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

Wow look at the votes.

But seriously, if you are THAT scared that something bad will happen then you shouldn't even be using a computer.

It's not so much that we're 'scared' that something bad will happen, it's simply good security practice and a great preventative measure for a lot of potential exploits and problems.

um allan from another thread told me to post here. i'm pretty sure I understand how UAC works but he seems to think there is a reason to disable it entirely rather than just disable the promts via TweakUAC. he wouldn't tell me what his reason is (from my perspective that appears to be because there isn't one, certainly no one has explained it in this thread) but if there is a reason i would like to know? so could someone explain?

i mean someone on the previous page asked the same question and didn't get a response

WOW I cannot believe so many people would prefer risking security by using an an Admin Account instead of UAC Enabled but in Silent Mode. How is UAC annoying when in Silent mode? It's the prompts that are annoying, everything else about UAC is anything but annoying.

so any help? thanks

It's not that I wouldn't tell you, it's that I chose not to hijack someone's thread to have the discussion.

In my opinion, disabling UAC is purely a personal preference. I happen to have a proprietary application that is incompatible with UAC, so in my case it's easier to keep UAC disabled at all times than to toggle it on and off, that's all. But regardless of why, it's up to the user to decide what he does and does not want running on his system. As long as he has all of the relevant information in front of him to make an informed decision, it's really nobody else's business.

And by the way, regarding that other thread - saying something is "dumb" is really a poor way of getting your point across in my opinion.

It's not that I wouldn't tell you, it's that I chose not to hijack someone's thread to have the discussion.

In my opinion, disabling UAC is purely a personal preference. I happen to have a proprietary application that is incompatible with UAC, so in my case it's easier to keep UAC disabled at all times than to toggle it on and off, that's all. But regardless of why, it's up to the user to decide what he does and does not want running on his system. As long as he has all of the relevant information in front of him to make an informed decision, it's really nobody else's business.

And by the way, regarding that other thread - saying something is "dumb" is really a poor way of getting your point across in my opinion.

ah ok thanks, yeah i just didn't realise that UAC caused those kinds of issues. so it's a very small minority that would want to disable UAC for that reason. also, in regard to the other thread the guy didn't have all the facts, he hadn't been made aware of the TweakUAC option, that's why i posted. obviously for someone in his situation (someone who just doesn't want to click through the dialog) my solution is superior to simply disabling UAC entirely.

It's not that I wouldn't tell you, it's that I chose not to hijack someone's thread to have the discussion.

In my opinion, disabling UAC is purely a personal preference. I happen to have a proprietary application that is incompatible with UAC, so in my case it's easier to keep UAC disabled at all times than to toggle it on and off, that's all. But regardless of why, it's up to the user to decide what he does and does not want running on his system. As long as he has all of the relevant information in front of him to make an informed decision, it's really nobody else's business.

And by the way, regarding that other thread - saying something is "dumb" is really a poor way of getting your point across in my opinion.

How can an application be "incompatible" with UAC? Other than requiring you to elevate unnecessary, which I wouldn't count as "incompatible."

How can an application be "incompatible" with UAC? Other than requiring you to elevate unnecessary, which I wouldn't count as "incompatible."

:) i was hoping you would post that because it sounded weird to me but i don't really know enough to disagree with him. maybe he can explain.......................... ;)

Here is my 2 cents worth, I NEVER use UAC. I?m running Vista 64bit and it took my some time to find compatible anti-virus software. I went with Trend Micro Internet Security 2008. Anyway, that was my latest purchase. I?ve run Trend Micro for over a year. Bottom line is that you can NOT scan for viruses with this UAC turned on. It MUST be off in order to scan your PC for viruses. Therefore, I keep the UAC turned off at ALL times. I NEVER had a problem because I let Trend Micro handle any arising situations and/or problems.

Here is my 2 cents worth, I NEVER use UAC. I?m running Vista 64bit and it took my some time to find compatible anti-virus software. I went with Trend Micro Internet Security 2008. Anyway, that was my latest purchase. I?ve run Trend Micro for over a year. Bottom line is that you can NOT scan for viruses with this UAC turned on. It MUST be off in order to scan your PC for viruses. Therefore, I keep the UAC turned off at ALL times. I NEVER had a problem because I let Trend Micro handle any arising situations and/or problems.

You can scan for viruses with uac on...

You shouldn't be running AV software that's going to risk security in another area just to do a scan. I'm running Kaspersky, and it scans no problem with UAC fully enabled. You should get some better software rather than turn off an important security component.

Here is my 2 cents worth, I NEVER use UAC. I’m running Vista 64bit and it took my some time to find compatible anti-virus software. I went with Trend Micro Internet Security 2008. Anyway, that was my latest purchase. I’ve run Trend Micro for over a year. Bottom line is that you can NOT scan for viruses with this UAC turned on. It MUST be off in order to scan your PC for viruses. Therefore, I keep the UAC turned off at ALL times. I NEVER had a problem because I let Trend Micro handle any arising situations and/or problems.

Wrong. You can scan for viruses with UAC enabled just fine.

I believe any software that is incompatible with UAC are having problems with UAC's file and registry virtualization, which is one of the main benefits UAC provides.

The real problem comes when someone disables UAC and finds their applications acting weird because certain files and settings were stored in the virtualized folder that is no longer being used. There's no problem if one disables UAC right away after Windows is installed and before applications are being setup.

I have never used trend micro, but it obviously just isn't fully compatible with UAC if it can't do a scan. What happens with UAC on when you try and scan? I have never heard of any vista av's having a problem like this.

Tell you what. when I get back later this morning I will start a Topic on this very subject and go through step by step what happens when I try a full PC "Scan for Viruses" using TrendMicro Internet Security 2008 with the UAC "ON" with a Vista 64bit OS.....

It was also impossible to run that app as an Admin, under your account profile, which I think is one of the greatest things about UAC.

Isn't that what MakeMeAdmin does?

It's about keeping processes running with as few privileges as they need to perform their function, so as to prevent them from potentially doing harm, mostly by exploits (But it certainly helps prevent by accident.)

PWN2OWNed

Then when the application (IE, Firefox, AIM, Outlook, Thunderbird, whatever) gets attacked through a vulnerability in its code, it is prevented from doing significant damage and in many cases will fail altogether.

UAC isn't about preventing untrustworthy applications from being installed. It is about preventing trusted everyday applications from being hijacked via remote code execution exploits.

PWN2OWNed

Now what was UAC's role in preventing exploits?

I'm sorry Brandon, but if you guys at Microsoft really think that way, I think a lot of users are going to heed your advice... because, from my experience with OS X and Linux, they have nothing as insanely annoying as UAC. :)

Mac OSX has been around long enough to where developers have made apps that install and run without admin rights (sometimes it asks you for the password during install).

Once Vista and its successors hit maturity developers better learn. Install google talk for instance http://talk.google.com , UAC will not prompt you to even install, because the developers understood how to install it without provoking admin rights. No one needs admin rights 100% of the time, that is why no OS defaults to that.

If you still hate it, you do have a choice, you do not have to use windows.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The problem of course is simply that government does not always know best. My point is that agency is taken away from the EU consumer in these cases. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that governments (politicians) are inherently good, and "looking out for me." Primarily they look to themselves and their own personal desires first, foremost, and always. When the EU or the DOJ fines these companies, claiming to "represent the welfare of the consumer," how much of these billion-dollar judgments are handed to the consumers they claim to represent? Not even a dollar, as I've seen. Yet the EUC lawyers who are paid to sit around and dream up these suits make huge commissions on the fines the EUC adjudicates, which is an ironclad fact I hope everyone is aware of. It's also rank corruption, of course, but that's another topic. Last, when the EU inflicts these judgments, or the DOJ, take your pick, the costs are bundled right along in the cost of the goods and services these companies provide the consumers they are "looking out for." If you are someone who believes his government is his savior then you have my condolences. I think Apple is right here, because the whole scheme of consumer choice is that consumers pick and choose among the products companies offer. Microsoft Windows is more compatible with third party software and hardware than any desktop OS on Earth, which is my sole reason for choosing it. Just because the EUC forces companies do certain things it knows the companies do not want to do, "or else", has no bearing on consumer benefit. This Siri thing is almost idiotic it's so infantile. But this is what the EUC does when the EU in Brussels becomes cash-strapped and needs a big infusion of cash. Some people get upset by "big companies" but it's the opposite when governments dwarf the size and scope of these companies, which is so obvious it hurts.... I mean you can't honestly believe that forcing Apple to do things with Siri it has its own reasons to decline is something that "opens up" Apple, do you? Say it aint' so...
    • Looks like many years since the request was made, a directory tree view finally may be added. https://github.com/files-community/Files/pull/18537
    • There's this from last year https://gist.github.com/threat...364659a8887841aa43deca4efd9 but nothing about a buffer overflow that MS somehow can't code against. No matter what, it makes sense to take a "protected by default" approach.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      sjbousquet earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      sjbousquet earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      DragonOfMercy earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      bella52 earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      Techinmay earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      501
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      212
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      156
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!