After the computer is setup and all applications are installed, you
should rarely see a UAC prompt. But how many users buy a new Dell and it
has all the programs (that you WANT) installed on it? I run the firewall
as an added level of security, not as a replacement of other methods of
security.

As a PC tweaker, I am constantly making changes to my PC, registry,
installing new programs, hardware, etc. UAC can be a pain.

Another example... Elderly people that want email and web browser. If
they see 2 UAC prompts, they are annoyed and want XP. UAC may not be as
frequent, but it still happens.

If you do it right, turning off UAC won't help spread the disease, and
my network can still be safe. Although I do see your point in having an
average joe turning off UAC with no other protection, puts in almost as
the same risk as XP. The user will still have a user account, rather
than an administrator account, though.

--
Dustin Harper

http://www.vistarip.com


Kerry Brown wrote:
If after the computer is setup you are constantly seeing UAC prompts you
are doing something wrong. I hardly ever see a UAC prompt.

While getting at financial information and identity theft is the goal of
some malware it is not the goal of most current malware. Most current
malware has the goal of extortion (e.g. spysherrif) or the goal of
taking control of your computer to use it as a zombie. The extortion
malware is very obvious when you get it. The trojans that take over your
computer for use as a zombie are not. The fact that many hundreds of
thousands of computers are available for sale as part of a botnet
attests to the fact that you cannot secure XP (or any OS) if you run as
an administrator. I see many computers that have up to date antivirus
and antispyware software that are compromised in this fashion. UAC (or
running XP as a standard user) would have stopped these infections.
Turning off UAC may relieve some short term pain but it won't cure the
disease and may have the opposite effect of helping to spread the disease.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:30:11 -0500, "JD Wohlever"
wrote:

I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
for, is going to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.

I'm not a "average Joe" user and I turned off UAC too. I bet most have
or will because it isn't any real improvement in security and as many
have already found out be a real pain in the ass. You listed some good
reasons why people don't like it. Perhaps the biggest flaw with UAC is
Microsoft itself admits it is set up on purpose to be defeated. Read
that last sentence again slowly so it sinks in.

Don't just take my word for it. Listen to a "hacker", kind of cute
looking one too, not all hackers are kids or pot belly beer slurping
anti-social types.

"Joanna Rutkowska has always been a big supporter of the Windows Vista
security model. Until she stumbled upon a "very severe hole" in the
design of UAC (User Account Control) and found out — from Microsoft
officials — that the default no-admin setting isn't even a security
mechanism anymore".

"That's because Vista uses a compatibility database and several
heuristics to recognize installer executables and, every time the OS
detects that an executable is a setup program, "it will only allow
running it as administrator."

Note === On the surface this may sound like a good thing, actually
its not. Keep reading, but read carefully.

This, in Rutkowska's mind, is a "very severe hole in the design of
UAC."

In simple terms that means any hacker worth his or her salt could,
problably with little effort desgin some malicious bit of code to
pretend to be a "installer" type of application and Vista will
unbuckle its belt, drop its pants to its anxles and let that code do
whatever it wants, including access the deepest depths of Windows
including the kernel, having its way also with other applications or
your priceless data.

More than just talk, this hacker did eactly that at a high volume
conference of "black hat hackers" invited by Microsoft no less.

A poster named dara summed it up quite nicely in another piece you can
find he

http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.c...-big-joke.html

A key point, I think, that Ms. Rutkowska made, perhaps
unintentionally, is that Microsoft cannot be expected (for reasons of
compatibility, I suppose) to design a completely new operating system.
This speaks to the root of all their problems - even Vista is just a
new shell built on top of old technologies. It's a bit like an upside
down pyramid; eventually it will collapse entirely as the underlying
structure proves incapable of sustaining all the new construction
piling up on top of it.

Perhaps because they serve a less diverse and expansive user base,
Apple Computer was willing and able five or six years ago to do what
Microsoft cannot - switch from their old, rickety operating system,
with it's myriad vulnerabilities, to a new system (OS X), build on a
sound, proven and substantially more secure foundation - UNIX. Since
then the trojans and viruses which used to plague the Mac OS have
dried up altogether.

LINUX, the open source alternative to Windows that is growing steadily
in popularity, is likewise modeled on UNIX.

It's not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that Windows in any form
is living on borrowed time. Much of its current popularity is a result
of little more than inertia. It's hard to see how even the billions
Microsoft has committed to marketing Vista can make up for the core
weakness of the underlying system.

Vista may be an improvement over Windows XP in many respects, but the
differences, like beauty, are only skin deep.

Now read what Madam "hacker" Ms. Rutkowska said about UAC:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=29&tag=nl.e589

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:06:43 -0500, "Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows
Shell/User" wrote:

Richard

It is easier to buy, try, fail and rant than ever it is to ask for advice or
help before making what turns out to be an ill-informed decision..

Imagine if all of these folk were presented with a computer that is entirely
controlled by typing in stuff at a command prompt.. I don't know about you,
but I would turn in my MVP badge and take up professional strawberry picking
or similar..

Say Mike, wouldn't this be a good time to tell the nice people in this
newsgroup you're actually a MICROSOFT product manager? Why keep that a
secret?

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=10924

This is you, right Mike?

If so it does explain your outburts and bias, my goodness you're sure
wound up tight.

What she would propose is a UAC dialog with three options.

Continue with system-wide access | Continue with program access | Cancel.

Essentially splitting the admin account into an system-admin account which
effects Windows, and one for writing to Program Files.

Sure that's good for defending the system, but its hard enough to get
developers to test their applications as a standard user.

More can always be done on this front, and will be done in the future.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*


"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:30:11 -0500, "JD Wohlever"
wrote:

I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
for, is going to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.

I'm not a "average Joe" user and I turned off UAC too. I bet most have
or will because it isn't any real improvement in security and as many
have already found out be a real pain in the ass. You listed some good
reasons why people don't like it. Perhaps the biggest flaw with UAC is
Microsoft itself admits it is set up on purpose to be defeated. Read
that last sentence again slowly so it sinks in.

Don't just take my word for it. Listen to a "hacker", kind of cute
looking one too, not all hackers are kids or pot belly beer slurping
anti-social types.

"Joanna Rutkowska has always been a big supporter of the Windows Vista
security model. Until she stumbled upon a "very severe hole" in the
design of UAC (User Account Control) and found out - from Microsoft
officials - that the default no-admin setting isn't even a security
mechanism anymore".

"That's because Vista uses a compatibility database and several
heuristics to recognize installer executables and, every time the OS
detects that an executable is a setup program, "it will only allow
running it as administrator."

Note === On the surface this may sound like a good thing, actually
its not. Keep reading, but read carefully.

This, in Rutkowska's mind, is a "very severe hole in the design of
UAC."

In simple terms that means any hacker worth his or her salt could,
problably with little effort desgin some malicious bit of code to
pretend to be a "installer" type of application and Vista will
unbuckle its belt, drop its pants to its anxles and let that code do
whatever it wants, including access the deepest depths of Windows
including the kernel, having its way also with other applications or
your priceless data.

More than just talk, this hacker did eactly that at a high volume
conference of "black hat hackers" invited by Microsoft no less.

A poster named dara summed it up quite nicely in another piece you can
find he

http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.c...-big-joke.html

A key point, I think, that Ms. Rutkowska made, perhaps
unintentionally, is that Microsoft cannot be expected (for reasons of
compatibility, I suppose) to design a completely new operating system.
This speaks to the root of all their problems - even Vista is just a
new shell built on top of old technologies. It's a bit like an upside
down pyramid; eventually it will collapse entirely as the underlying
structure proves incapable of sustaining all the new construction
piling up on top of it.

Perhaps because they serve a less diverse and expansive user base,
Apple Computer was willing and able five or six years ago to do what
Microsoft cannot - switch from their old, rickety operating system,
with it's myriad vulnerabilities, to a new system (OS X), build on a
sound, proven and substantially more secure foundation - UNIX. Since
then the trojans and viruses which used to plague the Mac OS have
dried up altogether.

LINUX, the open source alternative to Windows that is growing steadily
in popularity, is likewise modeled on UNIX.

It's not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that Windows in any form
is living on borrowed time. Much of its current popularity is a result
of little more than inertia. It's hard to see how even the billions
Microsoft has committed to marketing Vista can make up for the core
weakness of the underlying system.

Vista may be an improvement over Windows XP in many respects, but the
differences, like beauty, are only skin deep.

Now read what Madam "hacker" Ms. Rutkowska said about UAC:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=29&tag=nl.e589

Please - no net nanny's - the world has enough problems without your
constant nagging about something not being a friggin setup issue in your
mind. We run this group - not you and we are the customer in case you've
forgotten who's paying the freight here.

I've read some of your posts in other groups and talk about being
off-topic - yours certainly were so quit your bellyaching.

We're kinda tired of your moaning about this - so either live with it or
stop reading this group.

Bob S.

Adam

No, that is not me.. one can't be a Microsoft employee and MVP status at the
same time.. sorry to disappoint..

I am also not one of the Mike Hall's in any IBM company employee directory
anymore, as I elected to leave IBM employ at the end of 2001..

I am Mike Hall, MS MVP Windows Shell/User, and I AM CANADIAN (well, I hold a
permanent residence card.. for now)..

"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:06:43 -0500, "Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows
Shell/User" wrote:

Richard

It is easier to buy, try, fail and rant than ever it is to ask for advice
or
help before making what turns out to be an ill-informed decision..

Imagine if all of these folk were presented with a computer that is
entirely
controlled by typing in stuff at a command prompt.. I don't know about
you,
but I would turn in my MVP badge and take up professional strawberry
picking
or similar..

Say Mike, wouldn't this be a good time to tell the nice people in this
newsgroup you're actually a MICROSOFT product manager? Why keep that a
secret?

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=10924

This is you, right Mike?

If so it does explain your outburts and bias, my goodness you're sure
wound up tight.



--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:39:39 -0500, "Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows
Shell/User" wrote:

Adam

No, that is not me.. one can't be a Microsoft employee and MVP status at the
same time.. sorry to disappoint..

Why I asked if it was you or not. Actually relieved, not disappointed.
Was almost ready to dump my Microsoft stock.

You can turn off the UAC, buy going to Control Panel, User account, should
be the bottom option, Uncheck the box and reboot, No more nagging.

Yes, you'll lose some of the extra security and protecting you from you and
the unknowns.

If you have a program that is not compatibile, there isn't much option but
to get one that is or wait for one to come out. Or scour that products
forums and see if anyone has found a work around.


"ceece" wrote in message
...
I like this thread as it explains very well, (thank you JD) my biggest
complaint with this new Vista. I'm assuming UAC is user admin. control and
it
sounds like we can turn this annoying thing off totally! Yippee.... where
can
I find directions for doing that and maybe uninstalling it forever? And if
so, does that mean our level of security will be only less the
"improvements"
and only that of my old XP? (thank GOD I still have and use that computer
too) AVG and Spybot have served me well in over 10 years. That and a
little
common sense go a long ways.

Also a simple drop/drag to create a shortcut on my desktop from the
program
files pops up two windows... are you sure you want to do this? Does
anyone
know how I can stop that popup too?

I do like the "program compability feature"-- Except, when we are
installing
a program that is Not compatible and there's no solution---then what? Is
it
half installed, do I need to uninstall what was started?

I had trouble finding the add/remove programs section and I notice it does
NOT list everything. That is another big issue with me. It took quite
awhile
to remove all the ISP junk and advertising off this new computer and I
don't
even know that I did remove it all since MSN, AOL and that other junk were
not listed in add/remove. Everything has been reorganized to the point
that
it is difficult and not easier. I am seriously considering the idea of
removing Vista and replacing with Xp, since HP finally mailed me the
restore
disks from that class action suit.

Sorry for so many questions. Thank you in advance for those of you that
help
answer my questions.

ceece

"JD Wohlever" wrote:

I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
for, is going
to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.
Example, my mother is your basic Internet User. She just graduated from
AOL
to
a normal broadband connection after me telling her for years how much
better
broadband would be for her. She bought a PC that had Vista Home Premium
on
it.
Suddenly dial-up became a major pain in the butt because Vista is geared
more toward a constant net connection. No problem there, I agree.
However, 2 days later she calls me up and asks me to put Windows XP back
on
her computer.
When I ask her why, the response " I'm sick of the computer asking me
questions every 5 seconds. It didn't do it before. I have an anti-virus,
a
firewall, and a anti-spyware program running. Why do I have to OK every
single thing I do?"
I tried explaining the benefits, but she would hear none of it. She has
been
told by the Norton's and the AdAware's of the world that as long as she
runs
their programs and practices safe netting that she is ok. So it was
either
turn UAC off or install Windows XP for her, she was that serious.
And to be honest, I understand how she feels. In 5 years she has never
had a
virus, has only had very light malware (Which SpyBot SD quickly removed),
and has nothing of hi-value on her PC for a hacker to have much interest
in
other than family photo's of the dog etc.
My point being is that the average user who buys Windows HOME versions
are
not going to WANT this elevated security, and as soon as they find a way
to
remove it, they will.
MS should have made UAC a Business / Enterprise feature and left the
standard user and admin feature set of XP for the Home licenses of Vista.
I build PC's for a living so I know the problems that John Q Public can
make
for their selves on a PC on the net with no protection. But simple
education
and running the big 3 (Anti-virus, Anti-spyware and Firewalls) should be
more than enough to protect them. Now if they are stupid enough to store
all
their financial information or work related trade secrets and not have
the
"the big 3" then they certainly aren't going to tolerate UAC.



--
Thank you,
JD Wohlever

Techware Grafx
techware(dash)grafx(at)hotmail(dot)com

"Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message
...
There is some pain associated with UAC. Jimmy Brush's post explains it
very well. I'll add a bit of history as to how we got to UAC and why
it's
needed.

There were two families of Windows, NT based (Windows NT) and DOS based
(Windows 95). NT was mostly used in business networks and had excellent
security. Everyone ran as a standard user and only used administrator
accounts for things like installing programs, maintenance etc. Win95
really had no security as it was based on DOS and all users had total
control of the system at all times. Windows 95 became very popular and
many programs were written for it. Microsoft published guidelines on
how
to program using established APIs and recommended programmers use this
method. Because the hardware at the time was limited, programming
through
the documented APIs made for slow programs. Most programmers including
those at Microsoft, ignored the APIs and basically did what they had to
to
get their programs running at the speed end users expected. This is
where
most current programmers got their start and learned their habits. As
time
progressed the DOS based versions of Windows were abandoned and the NT
and
DOS world merged in XP which is NT based. All the end users and
programmers from the DOS world didn't change their ways. End users ran
as
administrators all the time and programmers bypassed the APIs and
expected
the users to be running as administrators. Around this time the
Internet
exploded. Malware became a major problem exacerbated by the way
programmers and end users were using Windows. There was no way to
secure
XP given this situation. Microsoft decided to write a new more secure
OS.
There is a lot of changes under the hood but in the end the best
security
is to enforce programmers to use the APIs and not have end users
running
as administrators. Unfortunately this would break almost all existing
software. Thus we have UAC. It allows most old programs to do what they
do
and tricks them into thinking it worked. It also allows users to run as
an
administrator but gives them a warning when those administrator
privileges
are going to be used.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"alex" wrote in message
...

Hi Kerry,

Here's the problem with Vistas security as I see it.

I am a long time Windows user with, at best, an intermediate knowledge
of
how programs work and how they're supposed to work with computers.

Whenever Windows prompts me for confirmation regarding a security
issue,
to
be honest, at times, I haven't the slightest clue whether I should
allow
or
cancel something.

Other than the most obvious "A program is trying to destroy your
hard-drive
and clean out your bank account" message, I'm likely going to let the
program
do what it wants to do.

I minimize my exposure to to malware by not downloading software or
opening
e-mail attachments with which I'm not familiar. But sometimes I visit
CNN.com or MSN or something as seemingly benign and I'm told that an
update
has to be performed and I'm asked if I trust the source.

No, I don't trust the source. But if I'm going want to visit those
sites
I
have to allow changes to be made.

The UAC just annoys me and actually puts me in the habit of just
clicking
"continue" without reading what the window says.

Ehhh. Personal preference I guess.

BTW: This reminds me of how Microsoft didn't give the user the
ability
to
download attachments in Outlook in Office XP (I think it was XP).
What a
pain-in-the-a@@ that was.


"Kerry Brown" wrote:

Disabling UAC disables much of the improved security in Vista. Once
you
have
your computer set up as you want it, it is recommended to turn UAC
back
on.
You can do everything you always did with UAC on you just have to do
it
in a
new way. UAC actually gives you more control as you now know when a
program
is about to do something that may affect the whole system. This is
the
price
of security.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"alex" wrote in message
...
Never mind. I found the UAC options.

"alex" wrote:

How may I disable all the prompts that appear whenever I try to do
something
like uninstall a program or delete a file or directory?

Vista Premium

Thanks,
Alex

It's not a Games issue either :P Just kidding

"BobS" wrote in message
...
Please - no net nanny's - the world has enough problems without your
constant nagging about something not being a friggin setup issue in your
mind. We run this group - not you and we are the customer in case you've
forgotten who's paying the freight here.

I've read some of your posts in other groups and talk about being
off-topic - yours certainly were so quit your bellyaching.

We're kinda tired of your moaning about this - so either live with it or
stop reading this group.

Bob S.

And how does the security in 'nix work? By separating users and superusers
(administrators). If you ran Linux as root (administrator) all the time you
would be much less secure than running Vista with UAC enabled. The old
saying "You can't have your cake and eat it too" is still true. Increased
security means increased complexity and inconvenience for the user. I don't
think anyone who knows anything about security would disagree with the
statement that Windows XP cannot be secured. It can be made more secure but
if you run as an administrator malware can find a way in. You can have all
the malware protection you want, you are still vulnerable to a zero day
attack. With Vista and UAC zero day attacks will certainly happen but UAC
will at least give you a warning that something is up. What you do with that
warning is still up to you.

I do see Joanna Rutkowski's point about UAC only allowing programs that it
deems to be an installer to run as an administrator. I also see Microsoft's
point about why this is so. If you read the next article in her blog she
also admits this. The point of this is so that you will always know when a
program is trying to install something. The down side as she rightly points
out is that for older programs that don't need administrator privileges to
install they will get them anyway. With installers written for Vista this
problem doesn't exist as the installer can notify Vista it doesn't need
admin privileges and it won't get them. This design feature could be
exploited by a social engineering attack. It's a bit of a catch-22
situation. Do you just let all of these old installers fail until the end
user explicitly uses Run as administrator? This would cause even more
frustration than exists now and even more people will turn UAC off. Or do
you do what Microsoft has done and try to determine if a program is an
installer and throw a UAC prompt? I haven't made up my mind which is the
better way but it is a conscious design decision not a bug.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:30:11 -0500, "JD Wohlever"
wrote:

I hate to say so MS, but your average joe, the person you are making UAC
for, is going to do exactly what they are doing, that is turning UAC off.

I'm not a "average Joe" user and I turned off UAC too. I bet most have
or will because it isn't any real improvement in security and as many
have already found out be a real pain in the ass. You listed some good
reasons why people don't like it. Perhaps the biggest flaw with UAC is
Microsoft itself admits it is set up on purpose to be defeated. Read
that last sentence again slowly so it sinks in.

Don't just take my word for it. Listen to a "hacker", kind of cute
looking one too, not all hackers are kids or pot belly beer slurping
anti-social types.

"Joanna Rutkowska has always been a big supporter of the Windows Vista
security model. Until she stumbled upon a "very severe hole" in the
design of UAC (User Account Control) and found out - from Microsoft
officials - that the default no-admin setting isn't even a security
mechanism anymore".

"That's because Vista uses a compatibility database and several
heuristics to recognize installer executables and, every time the OS
detects that an executable is a setup program, "it will only allow
running it as administrator."

Note === On the surface this may sound like a good thing, actually
its not. Keep reading, but read carefully.

This, in Rutkowska's mind, is a "very severe hole in the design of
UAC."

In simple terms that means any hacker worth his or her salt could,
problably with little effort desgin some malicious bit of code to
pretend to be a "installer" type of application and Vista will
unbuckle its belt, drop its pants to its anxles and let that code do
whatever it wants, including access the deepest depths of Windows
including the kernel, having its way also with other applications or
your priceless data.

More than just talk, this hacker did eactly that at a high volume
conference of "black hat hackers" invited by Microsoft no less.

A poster named dara summed it up quite nicely in another piece you can
find he

http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.c...-big-joke.html

A key point, I think, that Ms. Rutkowska made, perhaps
unintentionally, is that Microsoft cannot be expected (for reasons of
compatibility, I suppose) to design a completely new operating system.
This speaks to the root of all their problems - even Vista is just a
new shell built on top of old technologies. It's a bit like an upside
down pyramid; eventually it will collapse entirely as the underlying
structure proves incapable of sustaining all the new construction
piling up on top of it.

Perhaps because they serve a less diverse and expansive user base,
Apple Computer was willing and able five or six years ago to do what
Microsoft cannot - switch from their old, rickety operating system,
with it's myriad vulnerabilities, to a new system (OS X), build on a
sound, proven and substantially more secure foundation - UNIX. Since
then the trojans and viruses which used to plague the Mac OS have
dried up altogether.

LINUX, the open source alternative to Windows that is growing steadily
in popularity, is likewise modeled on UNIX.

It's not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that Windows in any form
is living on borrowed time. Much of its current popularity is a result
of little more than inertia. It's hard to see how even the billions
Microsoft has committed to marketing Vista can make up for the core
weakness of the underlying system.

Vista may be an improvement over Windows XP in many respects, but the
differences, like beauty, are only skin deep.

Now read what Madam "hacker" Ms. Rutkowska said about UAC:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=29&tag=nl.e589