Windows 7 less annoying, but also less secure?

patrickt · 31 Jan 2009

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. People demanded secure, got Vista, hated the nagging. The odd thing is the only people who couldn't figure out how to turn the nagging off were the ones who both needed it and hated it the most.

echrada · 31 Jan 2009

Too true.

Barman58 · 31 Jan 2009

With any form of security you "pays your Money, and takes your choice" As you say M$ are on a Lose / Lose with this particular one. Those people who know how important UAC, can be, and mostly accept the prompts as part of a secure system, are the ones most qualified to live without it. Those who need it are the ones who complain.

At least by providing a layered level of protection M$ are providing a better option than Vista's All or None approach.

SIW2 · 31 Jan 2009

Hi,

It seems , on the lower settings at least, to only provide an illusion of protection - still that's no worse than XP - which didn't have anything like it.

Strange M$ are refusing to acknowledge it as a flaw, perhaps not, sales is what they are after.

Perhaps reintroducing the secure desktop element would still allow the prompts to be set to a less annoying level and provide a good level of security.

Unfortunately, Norton UAC Tool - brilliant for Vista - gives a superb combination of protection and prompt levels , won't install on 7.

This is what it does :

The Norton UAC tool allows an application to run with silently-elevated privileges only in a specific context, one previously approved by the user with the "don't ask again" check box selected.

This means that there is a difference between regedit.exe launched from the start->run box, regedit.exe originating from a shortcut double-click, and regedit.exe launched from a double click on a .reg file (and the context actually changes with each .reg file), and regedit.exe launched by an application (malicious or not).

Given the contextual awareness of Norton UAC tool's automatic responses, the Norton UAC tool provides a usability improvement over Vista's default UAC prompts, while maintaining obvious security improvements in the Vista kernel (such as isolation, file/registry virtualization, and user interface privilege isolation) that are all disabled when UAC is disabled.

Sounds complicated, but it is child's play to use.

SIW2

echrada · 31 Jan 2009

I wouldn't put Norton on my dogs' computer.

Juzz4Fun · 31 Jan 2009

One freebie I use alot and like to help monitor any start up add on's and similar is WinPatrol..WinPatrol - Free software downloads and reviews - CNET Download.com Runs or guards from any program trying to change certain aspects of my system and is pretty relaible (And even barks when you click his Icon lol).

Romulinx2 · 31 Jan 2009

echrada said:

I wouldn't put Norton on my dogs' computer.

I agree with that. Memory/resource hungry piece of junk!

Joan Archer · 31 Jan 2009

I wouldn't have it anywhere near my machines but I have read that the new version is a lot better behaved and not so hungry on resource's

ittech · 31 Jan 2009

i'll put my other hat on now. one of the big beefs from the system/network administrators point of view has always been the inability to with confidence lock down a microsoft based system. the trade off being that some accessability was necessary for the network based systems to perform their tasking. personally, I want to know every time some app, especially a third party app attempts to make a change to a system. third party software publishers do a whole lot less testing than they did even six or seven years ago. i find it amazing what some applications attempt to do once installed having what seems an inordinate inherant right to by default gain accessabiltity to your platform. mobile computing compounds that, where we need survey non secure platforms regularly because business users tend to do one thing and say another despite warnings from consultant on the dangers of turning a blind eye but still retaining network wide access. occasionally we have been forced to play hardball, and end users tend not to like it. our own network, well, if it wasn't installed in shop, your chances of getting onto the network are zero. business machines are just that, vids and mp3's and pics of your dog belong on ipods. if software is making changes, i want to know why. unfortunately, where software providers, including microsoft fail in this regard is the lack of documention regarding the consequences of loading a particular piece of software. you only in a network environment make that mistake once.