Using Vista with UAC disabled

[Malcolm H]

Assuming normal security precautions are taken on both systems is Vista with
UAC disabled any less secure that XP?

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Assuming normal security precautions are taken on both systems is Vista with
UAC disabled any less secure that XP?

No, not significantly, I don't think.

Routinely using a computer with administrative privileges is not
without some risk. You will be more susceptible to some types of
malware, particularly adware and spyware. While using a computer with
limited privileges isn't the cure-all, silver bullet that some claim it
to be, any experienced IT professional will verify that doing so
definitely reduces that amount of damage and depth of penetration by the
malware. If you get infected/infested while running as an
administrator, the odds are much greater that any malware will be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to remove with formating the
hard drive and starting anew. The intruding malware will have the same
privileges to all of the files on your hard drive that you do.

Vista's UAC adds an additional layer of protection, even if you
don't enter a password each time it warns you; the important thing is
that you're being warned, and can then make your own decision. A
technically competent user who is aware of the risks and knows how to
take proper precautions can usually safely operate with administrative
privileges; I do so myself. But I certainly don't recommend it for the
average computer user.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Malcolm H]

No, not significantly, I don't think.

Routinely using a computer with administrative privileges is not
without some risk. You will be more susceptible to some types of malware,
particularly adware and spyware. While using a computer with limited
privileges isn't the cure-all, silver bullet that some claim it to be, any
experienced IT professional will verify that doing so definitely reduces
that amount of damage and depth of penetration by the malware. If you get
infected/infested while running as an administrator, the odds are much
greater that any malware will be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to remove with formating the hard drive and starting anew. The intruding
malware will have the same privileges to all of the files on your hard
drive that you do.

Vista's UAC adds an additional layer of protection, even if you don't
enter a password each time it warns you; the important thing is that
you're being warned, and can then make your own decision. A technically
competent user who is aware of the risks and knows how to take proper
precautions can usually safely operate with administrative privileges; I
do so myself. But I certainly don't recommend it for the average computer
user.

Bruce Chambers

Thank you for that Bruce.

My problem is that several of my favorite legacy programs will not function
with UAC enabled but work perfectly with UAC disabled.
At present I am using XP in a dual boot machine and am hoping that Vista
compatible versions of the programs will eventually become available (I'm
not holding my breath!)

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Thank you for that Bruce.

You're welcome.

My problem is that several of my favorite legacy programs will not function
with UAC enabled but work perfectly with UAC disabled.
At present I am using XP in a dual boot machine and am hoping that Vista
compatible versions of the programs will eventually become available (I'm
not holding my breath!)

Not an uncommon situation. In lieu of disabling UAC, have you tried
using Vista's WinXP-compatibility mode? Right-click on the pertinent
application's Shortcut > Properties > Compatibility Tab. This may be
all that need be done.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Malcolm H]

You're welcome.




Not an uncommon situation. In lieu of disabling UAC, have you tried using
Vista's WinXP-compatibility mode? Right-click on the pertinent
application's Shortcut > Properties > Compatibility Tab. This may be all
that need be done.

Bruce Chambers

Yes I have tried that without success. In some cases disabling UAC is the
only thing which works!

 

[Milhouse Van Houten]

Yes I have tried that without success. In some cases disabling UAC is the
only thing which works!

Which programs are you talking about? It might be helpful to know what they
are.

BTW, in answer to your question ("Assuming normal security precautions are
taken on both systems is Vista with UAC disabled any less secure that XP?"),
the answer has to be a flat "no" -- after all, Vista has had several aspects
of itself shored up security-wise apart from UAC.

 

[Kerry Brown]

I agree with the others that even with UAC disabled Vista a more secure than
XP. There are other security improvements besides UAC. That said personally
I leave UAC enabled. I like the IE protected mode feature. So far with a
combination of compatibility mode and Run as administrator I've been able to
get several very ill behaved programs running.

 

[Malcolm H]

Which programs are you talking about? It might be helpful to know what
they are.

BTW, in answer to your question ("Assuming normal security precautions are
taken on both systems is Vista with UAC disabled any less secure that
XP?"), the answer has to be a flat "no" -- after all, Vista has had
several aspects of itself shored up security-wise apart from UAC.

Thank you, that's good to know!

My programs which do not like Vista with UAC enabled include:

1. CoolEdit2000. This is an excellent audio wave editor originally published
by Syntrillium. Adobe acquired Syntrillium a few years ago and they have
turned CoolEdit200 into ghastly bloatware called Adobe Audition. I wish to
continue to use CoolEdit2000!
2. Dr.Tag. The best Tag Editor I have discovered published by Aspect-One
Media. http://www.drtag.de/en/
3. Slimserver published my Slimdevices Inc. now acquired by Logitec.
http://www.slimdevices.com/

Regrettably I think it will be some time before I am able to remove XP and
rely totally on Vista.

Malcolm H

 

[Robert Moir]

Assuming normal security precautions are taken on both systems is Vista
with UAC disabled any less secure that XP?

Overall, no.

I would back up Kerry's reference to IE Protected Mode, and suggest that
losing things like this might not reduce your total security overall but
would make the protection thinner in the places where XP fell down the most,
and which UAC / IE Protected mode were designed to address.

Have you considered using Virtual PC to allow you to use your 'difficult'
apps without having to shut down Vista and reboot? That might make it easier
to use UAC in Vista without making it too annoying to use these apps as
well?

 

[Malcolm H]

Overall, no.

I would back up Kerry's reference to IE Protected Mode, and suggest that
losing things like this might not reduce your total security overall but
would make the protection thinner in the places where XP fell down the
most, and which UAC / IE Protected mode were designed to address.

Have you considered using Virtual PC to allow you to use your 'difficult'
apps without having to shut down Vista and reboot? That might make it
easier to use UAC in Vista without making it too annoying to use these
apps as well?

I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean running virtual XP within Vista?
Please can you point me to some info on this?

Thank you

Malcolm H

 

[Malcolm H]

I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean running virtual XP within
Vista? Please can you point me to some info on this?

Thank you

Malcolm H

OK I have now Googled and got the info, thanks

M

 

[Malcolm H]

Overall, no.

I would back up Kerry's reference to IE Protected Mode, and suggest that
losing things like this might not reduce your total security overall but
would make the protection thinner in the places where XP fell down the
most, and which UAC / IE Protected mode were designed to address.

Have you considered using Virtual PC to allow you to use your 'difficult'
apps without having to shut down Vista and reboot? That might make it
easier to use UAC in Vista without making it too annoying to use these
apps as well?

I've just investigated Virtual PC and discovered that it will not run with
Vista Home Premium, which is what I've got! What a bummer!!

 

[Robert Moir]

I've just investigated Virtual PC and discovered that it will not run with
Vista Home Premium, which is what I've got! What a bummer!!

It isn't "supported" but it will actually work.

 

[mikeyhsd]

it does run , you just cannot get support from ms in that configuration.
you can still get help in the VPC news groups.



(e-mail address removed)

Overall, no.

I would back up Kerry's reference to IE Protected Mode, and suggest that
losing things like this might not reduce your total security overall but
would make the protection thinner in the places where XP fell down the
most, and which UAC / IE Protected mode were designed to address.

Have you considered using Virtual PC to allow you to use your 'difficult'
apps without having to shut down Vista and reboot? That might make it
easier to use UAC in Vista without making it too annoying to use these
apps as well?

I've just investigated Virtual PC and discovered that it will not run with
Vista Home Premium, which is what I've got! What a bummer!!

 

[Cal Bear '66]

From other posts in these groups, Virtual PC -- WILL -- work with Vista Home
Premium.

 

[Mark Bourne]

Yes I have tried that without success. In some cases disabling UAC is the
only thing which works!

Have you also tried ticking the box to run the program as administrator
(on the same tab as compatibility settings). That should allow the
program to run with administrator access (after prompting each time)
without needing to disable UAC.

 

[Malcolm H]

It isn't "supported" but it will actually work.

Thank you for your help Robert and others. I have now successfully installed
Virtual PC 2007 and have XP as the guest OS running in my Vista host OS. I
have also set up a shared folder and am beginning to learn how to optimise
what I've got. Fantastic result so far!

One question. Is the guest OS protected from viruses, malware etc by the
protection in the host OS?

 

[Richard Urban]

You need the same protection in VirtualPC as you would if you installed the
O/S in another computer.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Robert Moir]

Thank you for your help Robert and others. I have now successfully
installed Virtual PC 2007 and have XP as the guest OS running in my Vista
host OS. I have also set up a shared folder and am beginning to learn how
to optimise what I've got. Fantastic result so far!

One question. Is the guest OS protected from viruses, malware etc by the
protection in the host OS?

Most certainly not. You'll want to install antivirus, keep the firewall on
and patch it as you would if it were a 'real' machine. A good antivirus to
use with a virtual machine is one of the "free for home use" setups as these
are typically quite lightweight (at least if you do a custom install and
turn off the insane stuff you just won't need). I quite like AVAST but there
are other choices out there.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Thank you for your help Robert and others. I have now successfully installed
Virtual PC 2007 and have XP as the guest OS running in my Vista host OS. I
have also set up a shared folder and am beginning to learn how to optimise
what I've got. Fantastic result so far!

One question. Is the guest OS protected from viruses, malware etc by the
protection in the host OS?

No. It has exactly the same vulnerabilities as if it were running
standalone.