Microsoft's UAC in its Vista operating system release was meant to signify that finally, the company has gotten serious about securing Windows by limiting a user's rights during day-to-day computer usage. It's come to signify something much less than security or trust in the minds of some security experts, though. Security expert Joanna Rutkowska kicked off the dissection of UAC in her blog, and the latest salvo against User Account Control was heaved by Symantec Research Scientist Ollie Whitehouse with a Feb. 20 posting titled An Example of Why UAC Prompts in Vista Can't Always Be Trusted.
The upshot: Microsoft has admitted that yes, UAC is liable to social engineering. The idea behind User Account Control is to limit user privileges as much as possible for most of a user's interaction with the desktop. User rights are elevated only when necessary for administrative tasks, at which point a dialog box prompts the user to OK the escalation. Limiting normal permissions is a good thing, given that it reveals less operating system surface for an attacker to latch onto. The problem, according to Whitehouse, is the level of trust granted to UAC prompts—a level of trust that he thinks is undeserved.
View: The full story
News source: eWeek
The upshot: Microsoft has admitted that yes, UAC is liable to social engineering. The idea behind User Account Control is to limit user privileges as much as possible for most of a user's interaction with the desktop. User rights are elevated only when necessary for administrative tasks, at which point a dialog box prompts the user to OK the escalation. Limiting normal permissions is a good thing, given that it reveals less operating system surface for an attacker to latch onto. The problem, according to Whitehouse, is the level of trust granted to UAC prompts—a level of trust that he thinks is undeserved.
View: The full story News source: eWeek
"eWEEK.com would like to know more about how you deal with today's IT security concerns. Would you help us by answering a few quick questions? Y/N" Um... no? That's exactly the kind of thing that IS a security concern?
MS can fix stupid users
The user of a compromised system would be led to believe that malware was part of the Microsoft OS by its color.
Again, it takes a stupid user (or a local user with malicious intent) to initially compromise the box. And no software can cure that - only proper administration that keeps untrusted users with little or no permissions.
What they need to do is add individual rights management for every single application, completely independent from the user rights.
BTW, in the game of Doom its the company UAC which opens a gate to hell....
I run as a desktop user in Ubuntu and don't have any problems with it.
Microsoft will fix this, and UAC is implemented pretty well.... the problem is with the software developers of applications.
The following is just a theory:
- a malicious user creates a program which looks just like UAC and actually displays "above" the UAC layer - covering the information about what's going on, but not covering the OK/CANCEL buttons.. Since this program is visually identical to UAC, it could have some innocent prompt to which 99% of users will click OK. In reality, the program is doing something malicious in the background. The UAC prompt pops up, with this malicious program covering (hiding) what's really going on. The user clicks the OK button (which isn't covered), and off the malicious code goes...
Possible in theory?
If you disable secure desktop, an app can just simulate an allow click.
I love how they try and once again blame MS. Yes MS made you stupid, yes MS should be able to somehow stop people from convincing other people to give out their information.
Morons.
If it shows up too often, people will automatically click "Go ahead".
"Are you sure you want to open device manager?" Yes, that's why I clicked it!
"Are you sure you want to change your wireless network settings?" Yes, that's why I clicked it.
"Are you sure you want to format your hard disc?" Yes... oh crap!
For these cases where users are that stupid (i.e. XP users who got viruses and spyware), you _don't_ give them the admin rights password.
That's the fracking point!
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.