The Great UAC Debate!


UAC  

1412 members have voted

  1. 1. Do You Use UAC?

    • Yes
      477
    • Yes, On "Silent Mode"
      91
    • No (I use an Admin Account)
      496
    • No (I use a Standard Account)
      39
    • I don't use Windows Vista
      118
  2. 2. Have You Ever Been Saved By UAC?

    • Yes
      226
    • No
      932
    • I don't use Windows Vista
      106


Recommended Posts

I have moved these threads to this post so the debate can continue. Let's keep the debate civil. Anyone flaming, flame baiting or trolling will be dealt with.

Thanks,

Frank

Before people say this is a bad move, why do I have mine disabled and I don't encounter any problems this feature claims to protect against? It's excatly the same as running XP.

Just because a previous version of the OS doesn't have a security feature doesn't mean you should blindly turn it off. New security features are generally put in for a damned good reason: They make the system more secure.

Giving every running process Administrative privileges has probably been the single greatest security problem that Windows has ever had. UAC fixes this.

Anyway, you shouldn't be encountering UAC that often beyond the initial period where you're installing all your software and stuff. Which programs are giving you trouble?

Edited by bmaher
added comment (frank) | added poll (bmaher)
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/614472-the-great-uac-debate/
Share on other sites

I leave my UAC on. Doesn't bug me one bit. If there is a program I use that always needs Run as Admin, then I do "Right Click on EXE then properties-> Compatibility Tab -> Check "Run this program as an administrator"->Apply-> OK. "

Over all I would have say alot of these UAC pops really do need to be addressed at the developer level...

I like uac. IT lets me know what the programs are doing.

Have they updated UAC?

Last time I used Vista it was more like Just say yes once and what happens next is not under your control.

UAC is just a band-aid. Proper solution would be isolating OS from everything else as well as possible.

Wanna install game? -> Admin rights -> possible deletion of data or rootkit and UAC does nothing.

When does Microslo... sorry, Microsoft move away from current installing scheme where security and portability of programs is a nightmare?

How does installing a game end up to a rootkit or data loss ? If you had it enabled you would not have to deal with the problem of that crap screwing up your computer. UAC does something, it stops potentially dangerous programs from running with administrator privlieges so they cannot cause havoc.

^ You seem like the person who cannot wait to give bashing to Microsoft.

As a personal experience to UAC, once you get over the intial stage of installing all your software and games I rarely see it.

How does installing a game end up to a rootkit or data loss ? If you had it enabled you would not have to deal with the problem of that crap screwing up your computer. UAC does something, it stops potentially dangerous programs from running with administrator privlieges so they cannot cause havoc.

Have you ever downloaded&installed anything from the internet?

I'm sure you have. Can you say 100% certainly that there hasn't been anything harmful in that code you gave full privileges to do whatever it wants?

No.

The problem is that there's no point giving some simple install unneeded privileges but currently you have to.

You can do installs without risking anything important but not without third party applications.

It's not that UAC is annoying, it's the lack of security even though it's continuously praised here.

Have you ever downloaded&installed anything from the internet?

Are you talking about those dodgy warez releases that you can never trust or trusted applications ? Applications I got from the internet are Windows Office 2007 (www.theultimatesteal.co.uk), Opera, Firefox, Intype, ApHeMo, W.A.M.P. , etc ... You get the idea of that. I am certain reputable companies are not going to go out their way to put malicous code into their applications. Of course the rare opportunity might arrise where a hacker will exploit it. <- Which is where UAC will stop the attack.

The problem is that there's no point giving some simple install unneeded privileges but currently you have to.

That is a developers problem so until they change their coding habits, it wont change.

That's the UAC (User Account Control) at work. Some people have it disabled because of it's annoyance nature. I have mine disabled. If you want to disable it, click on your user picture in Start Menu. On the window that come up, click the last link that says Turn User Account Control on or off, untick the box there and click OK.

Before people say this is a bad move, why do I have mine disabled and I don't encounter any problems this feature claims to protect against? It's excatly the same as running XP.

BTW, I've also disabled UAC on my Vista systems. It's a personal choice and one which should not cause problems as long as you use some degree of common sense.

Carefull guys, a few people on the forums will flame you and go right out on a moan about it if you tell people to disable UAC, even if you are correct in what you are saying.

I know this because i said i disabled it before and people went crazy!

Well, I have had UAC disabled for some time now, but not primarily because I found it annoying after initially installing Vista. Rather, some things I simply couldn't get to run correctly. For example, the Task Manager replacement from Sysinternals can not be used as a task manager replacement with UAC enabled. Period. I've tried many ways to make it so and it just doesn't work.

I also get prompts running WinRAR with UAC enabled, since it has to be run with Admin Privileges.

I'm one of those kind of guys who likes to keep my Start Menu > Programs list neat and tidy. But in the "All Users" group, trying to create a new folder and move other Program group folders to it results in repeated UAC prompts. For making folders! I have a Router Firewall, Defender, and Windows Firewall running. I don't download warez or download questionable software; and I have never had any problems without UAC.

Well, I have had UAC disabled for some time now, but not primarily because I found it annoying after initially installing Vista. Rather, some things I simply couldn't get to run correctly. For example, the Task Manager replacement from Sysinternals can not be used as a task manager replacement with UAC enabled. Period. I've tried many ways to make it so and it just doesn't work.

Are you talking about the task manager replacement in Process Explorer? It's working fine here on my system with UAC enabled.

I also get prompts running WinRAR with UAC enabled, since it has to be run with Admin Privileges.

What version of WinRAR are you using? I'm going to take a guess and say it's an old version, because Vista compatibility was added in version 3.70.

I'm one of those kind of guys who likes to keep my Start Menu > Programs list neat and tidy. But in the "All Users" group, trying to create a new folder and move other Program group folders to it results in repeated UAC prompts. For making folders!

The clue is in "All Users"; you're making a system-wide change, and that's why you're getting a UAC prompt.

Well, I have had UAC disabled for some time now, but not primarily because I found it annoying after initially installing Vista. Rather, some things I simply couldn't get to run correctly. For example, the Task Manager replacement from Sysinternals can not be used as a task manager replacement with UAC enabled. Period. I've tried many ways to make it so and it just doesn't work.

I also get prompts running WinRAR with UAC enabled, since it has to be run with Admin Privileges.

I'm one of those kind of guys who likes to keep my Start Menu > Programs list neat and tidy. But in the "All Users" group, trying to create a new folder and move other Program group folders to it results in repeated UAC prompts. For making folders! I have a Router Firewall, Defender, and Windows Firewall running. I don't download warez or download questionable software; and I have never had any problems without UAC.

I have always had UAC enabled and have NEVER gotten a prompt from winrar. There is something wrong if you are, winrar shouldn't need admin privileges, I've never seen it prompt on any computer.

Have you ever downloaded&installed anything from the internet?

I'm sure you have. Can you say 100% certainly that there hasn't been anything harmful in that code you gave full privileges to do whatever it wants?

No.

The problem is that there's no point giving some simple install unneeded privileges but currently you have to.

You can do installs without risking anything important but not without third party applications.

It's not that UAC is annoying, it's the lack of security even though it's continuously praised here.

You seem to be confused about what UAC is there to protect you against. UAC is not designed to stop you from downloading and installing malware that horks up your machine. That's the job of Windows Defender and anti-virus software (and the warnings from the browser, to some extent).

UAC is there as a mitigation of attacks against everyday applications, like Outlook / AIM / Firefox / whatever. The goal of UAC is that if such an application is hijacked by any kind of remote code execution exploit, the damage the attacker can do is constrained based on the privilege level of the application.

In the case of IE, UAC means that IE can't even read from or write to the disk outside of specific locations. So it really can't do anything to hurt your system if someone takes it over. That's why every attack against IE in Vista so far has been a non-issue. Other apps that run with "normal" privileges (Firefox, Outlook, whatever) can still do damage to your personal files if hijacked, but at least they can't affect other users on the system or damage the system itself.

It's pretty frustrating when people like you advise others to disable UAC when you don't even understand how it works, or what it's for.

You seem to be confused about what UAC is there to protect you against.

No, I'm not confused at all

UAC is not designed to stop you from downloading and installing malware that horks up your machine. That's the job of Windows Defender and anti-virus software

Seeing how poor job anti-crap software generally does that's quite weak defense line.

the damage the attacker can do is constrained based on the privilege level of the application.

Exactly, that's why using admin credentials for installing is bad.

Other apps that run with "normal" privileges (Firefox, Outlook, whatever) can still do damage to your personal files if hijacked, but at least they can't affect other users on the system or damage the system itself.

No they can't if you use small amount of time fine tuning permissions and have automatic back-ups for files/folders you need to modify constantly.

It's pretty frustrating when people like you advise others to disable UAC when you don't even understand how it works, or what it's for.

Holy cow!

I didn't advise to do anything with UAC. Just criticized Windows' general security concepts. Look again.

I'm just glad that there are solutions like VMware and Thinstall so you don't have those installers throwing crap around your HD possibly compromising security.

Exactly, that's why using admin credentials for installing is bad.

Windows Installer 4.0 is fully capable of installing applications without requiring Admin credentials. I am a little dissapointed that I haven't seen anything take advantage of this capability, though, and I'll admit that I haven't even looked into where it stores the binaries (Maybe the user's AppData\Local folder?)

No they can't if you use small amount of time fine tuning permissions and have automatic back-ups for files/folders you need to modify constantly.

Uh, what? That copy of Firefox is running with the exact same privileges to your system as Explorer is. So unless you've either used icacls to rig all your applications to run with a Low IL like IE does (At which point you'd lose the ability to save files/settings properly because the only application I know of that has been designed to operate like that is Internet Explorer 7), or have taken to completely managing every document you have from elevated command prompts, there's no amount of permission tuning that you can do to keep a hijacked process from mucking with your user's files.

As for backing up, yes, you should back up. However, there should be safety measures in place to help prevent anything malicious from actually forcing you to need to use those backups. Hence, we get things like Protected Mode IE, or for the system files: processes that don't run with a High IL by default.

Edit: Oh goodie. I've got the first post in te "Great UAC Debate!" I feel so very special, or something.

I don't think anything is up for debate this will not influence every Vista owner in the world. It's down to personal preference, if you know what you're doing (100%) of the time disable it, if not don't. Also comes down to knowledge, if you're say... a 30 year old technology noob you wont know how to use UAC, therefore it does its job.

I don't think anything is up for debate this will not influence every Vista owner in the world. It's down to personal preference, if you know what you're doing (100%) of the time disable it, if not don't. Also comes down to knowledge, if you're say... a 30 year old technology noob you wont know how to use UAC, therefore it does its job.

:pinch:

That's not the point of UAC. That's not even close.

Ok, yes, it will, on occasion, stop you from doing something stupid. But that's not really it's 'greater' purpose.

As Brandon said above:

UAC is there as a mitigation of attacks against everyday applications, like Outlook / AIM / Firefox / whatever. The goal of UAC is that if such an application is hijacked by any kind of remote code execution exploit, the damage the attacker can do is constrained based on the privilege level of the application.

There is absolutely nothing you can do, experienced or otherwise, to prevent a lot of the things that exploit holes in software. Don't proclaim yourself to be a power user, and shut off the best tool Windows gives you to control the privileges that you give running processes upon execution.

and at the end of the day people do whatever they want to... why do we need another one of these topics? lol

What Microsoft should do like abcdefg said is change the way programs run on windows. Of course that would mean most programs wouldnt work but oh well... at least programs would run in a more secure environment, and it could make installing programs easier without the need of registry etc.

... why do we need another one of these topics? lol

Because they seem to be popping up every time UAC is mentioned in a support thread. If people want to debate it, debate it here. Stay out of the Vista Support Forum where users need help, not other users coming in and going back and forth whether it is right or wrong.

Seeing how poor job anti-crap software generally does that's quite weak defense line.

Defense line? How else do you suggest any OS protect against their users installing crap? If the user decides to do something (and they have Administrator access), they are damn well going to do it. It doesn't matter what OS they're on or what dialog box you show them. If the user chooses to run code that isn't trustworthy, there's not much you can do beyond what Defender and programs like it already do.

Exactly, that's why using admin credentials for installing is bad.

Huh? Application installations generally require admin privileges by design. Administrators don't want their users installing applications without their permission (or at all, really). Application installs generally affect the entire machine.

If you're a developer and you want to write something that installs in user-owned directories and doesn't touch anything system-wide, you're free to do so and let users install it without admin credentials. There is obviously nothing stopping you.

No they can't if you use small amount of time fine tuning permissions and have automatic back-ups for files/folders you need to modify constantly.

Again you are speaking from ignorance. If UAC is disabled, there is no way for one application to have different levels of access than another application. If UAC is disabled, any application can take ownership of any file on any drive of the system, and do with it as it pleases. Any application can manipulate, read data from, or inject code into any other application in the user's session.

Fortunately, thanks to Vista and UAC, that is no longer the case (unless you choose to make it that way).

Holy cow!

I didn't advise to do anything with UAC. Just criticized Windows' general security concepts. Look again.

You shouldn't criticize that which you do not understand.

Edited by Frank
Lets keep it civil.
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!