Get rid of "Run as administrator"


Recommended Posts

The first thing I do when I install Windows is google "enable adminstrator account" then run CMD as administrator.

Then log off and log back in as Administrator.

Then go to User Accounts>Manage another Account to delete your named account.

The reason to do this when you first install is it will otherwise put your files on the desktop to redistribute, as it builds you a whole new desktop and User account as Admin.

But you will never be bothered by second guessing everything you do again. Just be sure of what you want to do.

Ignore Chicken Littles who say you are grossly compromising security. It's already been disproven and those of us who have always run as administrator never get infected because we know what we are doing.

The first thing I do when I install Windows is google "enable adminstrator account" then run CMD as administrator.

Ignore Chicken Littles who say you are grossly compromising security. It's already been disproven and those of us who have always run as administrator never get infected because we know what we are doing.

But Greg, this user may not know what he's doing (sorry, but the fact that he's running TuneUp Utilities in Win7 kinda shows that) and could mess something up if he did what you're suggesting as an advanced and experienced computer user. It's not a Chicken Little complex, it's just safe computing. And for some, that's what is necessary. You speak in your post of "those of us" and "we know". But that's not speaking for everyone; I dare say for most people.

The first thing I do when I install Windows is google "enable adminstrator account" then run CMD as administrator.

Then log off and log back in as Administrator.

Then go to User Accounts>Manage another Account to delete your named account.

The reason to do this when you first install is it will otherwise put your files on the desktop to redistribute, as it builds you a whole new desktop and User account as Admin.

But you will never be bothered by second guessing everything you do again. Just be sure of what you want to do.

Ignore Chicken Littles who say you are grossly compromising security. It's already been disproven and those of us who have always run as administrator never get infected because we know what we are doing.

i know some people who run linux as root, they also claim they know what they are doing, we laugh at them too...

i know some people who run linux as root, they also claim they know what they are doing, we laugh at them too...

Can you explain why you feel the user/admin separation is so important on a single-user home computer? If we're talking about the potential to make mistakes that break the computer, then well, you really can't know whether Greg or anyone has the skill level required to not do so. Lots of people do. I know I could run it this way. There is a small chance that a program could unintentionally damage something it shouldn't have if running as admin, but I can't think of any such examples.

If we're talking about malware, then being administrator only gains the malware two things over being a user. One is the ability to infect other users, which isn't relevant here. The other is the ability to make itself harder to remove by hiding deeper in the system (which can also have stability consequences). Other than that, there's not much malware can't do running as your standard user. It already has access to everything of interest there, from your private data to the network. It also has the ability to hijack elevation requests, so that if you use UAC/sudo to elevate something while malware is running, you risk also elevating the malware anyway. The only thing that truly protects you is to not run random executables, and to have antivirus software that can block known threats before they execute.

Or just turn off administrator approval mode and use your current account. There is nothing special about the legacy "Administrator" user. I don't know where this myth comes from.

Indeed. Everytime I hear about it I wonder if I'm missing out on something. I use regular admin-level accounts with UAC off and everything works fine.

When I read the topic title, I thought he wanted a way to hide/remove the "Run as Administrator" option but keep UAC on.

Hiding that option would be handy so people don't play with it ;)

Uhm... People can only play with that option if they are already administrator users. The answer is to make them standard users, in which case the default setup will instead prompt them for admin credentials (username and password). You can change it to prompt for credentials for administrator users as well, but that's rather pointless considering they just have to enter their own password.

I see Mr Linux hasn't responded.

To what? Your question for why running as root is bad?

Because anything you run (Windows/Linux/whatever) should only run with normal "user" permissions. You cannot damage the system that way (just your data). And, if in the course of your daily actions, you are suddenly prompted to elevate to Admin/root, that should set off warning bells. You see, malware or even silly user errors that would overwrite system files/settings won't happen automatically.

Because anything you run (Windows/Linux/whatever) should only run with normal "user" permissions. You cannot damage the system that way (just your data).

Right, the stability issue is valid to some extent, but from a security perspective it's much more complicated.

And, if in the course of your daily actions, you are suddenly prompted to elevate to Admin/root, that should set off warning bells. You see, malware [...]

The problem with this is that if you managed to run something malicious as a standard user, you could never trust any UAC requests after that point. Even ones you believe to be legitimate. It is not a matter of "suddenly" being prompted. Before you dismiss this as nonsense, know that it is a demonstrated attack vector. You have no way of knowing what you are elevating. You simply cannot make an informed decision. It may be useful in preventing self-inflicted damage or to protect you some of the time, but it is not a security barrier.

I personally do use AAM, but I do not live under the illusion that it keeps me safe (I'm not saying that you do). Only antivirus software and sensible use can do that. Spreading the idea that not being admin somehow makes you "safe" (the meaning of which I've yet to see defined) is dangerous.

, but I do not live under the illusion that it keeps me safe (I'm not saying that you do). Only antivirus software and sensible use can do that. Spreading the idea that not being admin somehow makes you "safe" (the meaning of which I've yet to see defined) is dangerous.

Well, there must be a reason why most (if not all) operating systems make it kinda difficult to use the admin account. This discussion is very late 1990s. UAC, sudo, and whatever OS X uses, are not there to stop YOU from screwing up the system (though it comes handy for those who don't know what they're doing).. It is there to stop software doing more than it should be able to, intentionally or not.

Right, the stability issue is valid to some extent, but from a security perspective it's much more complicated.

The problem with this is that if you managed to run something malicious as a standard user, you could never trust any UAC requests after that point. Even ones you believe to be legitimate. It is not a matter of "suddenly" being prompted. Before you dismiss this as nonsense, know that it is a demonstrated attack vector. You have no way of knowing what you are elevating. You simply cannot make an informed decision. It may be useful in preventing self-inflicted damage or to protect you some of the time, but it is not a security barrier.

I personally do use AAM, but I do not live under the illusion that it keeps me safe (I'm not saying that you do). Only antivirus software and sensible use can do that. Spreading the idea that not being admin somehow makes you "safe" (the meaning of which I've yet to see defined) is dangerous.

No single thing makes you "safe". I agree with you on that. But not running as root makes you "safer"! An accidental mis-drag of some files won't trash my /sbin (or your /Windows/system32 or whatever).

Nothing fixes a stupid user that elevates apps he doesn't know. Well, there is ONE thing that fixes that. Remove their ability to elevate, and have a separate person as admin. ;)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • "just $100 per TB"? Just? Are we trying to make this seem like the new normal? Kinda weird to make it sound like that is not a ridiculously expensive asking price.
    • The reviews you refer to mean nothing. Where there is no journalism there is no reason to call the gaming media's opinion pieces "reviews". For GP games there is indeed a metric for success - increasing subscriptions. Which turns in revenue. The only circumstance in which subs do not rise when great is being released is a Game Pass system where the company is close to fully saturated with customers in a subscription. However, in that case as the theory goes you spend aplenty in all kind of games - from shady live service cash cows and customer offending agitprop crap in purple colours to robust and entertaining single player games. And keep a solid level of profitability. Ignoring the simply innocuous but mid games MGS has released primarily of the second kind.
    • Report: Microsoft to use AWS to help GitHub deal with a major surge in demand by Pradeep Viswanathan Thanks to the surge of coding AI agents, GitHub's usage has skyrocketed over the past 12 months. To meet this demand, GitHub started with a plan in October 2025 to increase capacity by 10x. However, by early this year, the company realized that it needed 30x scale. This rapid growth has caused severe strain on the platform's reliability, resulting in several small outages over the past few months. In April, GitHub published a long blog post explaining the steps it is taking to resolve these reliability issues. In the post, the company also confirmed that it is working toward a multi-cloud architecture for better resilience. Today, Business Insider reported that GitHub is turning to Amazon Web Services to help deal with a major surge in AI-driven coding activity. It is important to note that GitHub is still in the process of moving completely to the Azure cloud. The current plan is to move the platform fully to Azure by 2027 so that it can scale better as per developer demand. Therefore, the current decision to utilize AWS might be part of a short-term plan to meet immediate demand. A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed that GitHub is using multiple cloud providers with the following statement: For Microsoft, the decision highlights the operational pressure behind the AI boom. GitHub has to stay reliable for developers at a time when rivals such as Codex, Cursor, Claude Code, and other AI coding tools are gaining attention. And the decision to use AWS for computing capacity seems practical given the circumstances.
    • It's growing on me, however, your right, it make better usability sense if the tabs were bellow the address bar.
    • Qwen 3.6 is better value per dollar, and you can run it locally for free.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      vjlex earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Reacting Well
      Dys Topia earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Conversation Starter
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      Console General earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Twozo Technologies earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      517
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      106
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      88
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!