is a main concern with me (although I have nothing to secure,
document wise!), as I have fixed many machines that were going "slow",
but were infected with so much spyware, and has "mysterious" SMTP
services running. UAC keeps rogue apps from running and hiding a program
that would comprimise a machine. If it can't run, it can't cause damage.

UAC should have had more of an instruction sheet with it (or at least on
the Welcome Screen!) for the home user. To them, it's permanent and a
pain in the ass, making them not want Windows Vista.

--
Dustin Harper
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.vistarip.com

I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
for, is going
to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.
Example, my mother is your basic Internet User. She just graduated from
AOL to
a normal broadband connection after me telling her for years how much
better broadband would be for her. She bought a PC that had Vista Home
Premium on it.
Suddenly dial-up became a major pain in the butt because Vista is geared
more toward a constant net connection. No problem there, I agree.
However, 2 days later she calls me up and asks me to put Windows XP back
on her computer.
When I ask her why, the response " I'm sick of the computer asking me
questions every 5 seconds. It didn't do it before. I have an anti-virus,
a firewall, and a anti-spyware program running. Why do I have to OK
every single thing I do?"
I tried explaining the benefits, but she would hear none of it. She has
been told by the Norton's and the AdAware's of the world that as long as
she runs their programs and practices safe netting that she is ok. So it
was either turn UAC off or install Windows XP for her, she was that
serious.
And to be honest, I understand how she feels. In 5 years she has never
had a virus, has only had very light malware (Which SpyBot SD quickly
removed), and has nothing of hi-value on her PC for a hacker to have
much interest in other than family photo's of the dog etc.
My point being is that the average user who buys Windows HOME versions
are not going to WANT this elevated security, and as soon as they find a
way to remove it, they will.
MS should have made UAC a Business / Enterprise feature and left the
standard user and admin feature set of XP for the Home licenses of Vista.
I build PC's for a living so I know the problems that John Q Public can
make for their selves on a PC on the net with no protection. But simple
education and running the big 3 (Anti-virus, Anti-spyware and Firewalls)
should be more than enough to protect them. Now if they are stupid
enough to store all their financial information or work related trade
secrets and not have the "the big 3" then they certainly aren't going to
tolerate UAC.

--

 

[Paul Smith]

Businesses generally have their users locked down anyway.

UAC is very much for home users.

Using user privileges in a far superior way to manage security than relying
on anti-malware applications and compliments it extremely well.

It sounds like in this case using a password on UAC would be better, then
perhaps the end user would take it more seriously.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

Richard

It is easier to buy, try, fail and rant than ever it is to ask for advice or
help before making what turns out to be an ill-informed decision..

Imagine if all of these folk were presented with a computer that is entirely
controlled by typing in stuff at a command prompt.. I don't know about you,
but I would turn in my MVP badge and take up professional strawberry picking
or similar..

You build computers for a living but your MIL bought a PC with Vista on
it - and didn't ask you for advice first?

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Guest]

Businesses generally have their users locked down anyway.
Using user privileges in a far superior way to manage security than relying
on anti-malware applications and compliments it extremely well.<<<

------- How?

It sounds like in this case using a password on UAC would be better, then
perhaps the end user would take it more seriously.
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.

------------------- If we are not asking for more security, have not had
any problems for years with XP and we are the only person using our computer,
then what harm is there stopping those annoying popups? (ps: I'm assuming I
know what UAC means and still hoping someone will answer my non-exe, everyday
Joe questions when I replied to JD's post)
thank you, ceece

 

[Paul Smith]

------- How?

Malware can't take down the system if its not running with administrative
rights.

------------------- If we are not asking for more security, have not had
any problems for years with XP and we are the only person using our
computer,
then what harm is there stopping those annoying popups? (ps: I'm assuming
I
know what UAC means and still hoping someone will answer my non-exe,
everyday
Joe questions when I replied to JD's post)
thank you, ceece

The harm is with UAC off an admin account's applications will be running
with full privileges to the system.

Let's take a game, Battlefield 2 for example, if that game had a
vulnerability with UAC on it wouldn't be able to take out the system. With
UAC off, it would.

Windows Mail, if that had a vulnerability with UAC on it wouldn't be able to
take out the system, with UAC off it would because it would be running with
full privileges to the box.

UAC is much more than just an annoying thing that comes up saying if you
want to give something administrative rights.

Which is why UAC prompts should be turned off (that way the system just
continues everything for you) but never UAC itself via msconfig or similar.

But then well, I recommended security conscious people to run as limited
users on Windows XP, 2000 and so on. The plus side now with Windows Vista
they've got UI to be able to elevate when they need to, they don't need to
go out and click Run as account all the time after an application has failed
because its doing something it shouldn't be.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

 

[Dustin Harper]

After the computer is setup and all applications are installed, you
should rarely see a UAC prompt. But how many users buy a new Dell and it
has all the programs (that you WANT) installed on it? I run the firewall
as an added level of security, not as a replacement of other methods of
security.

As a PC tweaker, I am constantly making changes to my PC, registry,
installing new programs, hardware, etc. UAC can be a pain.

Another example... Elderly people that want email and web browser. If
they see 2 UAC prompts, they are annoyed and want XP. UAC may not be as
frequent, but it still happens.

If you do it right, turning off UAC won't help spread the disease, and
my network can still be safe. Although I do see your point in having an
average joe turning off UAC with no other protection, puts in almost as
the same risk as XP. The user will still have a user account, rather
than an administrator account, though.

 

[Adam Albright]

I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
for, is going to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.

I'm not a "average Joe" user and I turned off UAC too. I bet most have
or will because it isn't any real improvement in security and as many
have already found out be a real pain in the ass. You listed some good
reasons why people don't like it. Perhaps the biggest flaw with UAC is
Microsoft itself admits it is set up on purpose to be defeated. Read
that last sentence again slowly so it sinks in.

Don't just take my word for it. Listen to a "hacker", kind of cute
looking one too, not all hackers are kids or pot belly beer slurping
anti-social types.

"Joanna Rutkowska has always been a big supporter of the Windows Vista
security model. Until she stumbled upon a "very severe hole" in the
design of UAC (User Account Control) and found out — from Microsoft
officials — that the default no-admin setting isn't even a security
mechanism anymore".

"That's because Vista uses a compatibility database and several
heuristics to recognize installer executables and, every time the OS
detects that an executable is a setup program, "it will only allow
running it as administrator."

Note ===> On the surface this may sound like a good thing, actually
its not. Keep reading, but read carefully.

This, in Rutkowska's mind, is a "very severe hole in the design of
UAC."

In simple terms that means any hacker worth his or her salt could,
problably with little effort desgin some malicious bit of code to
pretend to be a "installer" type of application and Vista will
unbuckle its belt, drop its pants to its anxles and let that code do
whatever it wants, including access the deepest depths of Windows
including the kernel, having its way also with other applications or
your priceless data.

More than just talk, this hacker did eactly that at a high volume
conference of "black hat hackers" invited by Microsoft no less.

A poster named dara summed it up quite nicely in another piece you can
find here:

http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2007/02/vista-security-model-big-joke.html

A key point, I think, that Ms. Rutkowska made, perhaps
unintentionally, is that Microsoft cannot be expected (for reasons of
compatibility, I suppose) to design a completely new operating system.
This speaks to the root of all their problems - even Vista is just a
new shell built on top of old technologies. It's a bit like an upside
down pyramid; eventually it will collapse entirely as the underlying
structure proves incapable of sustaining all the new construction
piling up on top of it.

Perhaps because they serve a less diverse and expansive user base,
Apple Computer was willing and able five or six years ago to do what
Microsoft cannot - switch from their old, rickety operating system,
with it's myriad vulnerabilities, to a new system (OS X), build on a
sound, proven and substantially more secure foundation - UNIX. Since
then the trojans and viruses which used to plague the Mac OS have
dried up altogether.

LINUX, the open source alternative to Windows that is growing steadily
in popularity, is likewise modeled on UNIX.

It's not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that Windows in any form
is living on borrowed time. Much of its current popularity is a result
of little more than inertia. It's hard to see how even the billions
Microsoft has committed to marketing Vista can make up for the core
weakness of the underlying system.

Vista may be an improvement over Windows XP in many respects, but the
differences, like beauty, are only skin deep.

Now read what Madam "hacker" Ms. Rutkowska said about UAC:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=29&tag=nl.e589

 

[Adam Albright]

Richard

It is easier to buy, try, fail and rant than ever it is to ask for advice or
help before making what turns out to be an ill-informed decision..

Imagine if all of these folk were presented with a computer that is entirely
controlled by typing in stuff at a command prompt.. I don't know about you,
but I would turn in my MVP badge and take up professional strawberry picking
or similar..

Say Mike, wouldn't this be a good time to tell the nice people in this
newsgroup you're actually a MICROSOFT product manager? Why keep that a
secret?

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=10924

This is you, right Mike?

If so it does explain your outburts and bias, my goodness you're sure
wound up tight.

 

[Paul Smith]

What she would propose is a UAC dialog with three options.

Continue with system-wide access | Continue with program access | Cancel.

Essentially splitting the admin account into an system-admin account which
effects Windows, and one for writing to Program Files.

Sure that's good for defending the system, but its hard enough to get
developers to test their applications as a standard user.

More can always be done on this front, and will be done in the future.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

 

[BobS]

Please - no net nanny's - the world has enough problems without your
constant nagging about something not being a friggin setup issue in your
mind. We run this group - not you and we are the customer in case you've
forgotten who's paying the freight here.

I've read some of your posts in other groups and talk about being
off-topic - yours certainly were so quit your bellyaching.

We're kinda tired of your moaning about this - so either live with it or
stop reading this group.

Bob S.

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

Adam

No, that is not me.. one can't be a Microsoft employee and MVP status at the
same time.. sorry to disappoint..

I am also not one of the Mike Hall's in any IBM company employee directory
anymore, as I elected to leave IBM employ at the end of 2001..

I am Mike Hall, MS MVP Windows Shell/User, and I AM CANADIAN (well, I hold a
permanent residence card.. for now)..

Say Mike, wouldn't this be a good time to tell the nice people in this
newsgroup you're actually a MICROSOFT product manager? Why keep that a
secret?

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=10924

This is you, right Mike?

If so it does explain your outburts and bias, my goodness you're sure
wound up tight.

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Adam Albright]

Adam

No, that is not me.. one can't be a Microsoft employee and MVP status at the
same time.. sorry to disappoint..

Why I asked if it was you or not. Actually relieved, not disappointed.
Was almost ready to dump my Microsoft stock.

 

[Dale M. White]

You can turn off the UAC, buy going to Control Panel, User account, should
be the bottom option, Uncheck the box and reboot, No more nagging.

Yes, you'll lose some of the extra security and protecting you from you and
the unknowns.

If you have a program that is not compatibile, there isn't much option but
to get one that is or wait for one to come out. Or scour that products
forums and see if anyone has found a work around.

 

[Dale M. White]

It's not a Games issue either Just kidding

 

[Kerry Brown]

And how does the security in 'nix work? By separating users and superusers
(administrators). If you ran Linux as root (administrator) all the time you
would be much less secure than running Vista with UAC enabled. The old
saying "You can't have your cake and eat it too" is still true. Increased
security means increased complexity and inconvenience for the user. I don't
think anyone who knows anything about security would disagree with the
statement that Windows XP cannot be secured. It can be made more secure but
if you run as an administrator malware can find a way in. You can have all
the malware protection you want, you are still vulnerable to a zero day
attack. With Vista and UAC zero day attacks will certainly happen but UAC
will at least give you a warning that something is up. What you do with that
warning is still up to you.

I do see Joanna Rutkowski's point about UAC only allowing programs that it
deems to be an installer to run as an administrator. I also see Microsoft's
point about why this is so. If you read the next article in her blog she
also admits this. The point of this is so that you will always know when a
program is trying to install something. The down side as she rightly points
out is that for older programs that don't need administrator privileges to
install they will get them anyway. With installers written for Vista this
problem doesn't exist as the installer can notify Vista it doesn't need
admin privileges and it won't get them. This design feature could be
exploited by a social engineering attack. It's a bit of a catch-22
situation. Do you just let all of these old installers fail until the end
user explicitly uses Run as administrator? This would cause even more
frustration than exists now and even more people will turn UAC off. Or do
you do what Microsoft has done and try to determine if a program is an
installer and throw a UAC prompt? I haven't made up my mind which is the
better way but it is a conscious design decision not a bug.