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

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!