If you disabled UAC

[rtk]

I wish they'd add an options stating "I trust this application create a rule and don't ask me again"

Firewalls have that option, I mean if the application changes then fair enough get a new UAC prompt but it would be nice to be able to "trust" an application rather than just having 2 settings witch are essentially on or off as a whole.

Please read the thread, Brandon has answered this question several times.

Short answer, you need to deal with the vendor of the program, either get them to code properly or replace the app.

[Lexcyn]

I've never gotten a virus before and I've never had any problems with my PC. I think I'll take my chances and turn it off.

[rtk]

How am I supposed to respond to this? Should I cry? Should I laugh? *shrug*

Whatever makes you feel better bud.

Giggle manically for now, sob quietly eventually.

Feel how you will, just don't convince others to follow in your missteps, either way, I'll feel fine about it since your not on my network.

I will guarantee that the first person to start a new topic on Neowin with the title 'Vista has a virus' will be one of the people who said 'UAC is sh*te and I turned it off'

Followed by a gang that'll claim it happened with UAC on, until they realize their folly.

[xxdesmus]

Slightly off topic Brandon,

Can you explain what "Virtualization" is in Vista? I right clicked an icon in the taskmanager and I can check "Virtualization" for it...I was just curious what this does specifically. Is this some type of "sandbox" environment for apps to run in?

Perhaps this is a really stupid question, but I've asked around and no one else seems to know so I thought I'd go right to the source (yes, you ;) ).

Cheers

[dwarhya]

Slightly off topic Brandon,

Can you explain what "Virtualization" is in Vista? I right clicked an icon in the taskmanager and I can check "Virtualization" for it...I was just curious what this does specifically. Is this some type of "sandbox" environment for apps to run in?

Perhaps this is a really stupid question, but I've asked around and no one else seems to know so I thought I'd go right to the source (yes, you ;) ).

Cheers

A quick google came up with this:

The Task Manager Virtualization column corresponds to UAC file and registry virtualization, a compatibility feature. Please see the following article for a high-level overview of file and registry virtualization (second bullet point in the article):

here

[xxdesmus]

^^ Thanks :blush: ...I guess I coulda tried Google :laugh: :pinch:

[ANova]

Giggle manically for now, sob quietly eventually.

Feel how you will, just don't convince others to follow in your missteps, either way, I'll feel fine about it since your not on my network.

Followed by a gang that'll claim it happened with UAC on, until they realize their folly.

I never tried to convince others to follow me, quite the contrary in fact. I only advocate that experienced users do so (those who are already know)and it was supposed to be an example pertaining to why I personally dislike UAC, firewall, spywhatever and so forth. They are good for the average user but Vista is far too catered to that crowd and leaves little room or options for the advanced.

Btw, there are those who are utterly clueless when it comes to computers and whom often do not understand many of the dialogs but would rather just press whatever button is closest to the mouse; UAC is hardly a fool proof implementation as it relies on some user knowledge. There is only so much you can do to try and help people and there is a point when it becomes too much and on the verge of controlling. The trick is to help them help themselves.

Also, try not to assume. You know the saying right?

[xxdesmus]

^^ I'd have completely agree with you.

If you know what you're doing then chances are you will be OK without UAC enabled. Personally, I will likely turn it off soon (and wait for Microsoft to improve it), but I'll definitely leave it on for my users (and for my parents when I install Vista for them). :yes:

[franzon]

The first victim (an user got a spyware because he disabled the UAC):

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...537574&st=0

Edited February 10, 2007 by franzon

[UncleSpellbinder]

True or not, with all the discussion about UAC, this Mac add is a tremendous marketing tool.

[Evolution]

Once apps are properly built, the average user shouldn't see any UAC prompts at all after the computer has been setup... apart from program installations.

[xxdesmus]

True or not, with all the discussion about UAC, this Mac ad is a tremendous marketing tool.

How? :blink:

They have the exact same prompts, albeit done slightly better...but any Windows user making the jump would run into the same privilege escalation prompts and would have the same "what the hell is this?" response?

[rtk]

I never tried to convince others to follow me, quite the contrary in fact. I only advocate that experienced users do so (those who are already know)and it was supposed to be an example pertaining to why I personally dislike UAC, firewall, spywhatever and so forth. They are good for the average user but Vista is far too catered to that crowd and leaves little room or options for the advanced.

Ok, what is advocation if not trying to convince others to agree with you?

You've been given links and authoritative rebuttals to your opinions. You're ignorant of UAC and security in general, and dangerous.

There's no expert that would agree with you that running as full admin all the time is safe.

If you know what you're doing then chances are you will be OK without UAC enabled.

If you believe this, you don't understand UAC. Once again, it protects your system from it's running programs, not from an experienced user.

The first victim (an user got a spyware because he disabled the UAC):

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...537574&st=0

Someone should start a new topic listing these types of threads, hopefully then it'll sink in for some people.

[UncleSpellbinder]

How? :blink:

They have the exact same prompts, albeit done slightly better...but any Windows user making the jump would run into the same privilege escalation prompts and would have the same "what the hell is this?" response?

I said it was a tremendous marketing tool, not that I agreed. I think the average Windows user would not be aware of Mac's prompts. And yes, it's done better in Mac. At least according to a co-worker who has the latest i-Mac (her husband has Vista Ultimate). She says, in her experience so far, taht the prompts for similar actions in Vista Ultimate vs. iMac is nearly 2 to 1 (Vista generating more prompts than Vista).

[franzon]

I said it was a tremendous marketing tool, not that I agreed. I think the average Windows user would not be aware of Mac's prompts. And yes, it's done better in Mac. At least according to a co-worker who has the latest i-Mac (her husband has Vista Ultimate). She says, in her experience so far, taht the prompts for similar actions in Vista Ultimate vs. iMac is nearly 2 to 1 (Vista generating more prompts than Mac).

"Less prompts" doesn't mean that is better...

Vista UAC is safer and better than Mac.

Edited February 11, 2007 by franzon

[ANova]

Ok, what is advocation if not trying to convince others to agree with you?

You've been given links and authoritative rebuttals to your opinions. You're ignorant of UAC and security in general, and dangerous.

There's no expert that would agree with you that running as full admin all the time is safe.

Only according to your obviously limited and close minded viewpoint.

At least two others that claim to be in IT and agree with me have posted in this thread as well. Of course I'm sure anybody that agrees with me is automatically not considered an expert by your standard.

[RaisinCain]

Maybe over confident... ;)

Overconfident my ass. I know what I am doing. Do you support 2000+ students & 500+ faculty members on a daily basis? Thought not. Move along.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Overconfident my ass. I know what I am doing. Do you support 2000+ students & 500+ faculty members on a daily basis? Thought not. Move along.

That's a frightening, frightening prospect... given your earlier responses to this thread. I guess all the security technology in the world isn't going to help if we can't educate the smaller IT admins to understand the nature of the problems they may face or to understand how the systems they administer work.

[RaisinCain]

Duh. I do not disable ANYTHING on the computers at my place of employment. I am talking about my personal PC.

[ANova]

I guess all the security technology in the world isn't going to help if we can't educate the smaller IT admins to understand the nature of the problems they may face or to understand how the systems they administer work.

Education huh, is that what you're calling it these days?

Short of a direct hacking attempt that uses a vulnerability in one of the processes or services you guys love to integrate into your os and that isn't monitored, it is quite possible to have a secure os without lots of multilayer security that is fundamentally superfluous.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Education huh, is that what you're calling it these days?

Short of a direct hacking attempt that uses a vulnerability in one of the processes or services you guys love to integrate into your os and that isn't monitored, it is quite possible to have a secure os without lots of multilayer security that is fundamentally superfluous.

You implicitly trust every application you run on your PC to be bug free? Wow, what kind of fantasy world do you live in?

[RaisinCain]

Typical Microsoft thinking. PC's would be relatively bug free if MS wouldn't limit software developers access to the source code. Also, if they wouldn't throw out buggy software just to "get it out there" to the public. Vista isn't even a little over 2 months since RTM & already they're working on a service pack? Pfft.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Typical Microsoft thinking. PC's would be relatively bug free if MS wouldn't limit software developers access to the source code. Also, if they wouldn't throw out buggy software just to "get it out there" to the public. Vista isn't even a little over 2 months since RTM & already they're working on a service pack? Pfft.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. How is access to Windows source code going to help the developer of Miranda IM or GAIM or Firefox make their product more secure? Absolutely absurd.

Oh yeah, 5 years - we were so just rushing to "get it out there." I can't believe someone working in IT could be that naive.

Linux kernel 2.6.20 isn't even a week old and they're already working on 2.6.21? Pfft.

[Andareed]

Typical Microsoft thinking. PC's would be relatively bug free if MS wouldn't limit software developers access to the source code. Also, if they wouldn't throw out buggy software just to "get it out there" to the public. Vista isn't even a little over 2 months since RTM & already they're working on a service pack? Pfft.

How does having access to Windows' source code help make bug free software? MSDN does an excellent job documenting its API. Making the source code widely available might result in developers using internal/undocumented libraries. If MS decides to remove these libraries (for whatever reason), developers would whine and complain to MS.

As for SP1, do you expect MS developers to sit on their collective asses for the next few months?

[RaisinCain]

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. How is access to Windows source code going to help the developer of Miranda IM or GAIM or Firefox make their product more secure? Absolutely absurd.

Oh yeah, 5 years - we were so just rushing to "get it out there." I can't believe someone working in IT could be that naive.

Linux kernel 2.6.20 isn't even a week old and they're already working on 2.6.21? Pfft.

1. Absurd? You referred to bugs in software. A little help from MS would help software developers would it not?

2. 5 years, yes. Was it ready to be released? No.

3. We're talking Windows not Linux. Comparing apples to oranges. (no pun)

How does having access to Windows' source code help make bug free software? MSDN does an excellent job documenting its API. Making the source code widely available might result in developers using internal/undocumented libraries. If MS decides to remove these libraries (for whatever reason), developers would whine and complain to MS.

As for SP1, do you expect MS developers to sit on their collective asses for the next few months?

"As for SP1, do you expect MS developers to sit on their collective asses for the next few months?" Obviously not and obviously it shouldn't have been released when it was. I wasn't talking about the ENTIRE source.