Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!

Posted: 05-09-2007, 04:29 AM
Just installed Windows Vista. Upon trying to use
windows update and Microsoft update, I get a 0x** error,
claiming I do not have admin rights. I have disabled User
account protection, and am proceeding to down load these
manually.

Is this your answer to security. Keep this up and I'll
defect to Linux. At least I know what to expect there!!
--
Lester Stiefel
In Romans 1 there are qualities of Unregenerate man listed
which describe him in the last days.
Is your quality found on this list??

Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!


Responses to "Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!"

Mr. Arnold
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!
Posted: 05-09-2007, 04:55 AM

"Lester Stiefel" <les7954@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%23mnrsKfkHHA.680@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
..
>
> Is this your answer to security. Keep this up and I'll defect to Linux. At
> least I know what to expect there!!
Don't let the door knob hit you on the way out.

Iuvenalis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!
Posted: 05-09-2007, 05:24 AM
"Lester Stiefel" <les7954@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%23mnrsKfkHHA.680@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Just installed Windows Vista. Upon trying to use windows update and
> Microsoft update, I get a 0x** error, claiming I do not have admin rights.
> I have disabled User account protection, and am proceeding to down load
> these manually.
>
> Is this your answer to security. Keep this up and I'll defect to Linux. At
> least I know what to expect there!!
> --
> Lester Stiefel
> In Romans 1 there are qualities of Unregenerate man listed which describe
> him in the last days.
> Is your quality found on this list??

Go ahead & defect, then wait for the root logon popup when it's needed.
The answer to your problem is to turn UAC back on.


Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!
Posted: 05-09-2007, 04:03 PM
Go to Linux then.
Most software exists for Windows, so you will be losing out.
I live Vista.
G


"Lester Stiefel" <les7954@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%23mnrsKfkHHA.680@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Just installed Windows Vista. Upon trying to use windows update and
> Microsoft update, I get a 0x** error, claiming I do not have admin rights.
> I have disabled User account protection, and am proceeding to down load
> these manually.
>
> Is this your answer to security. Keep this up and I'll defect to Linux. At
> least I know what to expect there!!
> --
> Lester Stiefel
> In Romans 1 there are qualities of Unregenerate man listed which describe
> him in the last days.
> Is your quality found on this list??
Brian Komar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!
Posted: 05-09-2007, 04:56 PM
On Wed, 09 May 2007 00:29:41 -0400, Lester Stiefel wrote:
> Just installed Windows Vista. Upon trying to use
> windows update and Microsoft update, I get a 0x** error,
> claiming I do not have admin rights. I have disabled User
> account protection, and am proceeding to down load these
> manually.
>
> Is this your answer to security. Keep this up and I'll
> defect to Linux. At least I know what to expect there!!
So you run as root on Linux???
You would get the same behavior
Brian
Lester Stiefel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!
Posted: 05-10-2007, 12:28 AM
Brian Komar wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 00:29:41 -0400, Lester Stiefel wrote:
>
>> Just installed Windows Vista. Upon trying to use
>> windows update and Microsoft update, I get a 0x** error,
>> claiming I do not have admin rights. I have disabled User
>> account protection, and am proceeding to down load these
>> manually.
>>
>> Is this your answer to security. Keep this up and I'll
>> defect to Linux. At least I know what to expect there!!
>
> So you run as root on Linux???
> You would get the same behavior
> Brian
In no way. In linux you are required to use a totally
different user account, which cannot be accessed from a
standard users account, aside from the traditional log out
of standard user, and log on to administrative (root) to
perform this function.

In my case the UAC said I had Administrative rights, when
the account was actually a 'standard user' type. This is an
apparent glitch In uac. I would prefer that the admin rights
not be able to be accessed from the standard user account.

It was only after I created a second account, and made it
the admin (root) type, that I had access to update service.
Check that out. Normally the user, if they are the only one
on the PC running VISTA, should NOT have to use dual
accounts... All kinds of leaks and errors can result from
the access through standard UI account. It only makes good
sense to require logout of 'standard user' and log in to
'roots' through the opening screen.

--
Lester Stiefel
In Romans 1 there are qualities of Unregenerate man listed
which describe him in the last days.
Is your quality found on this list??
Angry_American
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!
Posted: 05-10-2007, 01:08 AM
Actually you can run applications in nix as an admin in a standard user
account. You can elevate your privileges via the cmd shell, then run the
app. Some distributions do the same as windows and prompt you to log in to
run as root via a prompt in the gui as well for admin tasks.

Admin rights or tasks are not available to a standard user in Vista without
logging in via UAC or logging in as the super admin (hidden default acct).
So if you setup a standard user in Vista, they will not be able to do any
admin tasks without a admin user/pass.

Dan

"Lester Stiefel" <les7954@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%23WbLmopkHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> In no way. In linux you are required to use a totally different user
> account, which cannot be accessed from a standard users account, aside
> from the traditional log out of standard user, and log on to
> administrative (root) to perform this function.
>
> In my case the UAC said I had Administrative rights, when the account was
> actually a 'standard user' type. This is an apparent glitch In uac. I
> would prefer that the admin rights not be able to be accessed from the
> standard user account.
>
> It was only after I created a second account, and made it the admin (root)
> type, that I had access to update service. Check that out. Normally the
> user, if they are the only one on the PC running VISTA, should NOT have to
> use dual accounts... All kinds of leaks and errors can result from the
> access through standard UI account. It only makes good sense to require
> logout of 'standard user' and log in to 'roots' through the opening
> screen.
Alun Harford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!
Posted: 05-10-2007, 02:54 PM
Lester Stiefel wrote:
> Brian Komar wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 00:29:41 -0400, Lester Stiefel wrote:
>>
>>> Just installed Windows Vista. Upon trying to use windows update
>>> and Microsoft update, I get a 0x** error, claiming I do not have
>>> admin rights. I have disabled User account protection, and am
>>> proceeding to down load these manually.
>>>
>>> Is this your answer to security. Keep this up and I'll defect to
>>> Linux. At least I know what to expect there!!
>>
>> So you run as root on Linux???
>> You would get the same behavior
>> Brian
>
> In no way. In linux you are required to use a totally different user
> account,
No. You can log in as root all the time - there is no requirement to
ever use or create a normal user account.
> which cannot be accessed from a standard users account, aside
> from the traditional log out of standard user, and log on to
> administrative (root) to perform this function.
Err... the normal, traditional, way to do things is to use sudo. You
should *never* log in as root on a Linux box (unless you're
exceptionally lazy). It took Microsoft almost 30 years to copy sudo but
it seems they got there in the end. The result is UAC.
> In my case the UAC said I had Administrative rights, when the account
> was actually a 'standard user' type. This is an apparent glitch In uac.
> I would prefer that the admin rights not be able to be accessed from the
> standard user account.
Then set it in your group policy.
> It was only after I created a second account, and made it the admin
> (root) type, that I had access to update service. Check that out.
> Normally the user, if they are the only one on the PC running VISTA,
> should NOT have to use dual accounts... All kinds of leaks and errors
> can result from the access through standard UI account.
I think you need a better understanding of how Windows works internally,
and how windows messages are processed in Vista, to make that assessment.

Alun Harford
Rock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Re: Aministrator Required - I DON"T THINK SO!!!
Posted: 05-12-2007, 01:43 AM
"Lester Stiefel" <les7954@verizon.net> wrote
> Just installed Windows Vista. Upon trying to use windows update and
> Microsoft update, I get a 0x** error, claiming I do not have admin rights.
> I have disabled User account protection, and am proceeding to down load
> these manually.
>
> Is this your answer to security. Keep this up and I'll defect to Linux. At
> least I know what to expect there!!
You ran off to Linux once before from XP, didn't you, and then came running
back? I remember your posts about this in windowsxp.general.

Why turn off UAC? I have it on and have no problems with updates from
windows updates.

Is the error actually 0x** or is that short for something. When does this
error appear. What is the verbatim text?

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
aministrator Lost Windows Vista Administration 2 03-10-2008 05:55 AM
"A required network component is not working properly . . . " McAnnie Windows Vista Networking & Sharing 4 07-03-2007 02:59 PM
"Required driver could not be installed" message preventing beta 2 Keith T. Windows Vista Install & Setup 1 09-30-2006 07:50 PM
Build 5728 still "A required CD/DVD drive device is missing" hp Windows Vista Install & Setup 0 09-24-2006 06:40 AM
driver install error "Required section was not found in the INF" Liz Windows XP Photos 4 07-06-2003 05:58 PM