Vista UAC "The Real turth behined it.

[MadDoggyca]

Occasional exceptions aside, the rule in Windows Vista is: To install a program, you

need administrative credentials. Software installers—the programs that install programs—

typically create fi les in system folders (subfolders of %ProgramFiles%) and keys

in protected registry locations, and these are actions that require elevated privileges.

Installing the program fi les and registry keys in protected locations protects your programs

(hence, you) from tampering by malicious parties, but it means that you need to

deal with User Account Control prompts to complete the process. If you install a program

while running under an administrative account, a UAC prompt will request your

consent for the actions the installer is about to undertake. If you install while running

under a standard account, you will be asked to supply the name and password of an

administrative user.

 

Dose this not sound like Linux>?

 

hellow whe nyou run root in linux you get this big red screen and you have full acessse to the system...

when u run Admin in windows you get the same thing

 

in linux if you run as normal user and you want to do somthing in admin you have to put a password in

in vista oh wow same thing happens

[Forceman]

The UAC is just a layer of protection but people will just Allow the installers anyway, it's easier to click than put your password in everytime. The fact that you can put a password in UAC for the prompts is irrelevant, since it's not done by default.

 

This whole discussion is like Windows XP having admin rights by default, the fact that you can change it is irrelevant to a new user who knows nothing. In order to take out the weakest link(the human) you need to educate from day one about security, password for sensitive parts of the system should be part of the daily usage. Windows users simply are not aware of this method and thats why Windows gets targeted alot.

[Tyrven]

One of the major reasons the UAC is so annoying is that software developers, including Microsoft, have been spoiled by the limited security restrictions in the past. If you're writing software, it's easier to request and assume full priveledges - especially of the operating environment accepts that. Microsoft's .NET Framework and Windows Vista both change this model considerably either preventing or requiring explicit authorization for programs to be given access.

 

I think that UAC is really annoying. I also think, however, that it will prompt software developers (including Microsoft) to be more cautious about doing things that will require admin privs. It will encourage software developers to use other approaches that have been around since Windows 95 to write code that operates at a higher level.

 

Unfortunately, because permissions and security has been so haphazard in past versions of Windows (even in NT/Server) it's going to require a major jolt to get there - and UAC is that jolt. The bummer about this is that it really impacts the end user and makes the Operating System a bit of a pain to use. I certainly think Apple hit home with their TV commercial making fun of this feature.

[dragonpool]

How many times that you conciously launch a program which requires UAC permision and you clicked Not Allow? I've used Vista for more than two months now and installed a number of software, and I have never rejected UAC permision.

 

The whole security solution of UAC to me is just a compromise. I have been always believing a robust and secure Operating System should be able to protect its own content, such as system files and important registry entries. All the software installed on the OS can be messed, but the system should be secured.

 

The biggest and potential hole of UAC is once you grant the permision, the software still can do almost everything in the system. How about if you run a trusted software but it's been infected by a virus? UAC will not be able to protect the OS in this situation.

 

So UAC says to me "We cannot protect your computer, you protect it yourself."

[Tyrven]

I don't disagree. Although this is a problem with most operating systems, including Unix and OS X. Running a program under sudo, for example, grants an application access to all sorts of permissions that could screw up a computer. The main difference is that currently Vista cries wolf - to such an extent that it becomes a mindless action to approve access. By contrast, if a program asks for permissions in OS X or Unix I'm a little bit more skeptical - although not necessarily any more aware, especially in terms of infected programs.

 

I do really wish that Windows did a better job at protecting core operating system files. There are a lot of operating system files that users or apps can safely muck with, replace or delete. There are some files, however, which no one outside of the operating system should be permitted to interfere with. Microsoft's current approach is a one-size-fits-all warning which doesn't do a good job of distinguishing between system files and truly CRITICAL files. The same could be said of the UAC and administrator role.

[Metrogirl]

... I do really wish that Windows did a better job at protecting core operating system files. There are a lot of operating system files that users or apps can safely muck with, replace or delete. There are some files, however, which no one outside of the operating system should be permitted to interfere with. Microsoft's current approach is a one-size-fits-all warning which doesn't do a good job of distinguishing between system files and truly CRITICAL files. The same could be said of the UAC and administrator role.

 

Very true. One of Microsoft's failings has been to (allow applications to) scatter key files all over the shop so the average user neither knows what they do nor how important they are, or are not. One of the things that's always frustrated me about Windows is that an application's files and settings can be just about anywhere - some in system areas, some in the application directory, cryptic registry entries, some in the user document tree, some in the common tree and so on. Getting rid of something that's registered itself as "{893Fe329-blah..." etc. deep in some hive is no joke. Similarly trying to move your application settings to another computer - where the *$%@ is that set of saved values stored?

 

One of the problems is that there have been very few rules for application writers to follow, and quite a few have deliberately gone outside of the rules for convenience, to make stuff difficult to copy, or to provide some sort of resilience beyond the OS limitations. Vista at least will force application writers to be more careful, but heaven help those of us who want to run older applications. Symlinks, anyone?

[MadDoggyca]

old apps are the thing of the past... peopel need to let go of how theyt do thing 10 years ago and stop running stuff they ran 10 years ago and update there ways of doign thign and the software they want... if they want to run old apps its caled get a old dos box or a old p3 600 or something ...

[djpc47]

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1602 <<< the true truth about UAC

 

you may notice nothing really protects against the system being virus'd except maybe the Active X controller part.... also I highly doubt MS didn't put a fall back to force install Windows Updates....

 

so the question is left what does this do???

 

as soon as you get a half wit with some time on their hands I can almost bet easily, with a likely hood of winning; that sooner or later it will be not only circumvented but also possibly used against the user;)

 

again this seems to be as another MS attempt to give the illusion of security rather then actual security

 

MadDoggyca, old apps are the thing of the past.... but sometimes they're really usefull and never got replaced in the present... on occasion its cause its that well made;)..... in time I think you will find that UAC just doesn't work;)..... UAC reminds me of Zone Alarm and I've seen and been asked to remove it over and over again... I believe the same will be done with UAC.....

[track09]

djpc, I don't know what's worse. Your fanboysim so strong, or that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[MadDoggyca]

iok ok boys lets leave this fanboy {censored} to the other topic.... there no point having 2 topics with the same BS fanboz BS fight

 

and BTW ever old app inculding Lotus 1-2-3 and stuff iek that have all been replaced with a newer version..... I do not recall a single peace of somther that hasn;t been A) updated or totaly redinged under another name....

 

if you havnm;t foudn a replacement for a old app the nit shows u jsut havn;t bother to look for a updated verion or look for a diffrent app that no longer named fvomr the old one or another compiniy totaly took it over and change it allthogher.

 

last bu not lest by a 1ghz with 1gig of ram and thow xp back on or get a p3550 and 98 and you'll never be left out of a OLD app

 

but hmmm this has nothing to do with UAC so lets keep ity on topic.

 

I’ve been using the final release of Windows Vista every day for nearly three months. I[size="5"] rarely see a UAC prompt[/size], and when I do, it takes one click to deal with it. On at least two occasions, I have decided against installing something as a direct result of seeing a UAC prompt. It made me stop and think about whether I really trusted the program I was installing[/size]. In both cases I went and did more research, found some bad reviews, and decided against installing the program in question. That’s worth the price of admission for UAC, in my book.

 

 

see whats that oh it dose work... were u get this big idea it dosn;t work???

[REVENGE]

What's the difference? On Linux it isn't a pain in the ass.

[djpc47]

iok ok boys lets leave this fanboy {censored} to the other topic.... there no point having 2 topics with the same BS fanboz BS fight

 

I'll respect that:P... UAC is step in MS's case in the right direction but not by no means to me a full solution thats really all I want to say as far as UAC go's....