| Subject: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/4/2008 4:52:50 PM |
| From: "Victek" [Email Address Protection] |
I just discovered a program called "Smart UAC Replacement 1.0". It's supposed to, well, replace regular dumb UAC. I haven't tested it yet and I don't know if it has anything to do with the true UAC mechanism in Vista. FWIW it claims to also work with XP and Windows 2000. I'd be interested to know what others think about this (once you get over the revulsion and disgust <g>) Here comes the link: http://www.replaceuac.com/ |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/4/2008 5:42:24 PM |
| From: "FromTheRafters" [Email Address Protection] |
I especially liked this gem. "...and finds both known and unknown malicious programs and prevents their activity." Finally - we can all relax. :o) "Victek" <Victek@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:3A957ED8-FF41-48F0-A230-113FD7DA1F0A@microsoft.com... >I just discovered a program called "Smart UAC Replacement 1.0". It's >supposed to, well, replace regular dumb UAC. I haven't tested it yet and I >don't know if it has anything to do with the true UAC mechanism in Vista. >FWIW it claims to also work with XP and Windows 2000. I'd be interested to >know what others think about this (once you get over the revulsion and >disgust <g>) Here comes the link: > > http://www.replaceuac.com/ |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/4/2008 5:55:36 PM |
| From: "Spaceman" [Email Address Protection] |
Hmm? I don't know if I want to trust. ------------------ Registrant: KONSTANTIN ARTEMEV 28 Army Street 16/1, flat 69 Astrakhan, ASTRAKHAN 414056 Russian Federation ------------------- with the security of my Windows system. although who knows, it might be a nice program. I don't think I want to be the guineapig on that though. -- James M Driscoll Jr MCTS (Vista) Spaceman "Victek" <Victek@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:3A957ED8-FF41-48F0-A230-113FD7DA1F0A@microsoft.com... >I just discovered a program called "Smart UAC Replacement 1.0". It's >supposed to, well, replace regular dumb UAC. I haven't tested it yet and I >don't know if it has anything to do with the true UAC mechanism in Vista. >FWIW it claims to also work with XP and Windows 2000. I'd be interested to >know what others think about this (once you get over the revulsion and >disgust <g>) Here comes the link: > > http://www.replaceuac.com/ |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/4/2008 7:21:29 PM |
| From: "Spirit" [Email Address Protection] |
Something that give even more protection than Smart UAC=20 is RegRun. Been using it for years starting from Win 95 through Vista. I use the Platinum Version. http://www.greatis.com/security/ "Victek" <Victek@invalid.invalid> wrote in message = news:3A957ED8-FF41-48F0-A230-113FD7DA1F0A@microsoft.com... >I just discovered a program called "Smart UAC Replacement 1.0". It's=20 > supposed to, well, replace regular dumb UAC. I haven't tested it yet = and I=20 > don't know if it has anything to do with the true UAC mechanism in = Vista.=20 > FWIW it claims to also work with XP and Windows 2000. I'd be = interested to=20 > know what others think about this (once you get over the revulsion and = > disgust <g>) Here comes the link: >=20 > http://www.replaceuac.com/=20 > |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/6/2008 1:39:32 AM |
| From: Root Kit [Email Address Protection] |
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 00:27:00 -0700, Mick Murphy <MickMurphy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >Replaceuac looks like snake oil to me. Definitely. "Security" for the clueless. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/6/2008 4:45:41 AM |
| From: "Steve Riley [MSFT]" [Email Address Protection] |
In general, it's a bad idea to use third-party "replacements" for critical parts of the operating system. While I'll never claim that our software is bug-free, I feel pretty certain that some shady no-charge download that tries to replace or improve on some aspect of the security subsystem hasn't gone through any kind of testing like we do: the SDL, automated fuzz and penetration testing, and threat modeling. My advice: stay away from stuff like this. -- Steve Riley steve.riley@microsoft.com http://blogs.technet.com/steriley http://www.protectyourwindowsnetwork.com "Victek" <Victek@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:3A957ED8-FF41-48F0-A230-113FD7DA1F0A@microsoft.com... > I just discovered a program called "Smart UAC Replacement 1.0". It's > supposed to, well, replace regular dumb UAC. I haven't tested it yet and > I don't know if it has anything to do with the true UAC mechanism in > Vista. FWIW it claims to also work with XP and Windows 2000. I'd be > interested to know what others think about this (once you get over the > revulsion and disgust <g>) Here comes the link: > > http://www.replaceuac.com/ |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/6/2008 5:00:23 AM |
| From: HappyAndyK [Email Address Protection] |
Well, digging around a bit I came across the following facts ! The developers of Smart UAC Replacement are Security Stronghold, who have developed True Sword. Here is what Symantec says about TrueSword: TrueSword is a Security Risk that may give exaggerated reports of threats on the computer. The program then prompts the user to purchase a registered version of the software in order to remove the reported threats. For details see 'Review : Smart UAC Replacement' (http://www.winvistaclub.com/s17.html) -- HappyAndyK www.WinVistaClub.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HappyAndyK's Profile: http://winvistaclub.com/forum/member.php?userid=4 View this thread: http://winvistaclub.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18292 |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/6/2008 1:52:24 PM |
| From: Martin Nelson [Email Address Protection] |
> I just discovered a program called "Smart UAC Replacement 1.0". McAfee Site Advisor ------------------- Well-respected security researchers have analyzed the software available from this site and found that it offers little or no security protection and may use deceptive sales tactics. http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm So say we all http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1294312 |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/7/2008 11:00:00 PM |
| From: "SG" [Email Address Protection] |
"Steve Riley [MSFT]" <steve.riley@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:DD33C5A2-4B66-485C-A5AC-7EECC72A870F@microsoft.com... > In general, it's a bad idea to use third-party "replacements" for critical > parts of the operating system. While I'll never claim that our software is > bug-free, I feel pretty certain that some shady no-charge download that > tries to replace or improve on some aspect of the security subsystem > hasn't gone through any kind of testing like we do: the SDL, automated > fuzz and penetration testing, and threat modeling. My advice: stay away > from stuff like this. > > -- > Steve Riley > steve.riley@microsoft.com > http://blogs.technet.com/steriley > http://www.protectyourwindowsnetwork.com > > > > "Victek" <Victek@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > news:3A957ED8-FF41-48F0-A230-113FD7DA1F0A@microsoft.com... >> I just discovered a program called "Smart UAC Replacement 1.0". It's >> supposed to, well, replace regular dumb UAC. I haven't tested it yet and >> I don't know if it has anything to do with the true UAC mechanism in >> Vista. FWIW it claims to also work with XP and Windows 2000. I'd be >> interested to know what others think about this (once you get over the >> revulsion and disgust <g>) Here comes the link: >> >> http://www.replaceuac.com/ > Quote: Our fifth product - Smart UAC Replacement - was developed to help Windows Vista users get rid of irritating User Account Control alerts while raising the overall level of computer protection up to new height. We combined five years of computer security experience with one year of development to bring you this state of art product which will make your work and entertainment really pleasant. With help of Smart UAC Replacement you don't need to worry of your computer security anymore. End Quote WOW they combined five years of computer security experience with one year of development. Look out MS, looks like you have competition here :>) They also raised the overall level of computer protection up to new height. Well now, isn't that just wonderful. How high is this new protection, can't seem to find any comparison with their product. I find it amazing 3 people can come up with such software and expect most users to believe it is better than what MS has developed and spent many hours and dollars on. They also want people to believe they created a way to put UAC in the so called silent mode so their software can take over. Quote: Once installed, Smart UAC will automatically disable standard UAC, or, better to say, turn it into special "silent mode". End Quote They better clarify exactly what they mean here because there is a big difference between disabling UAC completely or changing a Registry Key to not prompt the user. A small quote from Ronnie Vernon MS=MVP Quote: If UAC cannot notify the user that a program is trying to gain global access to the system, then it is effectively 'disabled'. This so called 'quite mode' setting just changes a UAC registry setting to 'automatically elevate everything without prompting'. This means that when you click to open a file, it is 'assumed' that you already know that the file will have unrestricted access to your computer. End Quote: If all they do is the Registry hack then UAC is still running and their software as well, that sure don't seem to be a smart way of programming. Also reading over their site I see they have a integrated antivirus and anti spyware scanner included. Just what we all need, another CrapWare Suite. BTW Steve, couldn't agree with you more and that my nickels worth on this thread. -- All the best, SG Is your computer system ready for Vista? https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/ Want to keep up with the latest news from MS? http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&topic=t Just type in Microsoft |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/8/2008 7:23:27 AM |
| From: Chris Barnes [Email Address Protection] |
Steve Riley [MSFT] wrote: > In general, it's a bad idea to use third-party "replacements" for critical > parts of the operating system. While I'll never claim that our software is > bug-free, I feel pretty certain that some shady no-charge download that > tries to replace or improve on some aspect of the security subsystem hasn't > gone through any kind of testing like we do: the SDL, automated fuzz and > penetration testing, and threat modeling. My advice: stay away from stuff > like this. Hmm. Linux is built on the philosophy of using third-party replacements for badly written components of the OS. Often times, those third party replacements get incorporated into the OS itself. Come to think of it, MS has done it in the past. (Defender anyone?) And no, I am NOT suggesting that the programs mentioned here are in anyway reliable or even not virii/spyware themselves. As other people have suggested, the origin gives a significant pause for concern. I am only saying that the suggestion that "third party replacements are defacto bad" is a suspect ideology. -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes chris-barnes@tamu.edu Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/8/2008 8:02:40 AM |
| From: "FromTheRafters" [Email Address Protection] |
"Chris Barnes" <chris-barnes@tamu.edu> wrote in message news:ObPKZJW%23IHA.5192@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Steve Riley [MSFT] wrote: >> In general, it's a bad idea to use third-party "replacements" for >> critical parts of the operating system. While I'll never claim that our >> software is bug-free, I feel pretty certain that some shady no-charge >> download that tries to replace or improve on some aspect of the security >> subsystem hasn't gone through any kind of testing like we do: the SDL, >> automated fuzz and penetration testing, and threat modeling. My advice: >> stay away from stuff like this. > > > Hmm. Linux is built on the philosophy of using third-party replacements > for badly written components of the OS. Often times, those third party > replacements get incorporated into the OS itself. Submission, peer review, and acceptance may play a part. Then, what exactly does "third party" mean in the GNU/Open Source arena. > Come to think of it, MS has done it in the past. (Defender anyone?) GUI anyone? > And no, I am NOT suggesting that the programs mentioned here are in anyway > reliable or even not virii/spyware themselves. As other people have > suggested, the origin gives a significant pause for concern. I am only > saying that the suggestion that "third party replacements are defacto bad" > is a suspect ideology. It is not the third party ideas that are security risks as much as the actual code used to implement them. When the idea is adopted and implemented by the OS writers it may actually be a good thing, but no longer a third party thing. People shouldn't be too hard on Vista and UAC for the way it is set up by default - it is configurable enough to be made as insecure as almost any previous OS from Microsoft. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: Smart UAC Replacement 1.0 |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.security |
| Date: 8/31/2008 10:30:01 AM |
| From: davinp [Email Address Protection] |
I installed on my computer and I have 2 annoying problems with it: 1) When Windows starts up, Windows blocks it from starting up 2) I keep getting pop up messages that it needs permission to continue for my screensavers, Trend Micro Internt Security and Google Update even though I've checked Always allow this program I am thinking about uninstalling it. -- davinp |
| Back |