I just want to point this out:
Unless you are installing a program (or maybe updating), you really shouldn't be getting a lot of UAC prompts.
I only get them when I update software now, and I haven't had one in the last week.
Personally, I think people are WAY overreacting about UAC prompts.
~Lordbob
Some software UACs every time you run it. That is what I think most recent posters are complaining about. I use "process explorer" instead of windows task manager. It UACs every time you run it. I run it a lot and it is annoying to have to UAC each time.
MS could an should have a remedy for this.
Have you tried turning down your UAC setting a notch?
The time I notice the UAC is if and when the program request direct access to the hardware, installing programs, and when Windows settings are changed. And yes, the Windows task manager throws a UAC as well, if I want to look at all of the processes. Running programs that had been designed for Windows Vista/7, read as does not want to take over your system, do not prompt for UAC. Even Black Ops game starts up just fine with my standard UID.
I run Core Temp gadget in the sidebar and every time I login to the desktop, I need to type in the password for the Administrator to run Core Temp. Once it's typed in, it does not ask me again until I login at the next time.
You can easily disable the UAC, Just type in to the search bar "UAC" and a window like this comes up:
You can actually shut it off in the same place, if you are logged in as administrator. The image below shows the standard UID trying to do the same:
There's your remedy from Microsoft, just don't blame Windows when you system gets to be taken over by malicious software.
It's unlikely that Microsoft will change the UAC and provide a white list to exempt programs, nor should they as number of people explained already. Feel free to explore/research the subject on the 'net; there are number of ways for making a program bypass the UAC and use it at your own risk.
Hi,
I used to operate in a UAC = OFF mode for a long time, until I discovered (thanks to Brink) that IE8 Protected Mode is also tuned OFF. Since all my banking and share trading is done on-line, I considered this an unacceptable risk. I'm now a convert to keeping UAC turned ON.
Regarding the quoted statement, my experience is that I always take a few seconds, mostly less, to actually read the UAC pop-up before clicking "OK", or not if that is the case. This means I am far more aware of what is about to execute, and that means the fundamental component of any secuirty system, my own decision making process, is functioning at peak performance.
The UAC is actually a very smart pyschological tool : it interacts with the human brain at a very basic level. The human brain struggles to process multiple commands/inputs similtaneously : if it is overloaded with information, it becomes extremely poor at processing or reacting to input : in laymans speak, it makes bad decisions. It has been shown that the brain can only process the so-called "7 units of information" at a time, and its very little indeed (essentially one thing at a time).
To illustratre the point, think about it this way : you and your girlfriend are walking down the street after nice meal, the atmosphere is relaxed and you have had a good time. You are engrossed with each others company talking about the excellent time you have just had. Its a quiet and dimly lit street. Approaching you from the other direction is a large man, dressed in a black trench coat, head down and covered with a large hat. He is walking fast, directly at you. As he approaches you he whips back his trench coat....only to produce his mobile phone to call for a taxi since he is late for an appointement. How do you react in the instant that this man whips back his trench coat?
This is an example from a pyschology course I attended recently : all respondents to this question agree that your relaxed mood immediately evaporates and you go on edge expecting the worst. This is the classic "fight or flight scenario". Your brain has immediately re-focused itself on the apparent danger this stranger represents to you - all your nice relaxing thoughts and conversation with your girlfriend immediately cease to exist as your brain refocuses its limited processing capability to ensure your survival. The brain is excellent at self preservation. This is a basic human trait we inherited from the very first humans thousands of years ago - our brain learnt to adapt to ensure our survival when humans were at the bottom of the food chain. It's a genetically enherited trait, that even today when we are at the top of food chain, is still very much in action : sneak up behind your girlfriend when she isn't ware you are there and startle her. Her reaction is the brains response to ensuring its survival : it perceives the situation as being threatining, and acts appropriately.
UAC in many respects works the same way. It focuses your attention to one thing, and one thing only : the potential danger that exists by clicking that "OK" button. It diverts all your attention away the distractions, by dimming the screen and placing that pop-up right in front of you, and forcing your brain to focus its "7 units" on the "fight (clicking OK) or flight (clicking Cancel)" decision you need to make to proceed.
If you can understand how your brain processes information, and how its primary purpose is self preservation, and that it is very good at doing that, you will come to appreciate that UAC is actually a very good thing to have.
Its a long read, but I hope it helps.
Regards,
Golden
No. A smart tool would reduce the amount of unnecessary false positives. Right now the false positive rate is hovering near 100%.
Right now it is like the security theater of airline security harassing passengers while there a tons of unlocked doors that non passenger can walk through.
Meanwhile the bad guys are slipping through without harassment/UAC:
New Windows zero-day flaw bypasses UAC | Naked Security
Hi,
I think you may the missed point since you have quoted out of context : the smart part about UAC is that it is a highly effective tool at focusing the brain at, and only at, the decision to proceed or not. Nothing more, and nothing less. Hence my reference to "pyschological".
My view is that if UAC was more selective (lets say for example through the use of a whitelist), notwithstanding the issues about the whitelist being compromised, the human brain would get "lazy" so to speak, and not be required to "think" about the decision it faces. Always remember that the brain tries to conserve as much energy as possible : if it doesn't have to think, then it won't. This is where it becomes dangerous for us.
UAC is not a security tool - it doesn't return "false positives". Merely a warning that something is about to make a change to the system. Since many, but not all, changes to system files are notoriosuly correlated with nefarious activity (e.g. malware), it makes sense to err on the side of caution.
Regards,
Golden
[QUOTE=Golden;1189521]That is opposite to the way the brain actually works. It focuses on novelty and filters the familiar.
If you don't have a white-list and you get 5 UACs every day, you just start answering on auto pilot.
If you have a white-list and get one per week, you are much more likely to pay attention to it.
Thus from a psychological point of view, it is best to minimize UACs to the bare minimum so they will be more likely to be viewed as novel events when a real issue occurs.
Hi,
Thats an interesting observation. I agree on the novelty concept to a degree, except that UAC targets the highest order response to the brain, the "danger or self preservation response", which over-rides the novelty concept, since novelty beaomes familiarity over time.
I see the UAC as aiming to trigger the "danger response" by dimming the screen and going "watch out! something is trying to make a change to the system!" It's also succesful since it focuses 100% of your attention to the issue at hand - although with many users that attention probably manifests itself as frustration.
Imagine if the UAC warning paid a user $5 for every time it opened and required you to select an option. The response would be quite different and no-one would have an issue with it. That would trigger the second highest priority, namely pleasure or self-reward.
Unfortunately, people have to understand that the significance of the "danger reaction" to the way the brain operates, and to appreciate that it over-rides other responses. Its more of an education process than anything else I would imagine.
Thanks for your educated responses - it makes the thread more interesting.
Regards,
Golden
Quote
