UAC (user access control)

Is this necessary? I see it as a hack to circumvent tight code. I always
use an account with admin rights so I know when/what to install/run.

Net Doe;557109 Wrote:

> Is this necessary? I see it as a hack to circumvent tight code. I always
> use an account with admin rights so I know when/what to install/run.

Hi Net Doe,

It is recommended for better security. Anytime something wants to run
with administrative rights, it will ask you for permission first. Read
the INFO part in this tutorial. It will help you decide if you want it
or not.

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/48...ntrol-uac.html

Shawn


--
brink

*There are no dumb questions, just the people that do not ask them.*
'*Vista Forums*'
(http://www.vistax64.com/index.php?referrerid=2980)
*Please post feedback to help others.*

In message <C78003E5-F34D-47E3-A207-C53109FA8AFB@microsoft.com> "Net
Doe" <netdoe01@XSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:

>Is this necessary?

In short, yes.

>I see it as a hack to circumvent tight code.

Tight code?

Other way around, it's a hack to circumvent poorly written code that
assumes you are always an administrator.

>I always
>use an account with admin rights so I know when/what to install/run.

Users that always run with admin rights are the problem, and are the
reason UAC exists.

"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:e1pen31c7nipoefcf3rkjifnsj0gi4lipn@4ax.com...

> In message <C78003E5-F34D-47E3-A207-C53109FA8AFB@microsoft.com> "Net
> Doe" <netdoe01@XSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote:
>

>
> In short, yes.
>

>
> Tight code?
>
> Other way around, it's a hack to circumvent poorly written code that
> assumes you are always an administrator.

I sit corrected - you said what I meant to say..

>

>
> Users that always run with admin rights are the problem, and are the
> reason UAC exists.

Users that always run with admin rights AND don't know what they're doing
is the problem.

>

> Users that always run with admin rights AND don't know what they're doing
> is the problem.
>

Windows is the only current OS where this attitude is prevalent. There
should be no need to ever run as an administrator unless you are performing
administrative tasks. Do you know every process that is running on your
computer and what it is doing at every second you are using the computer? I
see many computers where the owner "knew what they were doing" that are
infected with malware. They have an up to date AV installed and often
antispyware as well. If they had not been running as an administrator the
malware would only have infected one account and would be simple to remove.
Because they were running as an administrator the malware has to be manually
removed while booted from a Linux CD. If you routinely run as an
administrator the only reason you haven't been infected so far is because
you are lucky. The malware authors are always ahead of the anti-malware
authors.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/

In message <271065FC-32D9-4FC2-B5D4-C8760889D00C@microsoft.com> "Kerry
Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>
>
>Windows is the only current OS where this attitude is prevalent.

Indeed. It exists because lazy developers assume everyone is an admin,
and apathetic users accept it.

>There
>should be no need to ever run as an administrator unless you are performing
>administrative tasks.

And yet you put up a little popup before letting an administrative task
use administrative privileges, and look at how everyone moans!