is it bad to turn off user account control?

[zzz2496]

IMHO, it's better to have UAC at off... It's not a security feature (it's written several times in MSDN). It's a way to force developers to develop proper applications that respects user class differentiation. Having UAC on doesn't protect you from virus/malware, it just made it a tiny bit hassle for the virus/malware to get installed. I got mine at off, and so are my colleagues and close friends... We know what we're doing, so UAC is off for us, I don't really know about you, but that's where I'm at...

zzz2496

 

[MacGyvr]

Turning off UAC and running as admin are just not a smart thing to do.
Regardless of how safe you think you are when running Your system, blah blah blah.

It's just my opinion, yeah, but it's the right one.

Your opinion may be right for you, it's not so right for me.
I turned UAC off in the 1st Vista beta and have not had it on since, never a problem.
My machine.......my opinion rules.

Your opinion may rule for YOUR machine, but don't hand out possibly harmful advise to users who don't know better. In some cases, keeping your opinion to yourself is better.

 

[MacGyvr]

its ok to shut this off if you have a decent internet security installed (kaspersky for me) when i download programs i scan it before i install , always a good idea.

Incorrect....UAC has nothing to do with having "internet security." UAC is about allowing programs to run with elevated privileges.

 

[CarlTR6]

Turning off UAC and running as admin are just not a smart thing to do.
Regardless of how safe you think you are when running Your system, blah blah blah.

It's just my opinion, yeah, but it's the right one.

Your opinion may be right for you, it's not so right for me.
I turned UAC off in the 1st Vista beta and have not had it on since, never a problem.
My machine.......my opinion rules.

Your opinion may rule for YOUR machine, but don't hand out possibly harmful advise to users who don't know better. In some cases, keeping your opinion to yourself is better.

+1 Well stated.

 

[Richardc269]

If he has a program that keeps asking to be run on it's own, then it might be something he doesn't want.

 

[BCXtreme]

I personally have UAC turned on, but set not to dim the desktop. OP, you might find this useful as the screen dimming is what most likely is making your programs slow to start.

its ok to shut this off if you have a decent internet security installed (kaspersky for me) when i download programs i scan it before i install , always a good idea.

Incorrect....UAC has nothing to do with having "internet security." UAC is about allowing programs to run with elevated privileges.

Kaspersky alerts you and requests user input if any program starts exhibiting suspicious behavior. So it basically duplicates UAC functionality. Especially since it actually tells you exactly what the program is wanting to do, rather than just reporting a vague request for admin access. Kaspersky, among many other Internet security suites, also has pretty intense local security.

If he has a program that keeps asking to be run on it's own, then it might be something he doesn't want.

The OP seemed to quite clearly indicate that the prompt is being called by programs that he is running intentionally. Not to mention, if you have unwanted programs trying to run themselves as admin on your PC ... well, you probably already have serious security issues...

 

[CarlTR6]

I personally have UAC turned on, but set not to dim the desktop. OP, you might find this useful as the screen dimming is what most likely is making your programs slow to start.

its ok to shut this off if you have a decent internet security installed (kaspersky for me) when i download programs i scan it before i install , always a good idea.

Incorrect....UAC has nothing to do with having "internet security." UAC is about allowing programs to run with elevated privileges.

Kaspersky alerts you and requests user input if any program starts exhibiting suspicious behavior. So it basically duplicates UAC functionality. Especially since it actually tells you exactly what the program is wanting to do, rather than just reporting a vague request for admin access. Kaspersky, among many other Internet security suites, also has pretty intense local security.

Brian no longer has Kaspersky installed; it was causing his system to BOSD.

 

[Tepid]

It's not a security feature (it's written several times in MSDN). It's a way to force developers to develop proper applications that respects user class differentiation. Having UAC on doesn't protect you from virus/malware,

Just to reiterate.... UAC is to stop applications from running automatically with admin privileges. So, you need to go back and read up a bit more, because I think you misunderstand it's purpose.

Yes, it can prevent many things, including viruses and malware (no not all, but some) from installing to ones machine. End of Story.

UAC is not an end all be all security feature, it is however an extra layer.

 

[zzz2496]

It's not a security feature (it's written several times in MSDN). It's a way to force developers to develop proper applications that respects user class differentiation. Having UAC on doesn't protect you from virus/malware,

Just to reiterate.... UAC is to stop applications from running automatically with admin privileges. So, you need to go back and read up a bit more, because I think you misunderstand it's purpose.

Yes, it can prevent many things, including viruses and malware (no not all, but some) from installing to ones machine. End of Story.

UAC is not an end all be all security feature, it is however an extra layer.

Yes, I know what UAC is... I still don't think it's a security feature. It's a hindrance that MS created to teach Win32 programmers to program the correct way (that is to honor non admin user class, and not call anything that is system critical directly).
Here's the thing, UAC is created so that we all can use our "Admin" class users without being an actual Administrator, that's it. It virtualize every app we call into UAC sandbox automatically. Unless specifically asked, no app will run with Admin privilege EVEN IF you are an Admin. I've stated this many many times in many different threads other than this. UAC is one of MS's "stupid" solution to a classic multi user system problem that have been solved many years ago in Linux/UNIX.

If you use a limited user account for day to day use, UAC is adding useless processing overhead, it's useless in a limited user case because the user it self is already limited. UAC is made to limit an admin account so that it loses it's "admin" privilege unless the users agrees the UAC confirmation box that a program requests "Admin" privilege, which is stupid at best. I can't really deny the fact that there are more novice users in Windows world, MS caters them... It's not MS's fault... I still disable UAC, I don't see the point of it's active in my system. I use limited user for day to day use, and fast user switch to admin to install things. Everything runs faster without UAC (do not ask the speed difference because I have 110++ processes upon boot up, my rig is running as a development workstation and a DB server and a virtualization server, all in one). But this is me and my computer, and my close friends, and my colleagues...

zzz2496

 

[BCXtreme]

I personally have UAC turned on, but set not to dim the desktop. OP, you might find this useful as the screen dimming is what most likely is making your programs slow to start.

Incorrect....UAC has nothing to do with having "internet security." UAC is about allowing programs to run with elevated privileges.

Kaspersky alerts you and requests user input if any program starts exhibiting suspicious behavior. So it basically duplicates UAC functionality. Especially since it actually tells you exactly what the program is wanting to do, rather than just reporting a vague request for admin access. Kaspersky, among many other Internet security suites, also has pretty intense local security.

Brian no longer has Kaspersky installed; it was causing his system to BOSD.

Was not saying otherwise. Was merely explaining how an Internet security program DOES in fact have to do with UAC.

 

[Tepid]

It's a hindrance that MS created to teach Win32 programmers to program the correct way (that is to honor non admin user class, and not call anything that is system critical directly).

That may be one of it's uses,, but lets say a programmer ignores that advice and turns off UAC to code? Then what?

Here's the thing, UAC is created so that we all can use our "Admin" class users without being an actual Administrator, that's it.

1 ,, you answer the simple question in your own post several times, trying to discount the need for UAC, quite simply, contradictions abound.

It virtualize every app we call into UAC sandbox automatically. Unless specifically asked, no app will run with Admin privilege EVEN IF you are an Admin.

2 ,, no explanation needed.

UAC is one of MS's "stupid" solution to a classic multi user system problem that have been solved many years ago in Linux/UNIX.

3 ,, However, Linux and Unix will not let a stupid programmers code run that requires root access without typing in the root user password. Unless you are running as root. Duh!

If you use a limited user account for day to day use, UAC is adding useless processing overhead, it's useless in a limited user case because the user it self is already limited.

Actually, it's good to know when any program is requesting admin rights to run.
I sure as hell want to know what is requesting admin access to run on my system regardless. I personally thinks it is really really stupid to NOT want to know what an app is requesting admin rights to run.

UAC is made to limit an admin account so that it loses it's "admin" privilege unless the users agrees the UAC confirmation box that a program requests "Admin" privilege, which is stupid at best.

4 ,, Yes,, stupid,, I think we should all go the root user way and require a password be typed in. Yee haw, can you see the shear number of posts for that?

I can't really deny the fact that there are more novice users in Windows world, MS caters them... It's not MS's fault... I still disable UAC, I don't see the point of it's active in my system. I use limited user for day to day use, and fast user switch to admin to install things. Everything runs faster without UAC (do not ask the speed difference because I have 110++ processes upon boot up, my rig is running as a development workstation and a DB server and a virtualization server, all in one). But this is me and my computer, and my close friends, and my colleagues...

zzz2496

And for you that's fine, it's not good advice though no matter how you try to spin it.

I don't really mean any disrespect through this post, but come on, seriously?

 

[zzz2496]

That may be one of it's uses,, but lets say a programmer ignores that advice and turns off UAC to code? Then what?

The said program will crash if it's run in non admin privilege... What else can it do but crash?

3 ,, However, Linux and Unix will not let a stupid programmers code run that requires root access without typing in the root user password. Unless you are running as root. Duh!

Umm... it's imprecise, the said app (depending on distro) won't even list if it requires root privilege. Let alone asking for password, you can't even see the app... Thus you won't be able to call it, no password asking, no problem...

Actually, it's good to know when any program is requesting admin rights to run.
I sure as hell want to know what is requesting admin access to run on my system regardless. I personally thinks it is really really stupid to NOT want to know what an app is requesting admin rights to run.

I'd prefer to not use admin, and let the app crash trying to use admin instead of to use UAC. It's a lot safer, and a lot faster without UAC checkpoints...

UAC is made to limit an admin account so that it loses it's "admin" privilege unless the users agrees the UAC confirmation box that a program requests "Admin" privilege, which is stupid at best.

4 ,, Yes,, stupid,, I think we should all go the root user way and require a password be typed in. Yee haw, can you see the shear number of posts for that?

I'm not saying we all should use the Super User/Admin/root. The "throw a dialog box to confirm administrator password" works in Mac OS X, Linux, and many other multi user OS, the way I see it, it's much simpler than UAC, because of it's underpinnings, it won't let any app/daemon/binary code that needs super user confirmation to run without authenticating first. The forum posts complaining about this behavior will pour just as much as UAC confirmation dialog back then in Vista...

And for you that's fine, it's not good advice though no matter how you try to spin it.

I don't really mean any disrespect through this post, but come on, seriously?

If you read my post correctly, I said to use limited user account. Once that done, disable UAC. As I said earlier, UAC is there to make you lose your admin privileges without you use a limited user account. It's an irony, you lose admin when you are an admin? Is UAC a bitter joke? Looks like it...

And yes, I'm serious... It's better to use a real limited user account than to use a crippled admin account with lots and lots of UAC checkpoints.

zzz2496

 

[gregrocker]

Please don't call people or ideas stupid in these forums.

We are all here to learn and such namecalling causes people to fear asking questions.

No question should be considered too stupid to ask or answer - only the failure to ask or proffer is a lost learning opportunity.

I only give experienced Users the option to turn off UAC in my installs. None have gotten infected yet.

 

[zzz2496]

gregrocker, I'm not doing any name calling (to any forum users), I'm sorry if my post conveyed as such... I only want to point out my opinion about UAC, that's all...

zzz2496

 

[tea]

It's great that Microsoft has given us the option to turn this feature off. Do what you will with this power, but act responsibly none the less.

 

[Tepid]

The simple fact is,, UAC can and does prevent programs from running that require Admin rights.
Plain and simple,, stupid idea or not, it's a fact. You have said it yourself that, that is what it does.

So, to get back on full topic of,,,,
Should anyone turn off UAC or not?

As it works the way it is intended and it does work.
The answer is No, you should not.

What one does in reality is their own business. And not my problem, till they start complaining about getting infected or having other issues and you find out that it might have been preventable, but they disabled a tool that could have saved them the grief in the long run. My answer will always be,, plain and simple, because it does what it is supposed to do,, run as standard user with UAC enabled. Is it the best perfect all around wonderful god like utility that we hope and wish it would be? No. But, it's not a useless tool either as long as people pay attention to why it is popping.

This is a controversy that will go down in the annals of all that is MS, just as activating XP did back in the day, just as Run with no page file or what, still is today (even though it's has been proven time and again that it is best to run with MS recommended page file sizes regardless of how much ram you have installed).

So, why do I say run with UAC is my standard answer?

Because, I know people, and the largest majority of people asking this question, do not know what they are really doing, are not really all that safe of surfers or stewards of their own security. I also am not here to tell anyone how to run their own system or protect them from themselves. That's not my intention, nor my job, and frankly speaking, I don't want anyone forcing it on me. But, we also all (as techs, or more experienced users) provide the (not sure how to put this) ,, best answers, not always as we ourselves run our system but how a system is intended to run, to the best of our knowledge. Giving security advice that works for us, is not something that always works for everyone else. Spitting out some of the answers I have seen in this thread, many are well, irresponsible. Bad Advice.

Putting even more simply, and which may become my standard answer to this particular question is...

Q. Should one turn off UAC or not?

A. If you have to ask that question, then No, you Should not turn off UAC.

Actually, I'll make that part of my sig.

 

[zzz2496]

The simple fact is,, UAC can and does prevent programs from running that require Admin rights.
Plain and simple,, stupid idea or not, it's a fact. You have said it yourself that, that is what it does.

So, to get back on full topic of,,,,
Should anyone turn off UAC or not?

As it works the way it is intended and it does work.
The answer is No, you should not.

What one does in reality is their own business. And not my problem, till they start complaining about getting infected or having other issues and you find out that it might have been preventable, but they disabled a tool that could have saved them the grief in the long run. My answer will always be,, plain and simple, because it does what it is supposed to do,, run as standard user with UAC enabled. Is it the best perfect all around wonderful god like utility that we hope and wish it would be? No. But, it's not a useless tool either as long as people pay attention to why it is popping.

This is a controversy that will go down in the annals of all that is MS, just as activating XP did back in the day, just as Run with no page file or what, still is today (even though it's has been proven time and again that it is best to run with MS recommended page file sizes regardless of how much ram you have installed).

So, why do I say run with UAC is my standard answer?

Because, I know people, and the largest majority of people asking this question, do not know what they are really doing, are not really all that safe of surfers or stewards of their own security. I also am not here to tell anyone how to run their own system or protect them from themselves. That's not my intention, nor my job, and frankly speaking, I don't want anyone forcing it on me. But, we also all (as techs, or more experienced users) provide the (not sure how to put this) ,, best answers, not always as we ourselves run our system but how a system is intended to run, to the best of our knowledge. Giving security advice that works for us, is not something that always works for everyone else. Spitting out some of the answers I have seen in this thread, many are well, irresponsible. Bad Advice.

Putting even more simply, and which may become my standard answer to this particular question is...

Q. Should one turn off UAC or not?

A. If you have to ask that question, then No, you Should not turn off UAC.

Actually, I'll make that part of my sig.

Fair enough

zzz2496

 

[zzz2496]

Reference: http://www.sevenforums.com/system-security/77736-lets-discuss-uac-here.html

zzz2496

 

[BCXtreme]

The simple fact is,, UAC can and does prevent programs from running that require Admin rights.
Plain and simple,, stupid idea or not, it's a fact. You have said it yourself that, that is what it does.

So, to get back on full topic of,,,,
Should anyone turn off UAC or not?

As it works the way it is intended and it does work.
The answer is No, you should not.

What one does in reality is their own business. And not my problem, till they start complaining about getting infected or having other issues and you find out that it might have been preventable, but they disabled a tool that could have saved them the grief in the long run. My answer will always be,, plain and simple, because it does what it is supposed to do,, run as standard user with UAC enabled. Is it the best perfect all around wonderful god like utility that we hope and wish it would be? No. But, it's not a useless tool either as long as people pay attention to why it is popping.

This is a controversy that will go down in the annals of all that is MS, just as activating XP did back in the day, just as Run with no page file or what, still is today (even though it's has been proven time and again that it is best to run with MS recommended page file sizes regardless of how much ram you have installed).

So, why do I say run with UAC is my standard answer?

Because, I know people, and the largest majority of people asking this question, do not know what they are really doing, are not really all that safe of surfers or stewards of their own security. I also am not here to tell anyone how to run their own system or protect them from themselves. That's not my intention, nor my job, and frankly speaking, I don't want anyone forcing it on me. But, we also all (as techs, or more experienced users) provide the (not sure how to put this) ,, best answers, not always as we ourselves run our system but how a system is intended to run, to the best of our knowledge. Giving security advice that works for us, is not something that always works for everyone else. Spitting out some of the answers I have seen in this thread, many are well, irresponsible. Bad Advice.

Putting even more simply, and which may become my standard answer to this particular question is...

Q. Should one turn off UAC or not?

A. If you have to ask that question, then No, you Should not turn off UAC.

Actually, I'll make that part of my sig.

I won't be following you all to the other thread, so I'll give my two cents right here and say that Q&A is perfect.

 

[zzz2496]

No, I didn't mean to continue this discussion on that thread, but this topic has been discussed quite lengthy on that thread...

zzz2496