Well here is another UAC tool from Vista.

"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23RRNt64KJHA.5692@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Why would any NORMAL person need a UAC tool? Apart from those who just
> tinker with their machines and don't actually do any WORK with them?

You do realize that applies to 90% of computer nerds, right? I have a friend
who is like that and I am always asking him when he is actually going to use
his computer as a tool (as it was intended to be used) instead of playing
program manager on it. He buys new hardware just to geek out on upgrading
when he has no actual use or need for the hardware.

Security is such a bother...

It's so annoying to have to click again after I already
clicked such a short time ago...

All I wanted to do was execute a program - one click
should be sufficient for the task...

After all, It's not like I'm trying to *delete* something...

(which should take eleven clicks to make sure I really meant
to delete what I'm trying to delete because I don't have any
backups in case the file I delete is needed later*)...

Leave it to Symantec to "give the people what they want"
with no regard for the security implications.

* After the recycle bin there should be a truck and then a
waste management distribution center and a landfill where
I could still go to get back that file should the need arise.

The consequences of deleting a file IMO are far less than
the ones of executing a program (seeing as the program
could then effectively delete *everything*) so why all the
complaints about an extra click when a user (or something
else) invokes a program?

"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message
news:%23TuMMP1KJHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> http://www.betanews.com/article/New_...ack/1223668881
>
> There was another one presented here a couple of months ago.

"FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:eiArA7$KJHA.5704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>
> Leave it to Symantec to "give the people what they want"
> with no regard for the security implications.

I wouldn't use the thing. It's about as bad as Application Control in 3rd
party personal FW(s) or other such nonsense snake-oil solutions. One wants
the mouse click on the accept button when it's malware that was *accepted*
and remembered so that one is not asked about it again.

It's just below this one. Hey, I turned UAC off, because I have ran this way
for 25 years from Win 9'x as root admin, and I have ran as user/admin on Win
NT 4.0, Win 2k, and XP with full admin rights. I am good man. I am so good,
computer savvy, and it can't happen to me on the Internet. Hey, so what if I
get some malware that something detected. I'll wipe out the machine if it
happens.

But little did I know that a whole boat load of malware has come past my
little security blanket, planted itself deep and can't be detected by my
detection security blanket, and it's been this way for a long time. I
don't even know how to go check things out for myself with other tools
manually and look around and see what is running on the machine from time to
time.

Hey, I am good and my security detection blanket is good too. Everything is
okay-dokey! :-P

"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message
news:uwxqSpBLJHA.1500@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>
> "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
> news:eiArA7$KJHA.5704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>
>> Leave it to Symantec to "give the people what they want"
>> with no regard for the security implications.

>
> I wouldn't use the thing. It's about as bad as Application Control in 3rd
> party personal FW(s) or other such nonsense snake-oil solutions. One wants
> the mouse click on the accept button when it's malware that was *accepted*
> and remembered so that one is not asked about it again.

Yes, one might as well just silently elevate as with UAC turned off.
Allowing UAC to partially function is just lending users a false sense
of security. True, other aspects of UAC still enhance security if this
portion is circumvented, but the false belief that a whitelist won't be
abused by malware is damaging.

I hope I am correct in assuming the whitelist isn't based simply on
filenames, and that there is protection against it being edited by
malware. Even so, what is so bad about being asked if you really
intended to execute a particular program - especially since there
are no complaints about the ubiquitous 'confirm delete'. There is
much more power in *execute* than there is in *delete* especially
if cryptovirology is involved.

> It's just below this one. Hey, I turned UAC off, because I have ran this
> way for 25 years from Win 9'x as root admin, and I have ran as user/admin
> on Win NT 4.0, Win 2k, and XP with full admin rights.

Three cheers for Microsoft for making it more difficult to do this
in Vista. This split (or filtered) token and the default hiding of the
(non-filtered token) admin account makes it much harder for the
malware to entrench itself in the system - and more difficult for the
average user to circumvent this security enhancement.

> I am good man. I am so good, computer savvy, and it can't happen to me on
> the Internet. Hey, so what if I get some malware that something detected.
> I'll wipe out the machine if it happens.

The focus on recovery *only* is misplaced. Recovery should be
risk mitigation in the event of some failure in the primary preventive
measures. Avoidance measures aren't perfect, so recovery is a
necessary aspect - but shouldn't be relied upon. Besides, what
about the data leakage that could happen between infestation and
recovery? What about the harboring of malware that uses their
computer to dDoS others' and/or spread further? Individual users
should have more concern about the community of which they are
a part.

Vista's security by default and the difficulty in circumventing it
is a step in the right direction - and making it easier to circumvent
is a step backward.

> But little did I know that a whole boat load of malware has come past my
> little security blanket, planted itself deep and can't be detected by my
> detection security blanket, and it's been this way for a long time.

Perhaps undetected long enough to poison the backups within their
recovery plans.

> I don't even know how to go check things out for myself with other tools
> manually and look around and see what is running on the machine from time
> to time.
>
> Hey, I am good and my security detection blanket is good too. Everything
> is okay-dokey! :-P

In some cases, even tools can be lied to by the system.

I suppose their ignorance is bliss, right up until it kills them.

--end soapbox mode--

)

FromTheRafters wrote:

> "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message
> news:uwxqSpBLJHA.1500@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
>> news:eiArA7$KJHA.5704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>> Leave it to Symantec to "give the people what they want"
>>> with no regard for the security implications.

>> I wouldn't use the thing. It's about as bad as Application Control in 3rd
>> party personal FW(s) or other such nonsense snake-oil solutions. One wants
>> the mouse click on the accept button when it's malware that was *accepted*
>> and remembered so that one is not asked about it again.

>
> Yes, one might as well just silently elevate as with UAC turned off.
> Allowing UAC to partially function is just lending users a false sense
> of security. True, other aspects of UAC still enhance security if this
> portion is circumvented, but the false belief that a whitelist won't be
> abused by malware is damaging.

You might find some interesting reading here about Vista's kernel.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc162458.aspx

<http://www.securitypronews.com/news/securitynews/spn-45-20060601ASLRJoinsVistasBagOfTricks.html>

You know, I just don't see posts about malware issues with Vista users
that much.

"Mr. Arnold" <Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message
news:OFn92gsLJHA.4772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> FromTheRafters wrote:

>> "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message
>> news:uwxqSpBLJHA.1500@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
>>> news:eiArA7$KJHA.5704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Leave it to Symantec to "give the people what they want"
>>>> with no regard for the security implications.
>>> I wouldn't use the thing. It's about as bad as Application Control in
>>> 3rd party personal FW(s) or other such nonsense snake-oil solutions. One
>>> wants the mouse click on the accept button when it's malware that was
>>> *accepted* and remembered so that one is not asked about it again.

>>
>> Yes, one might as well just silently elevate as with UAC turned off.
>> Allowing UAC to partially function is just lending users a false sense
>> of security. True, other aspects of UAC still enhance security if this
>> portion is circumvented, but the false belief that a whitelist won't be
>> abused by malware is damaging.

>
> You might find some interesting reading here about Vista's kernel.
>
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc162458.aspx
>
> <http://www.securitypronews.com/news/securitynews/spn-45-20060601ASLRJoinsVistasBagOfTricks.html>
>
> You know, I just don't see posts about malware issues with Vista users
> that much.

Probably they're all too busy configuring Vista for less security to
do anything about infecting their system. )

Thanks for the links.

If I *really* wanted secure, I wouldn't use windows at all. Do yo
REALLY trust microsoft to keep your data safe? I know I don't

I use this tool, and it's *definetely* worth the "risk". I don't nee
to disable the prompts entirely, and I dont need to see the darn thin
every single time I want to open up a command prompt (as I always ru
the prompt elevated)

--
mike-co

- -While I try to give as safe advise as possible, and use alot o
effort in making sure it's accurate, I can't take responsibility o
problems arising from the help I give. In the end it's you who need t
decide what's the safest way to manage your computer.-

"mike-cow" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:9ece02bab2705bb54262bbe9e4ba911e@nntp-gateway.com...

>
> If I *really* wanted secure, I wouldn't use windows at all. Do you
> REALLY trust microsoft to keep your data safe? I know I don't.
>

I don't trust Microsoft, Linux, Apple or any other O/S to keep my data safe,
because none of them are bullet proof O/S(s). They are all written by and
used by fallible human beings. When we as human beings become perfect, then
you can expect that anything we create or do will be perfect, and that's not
happening in your life time.

As far as security is concerned, the buck stops with the user, and it
doesn't stop any where else. If the machine gets compromised, then the user
had involvement in it someway that lead to the compromise. It doesn't happen
by itself.