| Subject: Possible UAC Improvement |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 7/13/2008 4:48:03 PM |
| From: =?Utf-8?B?SmltIFNlbGluc2t5?= [Email Address Protection] |
If I use a virus scanner Ex: McAfee, Firewalls ( windows or otherwise) and malware detectors, These types of programs "remember" they have permission to run certain apps. In order to take advantage of what UAC was intended for without it being a "nag" it should actaully be capable of the same thing. Is It? or do we need to disable it like most posts suggest? |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Possible UAC Improvement |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 7/13/2008 5:02:56 PM |
| From: Nonny [Email Address Protection] |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:03 -0700, Jim Selinsky <jselin@comcast.net.(donotspam)> wrote: >If I use a virus scanner Ex: McAfee, Firewalls ( windows or otherwise) and >malware detectors, These types of programs "remember" they have permission to >run certain apps. I think it's more than that. I think it's because they have been written so as to NOT trigger the UAC nags. MS claims that those nags are there partly to get software writers to write Vista-compliant programs. >In order to take advantage of what UAC was intended for >without it being a "nag" it should actaully be capable of the same thing. Is >It? >or do we need to disable it like most posts suggest? |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Possible UAC Improvement |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 7/14/2008 12:57:02 AM |
| From: "Steve Thackery" [Email Address Protection] |
> In order to take advantage of what UAC was intended for > without it being a "nag" it should actaully be capable of the same thing. Apparently Microsoft said it would undermine the purpose of UAC - it would be too easy for malware to put itself onto the "don't prompt" list. > or do we need to disable it like most posts suggest? Absolutely not. Nobody "needs" to disable it. If you're using programs that generate UAC prompts they are BADLY WRITTEN and fail to comply with the XP programming guidelines (yes, I said XP, not Vista). The only exception is software which is designed to perform system administrative tasks, in which case you really should log on as an administrator anyway (and then you just get the confirmation prompt - a single mouse-click or left-arrow, Enter). If you are using day-to-day applications which generate UAC prompts it's probably time to update them. SteveT |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Possible UAC Improvement |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 7/14/2008 2:41:39 AM |
| From: Nonny [Email Address Protection] |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:57:02 +0100, "Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >If you are using day-to-day applications which generate UAC prompts it's >probably time to update them. Bullshit. Why pay for an update when the old program is getting the job done? |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Possible UAC Improvement |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 7/14/2008 6:34:36 AM |
| From: Root Kit [Email Address Protection] |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:41:39 -0500, Nonny <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote: >Bullshit. Why pay for an update when the old program is getting the >job done? That's for oneself to decide. Then just don't whine about UAC. However, what you *should* do is demand that the vendor fixes his broken software for free. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Possible UAC Improvement |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 7/14/2008 7:07:48 AM |
| From: Nonny [Email Address Protection] |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:36 +0200, Root Kit <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:41:39 -0500, Nonny <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> >wrote: > >>Bullshit. Why pay for an update when the old program is getting the >>job done? > >That's for oneself to decide. Then just don't whine about UAC. Who's whining? Not this guy. I partially disabled UAC (using Tweak UAC) less than a week after I installed Vista on this machine. Two weeks later I totally disabled it. >However, what you *should* do is demand that the vendor fixes his >broken software for free. It's not broken, doofus, it's out-dated. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Possible UAC Improvement |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 7/14/2008 8:44:44 AM |
| From: "Paul Smith" [Email Address Protection] |
"Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:s8nm74dvuhml0qtmbc4ou7a2uehahc2lbe@4ax.com... > It's not broken, doofus, it's out-dated. I take it the software was written after say 1999/2000. In that case it is broken, and not outdated, there's no excuse for applications written after 2000 to assume they have administrative rights. -- Paul Smith, Yeovil, UK. Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User. http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/ http://www.windowsresource.net/ *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail* |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Possible UAC Improvement |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 7/14/2008 8:26:33 PM |
| From: "Michael D. Ober" [Email Address Protection] |
"Paul Smith" <Paul@nospam.windowsresource.net> wrote in message news:6356D132-E287-4A53-93DE-0E004B9103D7@microsoft.com... > > "Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:s8nm74dvuhml0qtmbc4ou7a2uehahc2lbe@4ax.com... > >> It's not broken, doofus, it's out-dated. > > I take it the software was written after say 1999/2000. In that case it > is broken, and not outdated, there's no excuse for applications written > after 2000 to assume they have administrative rights. > > -- > Paul Smith, > Yeovil, UK. > Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User. > http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/ > http://www.windowsresource.net/ > > *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail* > Assuming you are correct, Office XP, which was released after 2000, assumes it has Administrator rights. It's EULA flag is in the HKLM registry hive and not in the individual user hives. You must accept the Office XP EULA running as an Administrator. MS never fixed this - instead they charged you to upgrade to Office 2003. Mike. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Possible UAC Improvement |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 7/15/2008 6:16:42 AM |
| From: "Steve Thackery" [Email Address Protection] |
| Back |