• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Disabling UAC

Recommended Posts

soldier1st    40

once your done with your app installs uac rarely bothers you you can put it quiet mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin    225
They are completely unnecessary until you get a malicious program that tries to fake a UAC dialog. I don't know if they exist yet, but they certainly will. It's microsoft's job to make sure that you can trust their OS to prevent these kinds of things.

It's not about faking the dialog -- That's actually easy to do, but completely pointless in all cases for accounts that are Administrators with the default settings (Since you don't have to enter a password there's no risk to you. It's just a dialog that doesn't do anything.)

It's about faking input on a real UAC dialog. Even without the secure desktop, I assume that UIPI prevents sending messages directly to the consent window but Brandon will have to confirm that, but in that case, there's still nothing preventing a malicious piece of code from simply moving the mouse and clicking, hence the Secure Desktop.

Edited by MioTheGreat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
Actually, disabling UAC has caused more of these such problems than UAC itself. In fact, I have never seen nor heard of a program that requires you to disable UAC. Not one. However, for a long time Adobe Reader wouldn't install properly if you had UAC disabled. A sidebar gadget I wrote wouldn't work properly with UAC disabled because it registered a per-user activeX control, and fixing that was a bit ugly.

Judging somebody based on your own ignorance is unwise. UAC prompts are shown on the Secure Desktop to protect you and your computer. Without switching to the Secure Desktop, the consent or credential dialogs are more vulnerable to attack (especially the consent dialog for admin users, I've seen examples and they probably aren't what you'd think of).

Right, but Apple doesn't care about security. They also don't have a consent dialog so they don't have to verify that the input is coming from the user, isn't being altered, and that the user is seeing the dialog as intended.

Obviously you don't understand how UAC works. If you are a member of the Administrators group, you don't actually "get" any access you inherit from that group unless you are elevated. However, if your user account or the Users group has access, then you don't need to elevate.

Taking ownership and/or full control of an entire hard drive, if it is your system drive, is a particularly disaterous idea. Security is just one problem - if you take ownership and access away from important system accounts (like SYSTEM, TrustedInstaller, etc) you could render your machine unusable, break certain features, or cause stability problems.

A "limited account" by definition is not a member of the Admin Group. If it is, it's an Admin, and by default you will never have to enter credentials, just click "continue" if you wish to let an application run with Admin privileges (which should be pretty much never).

Well that's obviously a load of crap. There is no directory at "C:\Documents" or even "C:\Documents and Settings" - that directory has been renamed to "C:\Users". If you're trying to access it via the wrong path, obviously it isn't going to work.

There is a hidden symlink set up for compatibility purposes, but it won't show up in the UI, no links in the Start Menu or anywhere else will take you there, and obviously you aren't meant to go there.

Lets consider what you say, OK?

1) You claim that There is no "C:\Documents" folder on a Vista INSTALLATION. That sir, as you so colorfully stated earlier, is a "load of crap". It is plainly there anytime I open Explorer. Additionally, once I changed its owner, I have complete control over anything there. If is doesn't exist how can I take control of it? And if those folders you refer to are only aliases to C:\User\username\foldername, why can't I access any of them WITHOUT taking control? C:\User is ALWAYS accessible, no matter what. Yet I STILL have no access to my own Application folders without taking control of C:\Documents. (or C:\Users\username\Documents\Application Data, etc.). OOB, even an Administrator can't control them, nor can the Owner. One must first give himself full control and special permissions. This is idiotic. BTW, I never use the "My Documents", etc aliases. Even my OWN "Programs" folders are inaccessible until I take control of them manually. How ridiculous!!!

2) This permission you refer to does NOT exist, OOB, even after giving yourself "full control" with an Admin account. You must give it to yourself first. Even then, Microsoft could have used a different choice of wording when it claims that Admin accopunts have "full control". They would have been more honest is they said "almost full control", or "partial full control", or ANYTHING but "full control". Since the Admin rights are in NO WAY "full control".

3) While UAC may keep unmanaged code from installing or running (nor is it necessarily a good thing, either), it makes it EXTREMELY easy for Mcrosoft to CONTROL OUR OWN MACHINES, and KEEP us from controlling them.

4) What we resent the MOST are Microsoft's (and persons like you) condescending attitudes toward us. STOP THIS! We can read also, son. And we can also think for ourselves. We see completely through your rationalizations. If you all can't see that, you're nothing but a bunch of idiots.

And we don't CARE what you think, or why you think it. We don't want Microsoft telling us what we can or can't install on OUR machines, or how we can use them. We don't want or need your opinions. We don't need a "daddy" holding our hands every minute. I haven't needed a "Daddy" since he left our house well over a half-century ago. I certainly don't need one now.

Let's face it, sonny: Microsoft is NOT God, or even a bad copy of Him. Proof of Microsoft's idiocy toward its users was Windows Millennium Edition. I didn't think they could outdo themselves on that one, but they managed to do it with WPA on XP, and now they've outdone themselves with Vista and its UAC.

Do you understand yet? We JUST DON'T CARE any more. Too much water is under the bridge between Microsoft and its users. There is just no way that Microsoft can recover its user's trust any more. We've heard too many lies, too many excuses, too many condescending comments like yours. We don't care who is right or wrong anymore. We want an OS which was not designed by focus groups. WE want one which stays out of the way, until WE want it there. We want one which performs the way WE want it to, not the way some over-paid software engineer wants it to.

If you can understand this, you are definitely out of Microsoft's control.

'Nuff said?

Donald McDaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou    10,367

UAC is a bit intrusive when coming straight from XP but when you use Vista for what it is them it makes perfect sense. It's not about treating users like incompetent idiots but giving them feedback on what is happening with their computer, rather than letting applications run riot. Obviously people that want to disable UAC should be allowed to but it really does strike me as rather stupid and it always seems to be the "I know better - I've been using computers for years" sort of people that do it, yet it's that arrogance that leads to many of the problems UAC was designed to prevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin    225
You claim that There is no "C:\Documents" folder on a Vista INSTALLATION. That sir, as you so colorfully stated earlier, is a "load of crap". It is plainly there anytime I open Explorer.

Then you're using an OEM disk that added the folder or something, because there is no 'Documents' folder in Vista's root drive, just some symlinks in your user folder.

PS C:\> cd Documents
Set-Location : Cannot find path 'C:\Documents' because it does not exist.
At line:1 char:3
PS C:\> mkdir Documents


	Directory: Microsoft.PowerShell.Core\FileSystem::C:\


Mode				LastWriteTime	 Length Name
----				-------------	 ------ ----
d----		 9/30/2007   3:55 PM			Documents


PS C:\> rmdir Documents
PS C:\>

2) This permission you refer to does NOT exist, OOB, even after giving yourself "full control" with an Admin account. You must give it to yourself first. Even then, Microsoft could have used a different choice of wording when it claims that Admin accopunts have "full control". They would have been more honest is they said "almost full control", or "partial full control", or ANYTHING but "full control". Since the Admin rights are in NO WAY "full control".

Just because you don't understand how ACLs work on Vista doesn't mean that what you want to achieve doesn't exist. It's entirely possible to give yourself full control of any folder you want.

3) While UAC may keep unmanaged code from installing or running (nor is it necessarily a good thing, either), it makes it EXTREMELY easy for Mcrosoft to CONTROL OUR OWN MACHINES, and KEEP us from controlling them.

What are you on about? Keeping "unmanaged code from installing or running" is a good thing in every way shape and form. There's absolutely no scenario that anyone here can pose that letting arbitrary code do whatever the hell it wants to your system is a good thing. It's complete nonsense to think that it is.

What we resent the MOST are Microsoft's (and persons like you) condescending attitudes toward us. STOP THIS! We can read also, son. And we can also think for ourselves. We see completely through your rationalizations. If you all can't see that, you're nothing but a bunch of idiots.

It's perfectly fine that you can read. It's the understanding what you read that you seem to be having trouble with.

WE want one which stays out of the way, until WE want it there

You mean an insecure one?

Seriously, do you even read what you're writing? I have no idea where you're coming from. Your blaming Microsoft for implementing good security practices into Windows.

it makes it EXTREMELY easy for Mcrosoft to CONTROL OUR OWN MACHINES

Oh I see now, you're one of those tin foil hat conspiracy theory nuts.

Edited by MioTheGreat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou    10,367
1) You claim that There is no "C:\Documents" folder on a Vista INSTALLATION. That sir, as you so colorfully stated earlier, is a "load of crap". It is plainly there anytime I open Explorer.

There is no "C:\Documents" folder for Vista - it is not hidden nor is it a protected operating system file. Typing the address into the navigation bar producing a message informing you that it cannot be found. There is a "Documents and Settings" shortcut that cannot be accessed, presumably there for application compatibility. What you are saying is patently wrong - if it is true for you then you are using a custom version of Vista and therefore shouldn't be making assumptions about regular installs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
Uh, yeah. I certainly don't every program I run to have "Admin" privledges (Think apps that use the internet for a rather blatantly obvious example of why), or to have full reign of my \Program Files\ and \Windows\ directory. It's all about LUA.

Only if the app is poorly coded, or wants to make system wide changes.

The secure desktop prevents things from falsifying input on the UAC prompt. It's a security feature. You can disable it, probably to no ill effect, as the fact that it's on by default will make exploiters ignore it.

Apple requires you to enter your password. Vista doesn't, thanks to a number of security features that make it safe not to require it (UIPI, the Secure Desktop, etc.)

I mean, you could rig it to require password entry, and disable the secure desktop, and it'd be just like Apple's setup. However, I think the Secure Desktop + No password is easier, and just as secure.

Those folders don't actually exist. The "My Documents", etc. folders were all replaced by "Documents" and such. I believe the C:\users\username\my whatever\ folders might just be there to help out poorly coded programs that didn't properly query for special folder paths. I could be wrong though, I've never actually looked into it, but that's the only reason I can think of for them to be there.

That's because some subfolders do not inherit their ACLs from their parents, with good reasons. I can't possibly think of a reason why you'd want to give a user account Full Control of the entire system drive. That's for TrustedInstaller and Administrators.

And I daresay that if you actually knew what you were doing you would be able to take full control of your drive with two lines typed into an elevated command prompt. But in addition to being able to that, if you knew what you were doing, you wouldn't ever do it, as you'd probably break something horribly in the process (Messing with ACLs in the \Windows\ folder is just asking for things like Windows Updates to fail to install in the future.)

I can think of ONE VERY VALID reason: IT's MY DAMN MACHINE!! I own every inch of the HD! I own every capacitor, every transistor, every component on the logic board (including the PCB board itself). If YOU don't like that, if Microsoft doesn't like it (and they don't- they've been trying more and more to take it away from us with each iteration of Windows), I don't give a flying f***.

If you don't understand that, you're probably less than 30 years old.

Like all children, you're a "good little boy who loves Mommy, and knows she will never harm you", so you ALWAYS do what she says. One day, sonny, this is going to come back to bite you on the arse. THEN you will understand us. But not before then. So I have little hope this post will enter your skull until then.

You like the way UAC works, we don't. Got that?

If Microsoft wants us to use it, they will have to fix it so we can use it the way WE want to.

Your idea about the Apple way of asking for elevated permission is excellent, BTW. I love the way OS X asks for elevated permission (and I've been a confirmed Windows user since WFW 2.11).

BTW, my computer has NEVER been compromised since I learned to use a commercial AV package, rather than a free one.

While they're at it, Microsoft also has to get rid of the so-called "Windows Defender." Its the tool Vista uses which makes it almost impossible to install software sometimes. I always disable it completely ) even turning the Service off, and NEVER allowing it to turn itself back on (it does, you know). And I don't need any Microsoft-trained stoolie to instruct me in matters of security. Microsoft's idea of "security" is keeping everything away from the user, and only allowing him to access what Microsoft wants him to access.

How very hateful and condescending of them.

No wonder so many folks are becoming disillusioned with Windows Vista.

No one likes being treated like a child or a criminal, when they aren't either children or criminals.

BTW, sir:

1) My account IS a so-called "full control" Admin account. I have no need to use a limited User account. Nor do I desire to. Microsoft FORCING me to take control of my own machine is flat WRONG, no matter what you or Microsoft think.

2) Any way of having UAC work less conspicuously is UNDOCUMENTED by Microsoft (or yourself.) This is because MICROSOFT wants to CONTROL US. They could just as easily have built in options to UAC which allows us to do it the Apple way, but they chose not to. Not because Microsoft's way is intrinsically more secure than Apple's way. It simply is not, since having to personally enter our passwords is MUCH safer. No. Microsoft did it the way they did so they could gain more control over OUR PROPERTY. There is no way you can rationalize this fact away. I'm not the idiot you think me to be.

BTW, Apple in NO WAY "doesn't care about security." That, sir, is nothing but Microsoft fanboi FUD, just as Apple fanboi FUD is that Windows is "virus-ridden".

Additionally, because YOU like the way it works does not mean it is "intrinsically" easier. Your "opinion" is irrelevant to us. WE have a different "opinion". We do not suppose you "don't know what you are doing" because you have a different "opinion".

All this leads me to the conclusion that Windows Fanatics are just as irrational as "Mac" fanatics. There are so many fanatics in the world today that we are on the brink of self-destruction. The world could do without more "fanbois" such as yourself.

Donald McDaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
There is no "C:\Documents" folder for Vista - it is not hidden nor is it a protected operating system file. Typing the address into the navigation bar producing a message informing you that it cannot be found. There is a "Documents and Settings" shortcut that cannot be accessed, presumably there for application compatibility. What you are saying is patently wrong - if it is true for you then you are using a custom version of Vista and therefore shouldn't be making assumptions about regular installs.

Well, maybe I am wrong about the SPECIFIC folders I have no access to AS ADMINISTRATOR.

Nevertheless, "Full Control" does NOT mean "partial control". Either change the damn appellation to "Partial Control" or get rid of "Admin" permissions entirely.

Additionally, I own ONE copy of Vista: the System Builder Kit I purchased the day it was released to the GP. It was sealed and manufactured by MICROSOFT itself.

I am in NO way a "tin-foil conspiracy theorist", btw. Nevertheless, I am firmly convinced (especially after having read the language of our EULA, which tries to make the idiotic legal claim that Microsoft is licensing the machine it is installed on, rather than the USER who installs the OS on the machine) that Microsoft simply doesn't trust our judgment to use OUR property the way WE desire to. Obviously, this is the attitude one would have with his own small children, but NOT the attitude to have toward thinking adults.

If you can't see this, sir, you need to grow up a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin    225

Just because you "own the machine" doesn't mean Windows should blindly let you shoot yourself in the foot every time you step up to the keyboard. Which, quite frankly, you seem very likely to do given your obviously inept view on computer security.

It's a big scary world filled with a LOT of people who would like nothing better than to exploit your machine, and Windows is just trying to help.

You're free to shut off virtually every security feature, and completely wreak havok on the default security permissions if you know how. Fortunately for us all, you seem to lack the necessary understanding of how Windows works to turn your machine into another open relay or another zombie in some botnet.

Edited by MioTheGreat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billyea    198

Mio is right. Microsoft is just trying to help. If you don't like it, feel free to not buy Vista. You can go back to XP, where they don't bother you with this.

Or alternatively, find a way to disable all the stuff. That's what makes windows so beloved by power users, it's terribly customizable. Microsoft leaves this stuff in because they feel that users need it, if you don't need it, feel free to get rid of it.

But there's no need to get in a fit and start swearing. It's your machine so please respect Microsoft's decision (because you're running their OS) and get on with your business of not being childed, because some people in this computer world NEED it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
Then you're using an OEM disk that added the folder or something, because there is no 'Documents' folder in Vista's root drive, just some symlinks in your user folder.

PS C:\> cd Documents
Set-Location : Cannot find path 'C:\Documents' because it does not exist.
At line:1 char:3
PS C:\> mkdir Documents
	Directory: Microsoft.PowerShell.Core\FileSystem::C:\
Mode				LastWriteTime	 Length Name
----				-------------	 ------ ----
d----		 9/30/2007   3:55 PM			Documents
PS C:\> rmdir Documents
PS C:\>

Just because you don't understand how ACLs work on Vista doesn't mean that what you want to achieve doesn't exist. It's entirely possible to give yourself full control of any folder you want.

What are you on about? Keeping "unmanaged code from installing or running" is a good thing in every way shape and form. There's absolutely no scenario that anyone here can pose that letting arbitrary code do whatever the hell it wants to your system is a good thing. It's complete nonsense to think that it is.

It's perfectly fine that you can read. It's the understanding what you read that you seem to be having trouble with.

You mean an insecure one?

Seriously, do you even read what you're writing? I have no idea where you're coming from. Your blaming Microsoft for implementing good security practices into Windows.

Oh I see now, you're one of those tin foil hat conspiracy theory nuts.

1) I understand perfectly well what I am reading, if it's written using Standard Business English.

2) I understand perfectly well what someone is saying or writing even if they are saying it or writing it using Ebonics (remember that stupidity?)

3) If I want an insecure machine, what is that to you or Microsoft? It is really none of your business how we use our own property. But I don't ever use any such "insecure machine". I handle my OWN security using third-party tools. And I DON'T want Microsoft instructing me in "security", or forcing me to use theirs.

Where was all this talk of "security" under XP, Or 98, or any other previous MS OS? NON-EXISTENT ( at least from Microsoft), unless one used third-party utilities. And NOW Microsoft thinks itself qualified to instruct US? Yeah, right. It's AV is the WORST on the market, yet they think themselves qualified to instruct US. God have mercy on us with such condescending idiotic manufacturers.

Now Microsoft is trying to make up for their years of neglect: That's good, and I commend them for finally getting off their fat arses. But they've swung the pendulum too far from "dead center", so that their "security measures" now keep us from using our machines the way we want to use them. I can think of several reasons why this is true:

1) Microsoft being a novice in this matter of security, it is not yet mature enough to do it in such a way that it maintains USER control over his machine. IU prefer to believe this, though it is getting harder with each iteration.

2) Microsoft listens to focus groups too much.

3) Microsoft programmers are not being given enough control over their own code.

4) Microsoft is simply TOO HAUGHTY to listen to what the USER wants.

5) I need to make a tin-hat and wear it all the time, because my suspicions about Microsoft's wanting complete control of our machines are not groundless.

I'm sure you could think of a few yourself, any one (or more) of which could easily be just as true as your fanboi attitude that Microsoft has no evil intentions.

I know men, sir: The BEST of us are JUST as evil as Hitler, where our pocket-books are concerned.

Any company which thinks it has a superior solution such as Windows OneCare when it is obviously inferior to even the FREE third-party tools, is either self-deluded or just plain EVIL when it wants its users pay to use it.

I will NEVER believe Microsoft has no evil intentions toward its users, unless I stand before my Father and HE points to them as examples of right behavior toward its customers.

But probably, you feel the same way I do, underneath your skin, and feel you must attempt to discredit me in front of your "friends", for whatever reasons.

Or you simply can't stand me, personally, and are being contrary just because you think it gets my goat or something.

Either way, it's irrelevant to the subject: which is Microsoft's brute-force security methods.

No matter what spin you wish to put on it, they are STILL "brute force" methods, and completely irrational.

Donald McDaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin    225
If I want an insecure machine, what is that to you or Microsoft?

Things like worms can only spread if they have enough infected machines to spread from. By being insecure, you're effectively ruining the internet for everyone else. You could be sending spam, or DDOSing some website right now.

Or worse yet, giving people advice.

And I fail to see how UAC gives Microsoft control over our machines. It's simply a tool designed to give running programs the least access to your machine that they need to function, in the interests of protecting the machine from being exploited.

And there are no 3rd party security tools that offer what UAC gives you. It protects from 0-day exploits. Name another tool that can stop application exploits before they're even known about.

Edited by MioTheGreat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FATILA    4

What on earth are you complaining about? Simply turn it off and be done ranting about what MS should and should not be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
Mio is right. Microsoft is just trying to help. If you don't like it, feel free to not buy Vista. You can go back to XP, where they don't bother you with this.

Or alternatively, find a way to disable all the stuff. That's what makes windows so beloved by power users, it's terribly customizable. Microsoft leaves this stuff in because they feel that users need it, if you don't need it, feel free to get rid of it.

But there's no need to get in a fit and start swearing. It's your machine so please respect Microsoft's decision (because you're running their OS) and get on with your business of not being childed, because some people in this computer world NEED it.

Sir, there's ANOTHER alternative: Install and use my OWN third-party security tools. This has always worked well for me (and everyone else) in the past, and I see no reason why it cannot continue to work for us. UAC was completely UNNECESSARY.

I loved Windows for a simple reason: It let me control my own machine, if I so desired.

Now, Microsoft is going the way of Apple, and attempting to wrench control away from the user, in the misguided belief that we can't control them ourselves. I don't know about you, but I was taught that such attitudes are EXTREMELY condescending, even toward children. WE usually only condescend to children. Yet Microsoft does it to ADULTS. They need to get their priorities straightened out, and soon.

Eventually, we will only be able to use the software THEY approve of. Screw that, sir. Never happen, as long as a single man can think for himself. And I am starting to come to the conclusion that no one wants to think for himself any more, so it probably will happen, and sooner rather than later.

Don't you get it yet?

I LOVE Microsoft Windows, but their condescending attitude I can do without.

I also hate Apple's condescending attitude toward their customers, so don't get me wrong.

And YOUR particular condescending attitude toward me is just as evil.

You really need to learn to recognize the difference between speaking with an adult and speaking with a child. And you need to learn to recognize when you are doing it, and gain the respect for other adults necessary to avoid it in the future.

To continue: You say "Microsoft is just trying to help." That is commendable, under SOME circumstances. When we DON'T WANT the damn help, it most definitely is NOT. So,Microsoft is WRONG to try to "give" it to us against our wills (much better-stated by "forced on us"). Microsoft no more "gave us help" when they "forced" UAC on us than I am helping by getting angry at such idiocy as you are publishing.

And don't try to give me the old crap phrase "if you don't like it, don't use it." I am an adult, here, sir. If I didn't like Windows, I would NEVER use it. It may eventually come to that, if Microsoft refuses to listen to its users about this particular matter. But just because I LIKE Windows, as an OS, doesn't mean I like EVERYTHING about Windows. I certainly DON'T like Microsoft's unasked-for-and-unwanted "help".

Maybe you're the kind of man who just LOVES every little thing about your wife or girlfriend. But I guarantee you can't stand her breath when you give her your first kiss for the day -- unless you're some kind of pervert. Don't worry, I'm not accusing you in ANY way of being such a "pervert". It's just the first example I could think of to use to counter your idiotic "don't like it, don't use it" remark.

BTW, the proper phrase to use for "childed" (not even an English word) is "treated like a child". Just another sign that you are another of the perpetual children they are cranking out of our schools and universities nowadays.

Maybe you do need "Daddy Microsoft" holding your hand, and protecting you from ghosts and goblins. I don't, nor do I need it (or want it); not since I learned that ghosts and goblins are only stories other children repeat among themselves, and there was nothing more dangerous in my closet, under the bed, or behind the door except my dirty clothes and a few dust-bunnies.

YOU may want to be ruled by fear, sir. I don't.

But your educational and emotional level and learning abilities are not on trial here. Nor are mine.

Microsoft's (and your) condescension is.

Donald McDaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FATILA    4

Childed is a word, and I don't think you are the one to be preaching from the mount here. Suggest you cool it down before a moderator steps in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billyea    198
Sir, there's ANOTHER alternative: Install and use my OWN third-party security tools. This has always worked well for me (and everyone else) in the past, and I see no reason why it cannot continue to work for us. UAC was completely UNNECESSARY.

Then turn it off! It seems like you're missing the point. Microsoft has it in, but you can turn it off! That's why I love windows! You don't like it, you disable it.

Eventually, we will only be able to use the software THEY approve of. Screw that, sir. Never happen, as long as a single man can think for himself. And I am starting to come to the conclusion that no one wants to think for himself any more, so it probably will happen, and sooner rather than later.

When that day comes is the day I move to linux, that day hasn't come, and so I don't

To continue: You say "Microsoft is just trying to help." That is commendable, under SOME circumstances. When we DON'T WANT the damn help, it most definitely is NOT. So,Microsoft is WRONG to try to "give" it to us against our wills (much better-stated by "forced on us"). Microsoft no more "gave us help" when they "forced" UAC on us than I am helping by getting angry at such idiocy as you are publishing.

The reason Microsoft put it is because people DO want it. Corporate customers want it, for one. Some of my friends like it too.

It's not forced on you if you can turn it off. I've said it quite a few times already. Now try Tweak UAC.

BTW, the proper phrase to use for "childed" (not even an English word) is "treated like a child". Just another sign that you are another of the perpetual children they are cranking out of our schools and universities nowadays.
But your educational and emotional level and learning abilities are not on trial here. Nor are mine.

Please, we're both intelligent people who can reason out differences. Keep focus.

P.S. I did use childed incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan    5,232

Wow, so much insane rambling from a single user....

I think you need to understand that the OS isn't designed specifically for YOU, and that security measures and user privilieges and folder access privilieges is somethign you don't udnerstand at all. There are very good reason why an admin doesn't have full access to every folder, but as has been said, you BEIG and ADMIN or through UAC, can make every folder on the HDD fully under your control with one simple function.

IF you want need or Desire to have all that control over you computer you can have it, it's easy, and if you don't want UAC to prtect yoru and yoru computer, then turn it off. Don't whine and ramble on this forum about things you don't understand or have the slightest idea of how they work.

As for UAC beign unecessary, many peopel would rather to the route to say that AV's are unecessary. but the point is that UAC is there to protect you from things the AV doesn't protect you from things that isn't yet in the AV's signature database. And afterall, a virus needs to actually exist before it can be addd to the signature database. that means there's lot of time inbetween.

But then again if after reading all of Brandons posts in this threa dyou keep with yoru insane rambling and don't udnerstand what UAC does and how it does it, I Suggest you close this thread and never return. and PLEASE, if people ever ask you advice about anything related to computers, PLEASE tell them to ask someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dashel    542

If UAC can protect you from a zero day virus or exploit, then why do we need other security apps at all? If it can protect us from zero day then why can't it protect us from a 120 or 360 day exploit just as effectively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billyea    198
If UAC can protect you from a zero day virus or exploit, then why do we need other security apps at all? If it can protect us from zero day then why can't it protect us from a 120 or 360 day exploit just as effectively?

It could, but in case you make a mistake like elevating something you shouldn't elevate (except in IE or IE based apps, those run in a sandbox), the AV really prevents you from regretting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
Things like worms can only spread if they have enough infected machines to spread from. By being insecure, you're effectively ruining the internet for everyone else. You could be sending spam, or DDOSing some website right now.

Or worse yet, giving people advice.

And I fail to see how UAC gives Microsoft control over our machines. It's simply a tool designed to give running programs the least access to your machine that they need to function, in the interests of protecting the machine from being exploited.

And there are no 3rd party security tools that offer what UAC gives you. It protects from 0-day exploits. Name another tool that can stop application exploits before they're even known about.

Again, you give a condescending response to me. Good God, man! How do you live with yourself all alone on HIS Throne, and always refuse correction? One day, you will see Who is TRULY "perfect in understanding and all knowledge". Then you will weep because you refused to accept correction from me, no matter my attitude or educational level. This is something they don't teach in school, son. You only learn this lesson by being corrected.

I will try again:

1) We don't want what UAC "gives" (read, "FORCES on us").

2) We were ALREADY able to keep our own machines (and by extension, yours) safe and clean. All it required was USING the software WE wanted to use, without Microsoft's interference or "help".

3) There is NO WAY ANY tool can protect your machines if ONE user is bound and determined to do those things which will guarantee malware getting a foothold.

4) A machine of mine has NEVER been compromised, except ONCE. And I KNEW it would happen the minute I performed the actions necessary for it to happen. I am most definitely not alone in this. MANY users already know more than you might think. It's not as if we are in a vacuum here. This is the Internet generation, after all. We've read the same pages you have, used the same links, used the same OS and programs, read the same books, taken the same classes, for YEARS. Yet you (and Microsoft) keep thinking YOU can protect us with YOUR condescending attitudes. Won't work. All you will succeed in doing is what you've already done: made us mad enough to "spit a hare." (No, no, no, that DOESN'T mean "expectorate a rabbit". It means "RUN ONE THROUGH and cook it for dinner", and meant, "bring one to such anger that he takes his sword out and runs the f***** through like a rabbit on a barbecue." I feel sure you can understand the metaphor, probably having been one of those metaphorical "hares" at least once in your life, as all of us have been.

And as to UAC being nothing more than an innocuous method of keeping bad-performing programs from working as they were designed to. That was basically Hitler's explanation of why he "needed" to usurp the German Chancellor's office for himself. Whether Hitler actually believed that he was "saving the German people from the God-awful Commies", or was intentionally deceiving them are irrelevant, since they were deceived into handing even their LIVES over to that beast in either case.

Sometimes, the "cure" is worse than the actual disease. In the case of UAC, the "cure" definitely is. WE would rather have the "disease", thank you very much. Then we'll go to the metaphorical "Canada or Mexico" to get cheaper, but just as effective, metaphorical "medicine".

Your condescending attitude is really getting on my nerves, sir.

Please change it if you want to continue communicating with me.

Donald McDaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billyea    198

WindowsonIMac, do you have something to say about the responses I have put forth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
It could, but in case you make a mistake like elevating something you shouldn't elevate (except in IE or IE based apps, those run in a sandbox), the AV really prevents you from regretting it.

1) What AV? We are speaking about UAC (or at least, the way Microsoft has implemented it.)

2) Our "regrets" are OUR OWN. Microsoft has NO BUSINESS trying to control them. Our emotions are completely outside their purview. The sooner they realize that, the better we will get along.

Each adult must learn to live with his OWN regrets. We don't WANT anyone telling us which regrets we can or can't have and live with.

ONLY children need their emotions controlled with "Daddy's belt".

We will deal with our OWN regrets the way WE choose to, sir. Thanks anyway...

Donald McDaniel.

WindowsonIMac, do you have something to say about the responses I have put forth?

Is that what you call them? "Responses"? More Microsoft propaganda, is what I call them. I've answered one of your "responses" to another already. If your "responses" to ME are along the same line, I have no need to respond to them, since your "response" will be just as childish and condescending.

Donald McDaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+BeLGaRaTh    43

/me unsubscribes from the thread ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindowsOnIMac    0
1) What AV? We are speaking about UAC (or at least, the way Microsoft has implemented it.)

2) Our "regrets" are OUR OWN. Microsoft has NO BUSINESS trying to control them. Our emotions are completely outside their purview. The sooner they realize that, the better we will get along.

Each adult must learn to live with his OWN regrets. We don't WANT anyone telling us which regrets we can or can't have and live with.

ONLY children need their emotions controlled with "Daddy's belt".

We will deal with our OWN regrets the way WE choose to, sir. Thanks anyway...

Donald McDaniel.

Is that what you call them? "Responses"? More Microsoft propaganda, is what I call them. I've answered one of your "responses" to another already. If your "responses" to ME are along the same line, I have no need to respond to them, since your "response" will be just as childish and condescending.

Donald McDaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou    10,367
I will try again:

1) We don't want what UAC "gives" (read, "FORCES on us").

2) We were ALREADY able to keep our own machines (and by extension, yours) safe and clean. All it required was USING the software WE wanted to use, without Microsoft's interference or "help".

Replace "WE" with "I" and please step away from this topic. Honestly, most people are glad that Vista provides extra security against malware, worms and viruses - I want UAC, though that's not to say it can't be improved. You're trying to state your views on UAC as fact when you have nothing to support that, and with most people here disagreeing with you. UAC is about giving users more control over what is happening on their computer by informing them what's going on behind the scenes - it's NOT about taking control away from you. I don't understand how you can misinterpret UAC so disasterously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.