M
Mr. Arnold
http://www.betanews.com/article/New_Norton_Vista_tool_trades_UAC_for_online_feedback/1223668881
There was another one presented here a couple of months ago.
There was another one presented here a couple of months ago.
G
Gordon
Mr. Arnold said:
Why would any NORMAL person need a UAC tool? Apart from those who just
tinker with their machines and don't actually do any WORK with them?
R
Rotten Ronny
Gordon said:
You do realize that applies to 90% of computer nerds, right? I have a friend
who is like that and I am always asking him when he is actually going to use
his computer as a tool (as it was intended to be used) instead of playing
program manager on it. He buys new hardware just to geek out on upgrading
when he has no actual use or need for the hardware.
F
FromTheRafters
Security is such a bother...
It's so annoying to have to click again after I already
clicked such a short time ago...
All I wanted to do was execute a program - one click
should be sufficient for the task...
After all, It's not like I'm trying to *delete* something...
(which should take eleven clicks to make sure I really meant
to delete what I'm trying to delete because I don't have any
backups in case the file I delete is needed later*)...
Leave it to Symantec to "give the people what they want"
with no regard for the security implications.
* After the recycle bin there should be a truck and then a
waste management distribution center and a landfill where
I could still go to get back that file should the need arise.
The consequences of deleting a file IMO are far less than
the ones of executing a program (seeing as the program
could then effectively delete *everything*) so why all the
complaints about an extra click when a user (or something
else) invokes a program?
It's so annoying to have to click again after I already
clicked such a short time ago...
All I wanted to do was execute a program - one click
should be sufficient for the task...
After all, It's not like I'm trying to *delete* something...
(which should take eleven clicks to make sure I really meant
to delete what I'm trying to delete because I don't have any
backups in case the file I delete is needed later*)...
Leave it to Symantec to "give the people what they want"
with no regard for the security implications.
* After the recycle bin there should be a truck and then a
waste management distribution center and a landfill where
I could still go to get back that file should the need arise.
The consequences of deleting a file IMO are far less than
the ones of executing a program (seeing as the program
could then effectively delete *everything*) so why all the
complaints about an extra click when a user (or something
else) invokes a program?
M
Mr. Arnold
FromTheRafters said:
I wouldn't use the thing. It's about as bad as Application Control in 3rd
party personal FW(s) or other such nonsense snake-oil solutions. One wants
the mouse click on the accept button when it's malware that was *accepted*
and remembered so that one is not asked about it again.
It's just below this one. Hey, I turned UAC off, because I have ran this way
for 25 years from Win 9'x as root admin, and I have ran as user/admin on Win
NT 4.0, Win 2k, and XP with full admin rights. I am good man. I am so good,
computer savvy, and it can't happen to me on the Internet. Hey, so what if I
get some malware that something detected. I'll wipe out the machine if it
happens.
But little did I know that a whole boat load of malware has come past my
little security blanket, planted itself deep and can't be detected by my
detection security blanket, and it's been this way for a long time. I
don't even know how to go check things out for myself with other tools
manually and look around and see what is running on the machine from time to
time.
Hey, I am good and my security detection blanket is good too. Everything is
okay-dokey!
M
Mr. Arnold
mike-cow said:
I don't trust Microsoft, Linux, Apple or any other O/S to keep my data safe,
because none of them are bullet proof O/S(s). They are all written by and
used by fallible human beings. When we as human beings become perfect, then
you can expect that anything we create or do will be perfect, and that's not
happening in your life time.
As far as security is concerned, the buck stops with the user, and it
doesn't stop any where else. If the machine gets compromised, then the user
had involvement in it someway that lead to the compromise. It doesn't happen
by itself.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> mike-cow
And that means you're as good as a full administrator, all malware needs
to do is take a guess (or sit back and learn) what programs
automatically elevate, then exploit them.
Command prompt is a perfect target, since the malware can literally
launch "%systemroot%\system32\cmd.exe /c %malware.exe%", thereby
promoting itself to running with an administrative token, all without
asking you.
And that means you're as good as a full administrator, all malware needs
to do is take a guess (or sit back and learn) what programs
automatically elevate, then exploit them.
Command prompt is a perfect target, since the malware can literally
launch "%systemroot%\system32\cmd.exe /c %malware.exe%", thereby
promoting itself to running with an administrative token, all without
asking you.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> mike-cow
Yes, and?
A similar command line parameter would do the trick for Cygwin.
Yes, and?
A similar command line parameter would do the trick for Cygwin.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> mike-cow
There are already some nice exploit kits out there that are almost drag
and drop simple, you pay up front and get a kit that handles the exploit
and hands off to your code.
The backend guys specialize in finding exploits, and despite all of
cygwin's flaws, I wouldn't bet my security on whether it's *that*
obscure.
More importantly, it's not really about what you and I would list as
always-approved, it's more about what your average end user would list.
This would include nearly any app who's authors are too lazy or stupid
to make their software run without administrative rights, since said
applications would either simply list themselves in the "always
authorized" group, or instruct users to do the same.
If you were Microsoft, would you consider that sufficient to encourage
lazy and stupid software authors to change their behaviour?
Remember, this isn't a new thing, user permissions have been around in
Microsoft operating systems since the mid 90s. Any author who hasn't
caught on yet needs some encouragement, and nothing quite like user
pressure to make it happen.
There are already some nice exploit kits out there that are almost drag
and drop simple, you pay up front and get a kit that handles the exploit
and hands off to your code.
The backend guys specialize in finding exploits, and despite all of
cygwin's flaws, I wouldn't bet my security on whether it's *that*
obscure.
More importantly, it's not really about what you and I would list as
always-approved, it's more about what your average end user would list.
This would include nearly any app who's authors are too lazy or stupid
to make their software run without administrative rights, since said
applications would either simply list themselves in the "always
authorized" group, or instruct users to do the same.
If you were Microsoft, would you consider that sufficient to encourage
lazy and stupid software authors to change their behaviour?
Remember, this isn't a new thing, user permissions have been around in
Microsoft operating systems since the mid 90s. Any author who hasn't
caught on yet needs some encouragement, and nothing quite like user
pressure to make it happen.
P
Paul Montgomery
Yeah, like 99% of the users having problems with UAC contact the
software authors.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Dream on.
M
Mr. Arnold
mike-cow said:
Here you go on the security, if you bother to read it.
<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc709691.aspx>
<http://news.softpedia.com/news/Admin-Approval-Mode-in-Windows-Vista-45312.shtml>
<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc138019.aspx>
<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc160882.aspx>
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa382503.aspx>
F
FromTheRafters
Mr. Arnold said:
Yes, one might as well just silently elevate as with UAC turned off.
Allowing UAC to partially function is just lending users a false sense
of security. True, other aspects of UAC still enhance security if this
portion is circumvented, but the false belief that a whitelist won't be
abused by malware is damaging.
I hope I am correct in assuming the whitelist isn't based simply on
filenames, and that there is protection against it being edited by
malware. Even so, what is so bad about being asked if you really
intended to execute a particular program - especially since there
are no complaints about the ubiquitous 'confirm delete'. There is
much more power in *execute* than there is in *delete* especially
if cryptovirology is involved.
Three cheers for Microsoft for making it more difficult to do this
in Vista. This split (or filtered) token and the default hiding of the
(non-filtered token) admin account makes it much harder for the
malware to entrench itself in the system - and more difficult for the
average user to circumvent this security enhancement.
The focus on recovery *only* is misplaced. Recovery should be
risk mitigation in the event of some failure in the primary preventive
measures. Avoidance measures aren't perfect, so recovery is a
necessary aspect - but shouldn't be relied upon. Besides, what
about the data leakage that could happen between infestation and
recovery? What about the harboring of malware that uses their
computer to dDoS others' and/or spread further? Individual users
should have more concern about the community of which they are
a part.
Vista's security by default and the difficulty in circumventing it
is a step in the right direction - and making it easier to circumvent
is a step backward.
Perhaps undetected long enough to poison the backups within their
recovery plans.
I don't even know how to go check things out for myself with other tools
manually and look around and see what is running on the machine from time
to time.
Hey, I am good and my security detection blanket is good too. Everything
is okay-dokey!
In some cases, even tools can be lied to by the system.
I suppose their ignorance is bliss, right up until it kills them.
--end soapbox mode--
)
M
Mr. Arnold
mike-cow said:
Why must you act an a$$ about it? Just because you like to fly with no
safety-net and with your draws down at your ankles does that mean that
anyone else should follow in your foot steps.
The thing about Linux users on Linux machines, which makes that system less
susceptible to attack used by the ignorant is that the user never runs as
root admin.
They run as non-root admin until an admin task is encountered, and then
they must give a root admin user-id and psw to escalate to root admin rights
to perform the task. They are then returned to being a non-root admin.
Yes, the ignorant masses my not be getting attacked like they use to be on
Vista, but on the other hand, on any previous version of the NT based O/S,
their linen was dropped to their ankles, and they had to keep on grinnin.
Now, they have a choice to leave the security on or turn it all off, if he
or she chooses to do either one.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> Paul Montgomery
Maybe not, but the results speak for themselves, take a look at
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/10/08/user-account-control.aspx
The "Number of unique applications and tasks creating UAC prompts" line
speaks for itself, having gone from 800,000 to a little under 200,000 in
a 12 month period.
Maybe not, but the results speak for themselves, take a look at
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/10/08/user-account-control.aspx
The "Number of unique applications and tasks creating UAC prompts" line
speaks for itself, having gone from 800,000 to a little under 200,000 in
a 12 month period.
P
Paul Montgomery
Those results don't say (as in "speak for themselves") that the
reduction is because of a surge of user complaints to software
developers as you initially implied.
You missed TWO other possibilities, each more credible than yours, and
each clearly explained in the article:
Quoting from that article:
"... we also expect that as people use their machines longer they are
installing new software or configuring Windows settings less
frequently, which results in fewer prompts, or conversely when a
machine is new that is when there is unusually high activity with
respect to administrative needs."
Also:
"Customer Experience Improvement Program data indicates that the
number of sessions with one or more UAC prompts has declined from 50%
to 33% of sessions with Vista SP1."
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> Paul Montgomery
The "new machine" effect would be seen in "Percentage of sessions with
prompts over time", if the problem is applications that need elevation
on a regular basis without any need (games, Quickbooks, etc), those
applications would likely exist both on mew machines and day to day
activity.
What might be an interesting stat would be "percentage of sessions with
UAC prompts over time-since-Windows-installation"
Regardless, stat I quoted is "number of unique applications and tasks
creating UAC prompts", which indicates that either applications are
changing their behaviour, or that users are moving to limited-user
compatible software.
SP1 came out in May, so again looking at "number of *unique applications
and tasks* creating UAC prompts", excluding SP1, that's down from
800,000 in Aug/07 to 300,000 in Apr/08.
I stand by my comment that the results speak for themselves.
The "new machine" effect would be seen in "Percentage of sessions with
prompts over time", if the problem is applications that need elevation
on a regular basis without any need (games, Quickbooks, etc), those
applications would likely exist both on mew machines and day to day
activity.
What might be an interesting stat would be "percentage of sessions with
UAC prompts over time-since-Windows-installation"
Regardless, stat I quoted is "number of unique applications and tasks
creating UAC prompts", which indicates that either applications are
changing their behaviour, or that users are moving to limited-user
compatible software.
SP1 came out in May, so again looking at "number of *unique applications
and tasks* creating UAC prompts", excluding SP1, that's down from
800,000 in Aug/07 to 300,000 in Apr/08.
I stand by my comment that the results speak for themselves.
M
Mr. Arnold
FromTheRafters said:
You might find some interesting reading here about Vista's kernel.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc162458.aspx
<http://www.securitypronews.com/news/securitynews/spn-45-20060601ASLRJoinsVistasBagOfTricks.html>
You know, I just don't see posts about malware issues with Vista users
that much.
F
FromTheRafters
Mr. Arnold said:
Probably they're all too busy configuring Vista for less security to
do anything about infecting their system.
)Thanks for the links.