Microsofts worst nightmare

[pooch]

While Microsoft officials won’t say it (at least not publicly), one of Windos 7’s main selling points is likely to be that it’s the “anti-Vista.” It will be faster, smaller, more reliable and… less secure?

More;» Microsoft’s worst nightmare: Windows 7 deemed less secure than Vista | All about Microsoft | ZDNet.com

 

[pooch]

This could be Windows 7's Achilles heel
I hope they find a way out of it

 

[garysgold]

Make UAC default to 'Always Notify'. You turn it down at your own risk. Maybe a warning the first time you turn it down. If you want a secure system, turn it on. If you don't mind dealing with an infected system or your feelin' lucky, turn it down.

Gary

 

[NosferatuX]

I agree. Though personally, UAC was a hassle when it was new but once you've gotten used to it, it's actually a good way to let you know that you're about to do some modifications to your system.

Using Windows 7 without the UAC bugging you that much is quite weird coz you're kinda waiting for it when you know you're doing some stuff

I'm curious as to how Microsoft think tanks can position Windows 7 on this issue and how it will affect the final release. Good luck to us

 

[pooch]

Make UAC default to 'Always Notify'. You turn it down at your own risk. Maybe a warning the first time you turn it down. If you want a secure system, turn it on. If you don't mind dealing with an infected system or your feelin' lucky, turn it down.

Gary

Exactly I really do not understand the problem. As Barman so rightly pointed out in another post it compares to locking your car, it would be most amusing to see articles in the paper putting car manufacturers down because peoples cars are being stolen as they have only locked 2 from 4 doors

 

[ittech]

well, look at any operating system just about. the bulk of our work after rollout and configuration tend to be operator induced "finger problems" in situation where client has gone against advice. life is a series of choices, you make them and live with the consequences.

 

[Barman58]

well, look at any operating system just about. the bulk of our work after rollout and configuration tend to be operator induced "finger problems" in situation where client has gone against advice. life is a series of choices, you make them and live with the consequences.

Sometimes there's only one solution

 

[NosferatuX]

Sometimes there's only one solution

View attachment 4152

I love this! LOL

 

[avet22]

Love UAC!! Im in control ... finally!!

 

[napilopez]

In all honesty, I find that the casual PC user really does not mind UAC that much at all. It's mostly us folk who are more PC saavy, coming from XP and whatnot. But I'm pretty sure most people buying their first PC had no problem with UAC, or at least thats what I can tell from my experience with friends. I did find it annoying though. Actually, it was just the dimming of the screen more than anything, it would take a while for my screen to dim. I don't mind the prompts at all.

 

[smarteyeball]

I miss Vistas Tweakuac. That felt like the sweet spot between 'safety' and annoyance. Being prompted every bl**dy time I run common apps in 7 is wearing a bit thin. I'm not a fan of disabling UAC, but nor am I fan of being continually prompted...

I'm already one step above 'never notify'

 

[darkassain]

well, look at any operating system just about. the bulk of our work after rollout and configuration tend to be operator induced "finger problems" in situation where client has gone against advice. life is a series of choices, you make them and live with the consequences.

you see those are the people who need the most locked out system
to the point where they can only do their work...
make them understand that its not their computers....
their bosses bought those computers....

Sometimes there's only one solution

View attachment 4152

I love this! LOL

what he said!...

Love UAC!! Im in control ... finally!!

finally someone who doesnt react to UAC as something that is taking power from you but giving it when you need it....

In all honesty, I find that the casual PC user really does not mind UAC that much at all. It's mostly us folk who are more PC saavy, coming from XP and whatnot. But I'm pretty sure most people buying their first PC had no problem with UAC, or at least thats what I can tell from my experience with friends. I did find it annoying though. Actually, it was just the dimming of the screen more than anything, it would take a while for my screen to dim. I don't mind the prompts at all.

+1 for going against the crowd of tech saying otherwise...

this is what most techs dont think...
in all honesty i think that most techs think of only themselves..
they think that because their are being annoyed that it is going to be worse for endusers to well..

use..

most techs l know dont think that that maybe the enduser wont be changing their clocks every few days or moving and modifying any system files or changing something in the control panel every day (which i do because i want to break things...i love being a beta tester...lol)

 

[ickymay]

I miss Vistas Tweakuac. That felt like the sweet spot between 'safety' and annoyance. Being prompted every bl**dy time I run common apps in 7 is wearing a bit thin. I'm not a fan of disabling UAC, but nor am I fan of being continually prompted...

I'm already one step above 'never notify'

I feel the same as you about UAC but I quietly wish I didn't because the idea is well founded, why can't it behave similar to a good firewall where I could give permanent authorization to those programs that continually prompt but I know I want enabled

 

[smarteyeball]

It's definitely a good idea, and I had no problem with it in Vista+tweakuac, but the lack of a 'whitelist' is killing it for me in 7

I'm sure there's some 'good security reason' for it... but still....

Send some feedback to MS about it. I did

 

[darkassain]

It's definitely a good idea, and I had no problem with it in Vista+tweakuac, but the lack of a 'whitelist' is killing it for me in 7

I'm sure there's some 'good security reason' for it... but still....

Send some feedback to MS about it. I did

i still see a future where companies actually sign their apps with a certificate...

then i can see the whitelist (without a thirdparty app...)

same with driversigning but the less the struggle since most apps should not need admin rights anyway... (you know which ones )

the setups should be signed so that can be left alone do what need to do...
but they cant give a cert to just anyone since its possible to load a Trojan and it would be easy to pass through since its running with admin privileges....

 

[smarteyeball]

I can see how carte blanche permissions would be used by nefarious individuals, so i can understand why MS hasn't got one.

But surely a little jigery pokery with the UAC code could leave the final yes/no permission in the users hand at some level.

ie "this app your installing doesn't comply with permission A) B) or C), allow anyway?" That way, you've had your warning, MS is in the clear liability wise and your now prompt free.

A decent 3rd party app may the best option. Fingers crossed it comes sooner rather than later