Windows 7 Less Vulnerable Without Admin Rights.

[JMH]

Taking away the administrative rights from Microsoft Windows 7 users will lessen the risk posed by 90 percent of the critical Windows 7 vulnerabilities reported to date and 100 percent of the Microsoft Office vulnerabilities reported last year.

It will also mitigate the risk of 94 percent of vulnerabilities reported in all versions of Internet Explorer in 2009 and 100 percent of the vulnerabilities reported in Internet Explorer 8 during the same time period.

Source -
http://www.darkreading.com/insidert...Article.jhtml?articleID=224200601&cid=RSSfeed

 

[KazeNoKoe23]

I knew it was a good percentage, but damn!

 

[Robert Cartman]

Running windows as admin but without knowledge is like driving a car without licence

 

[Kari]

I knew it was a good percentage, but damn!

Same here. It's only logical, of course, but those figures are something I never had guessed.

 

[kookster]

Shows how dumb alot of people are :/

 

[seekermeister]

To be able to fully access the validity of those findings, one would need to better under exactly who Beyond Trust is (the name does not inspire confidence), and the means that they used to come to these conclusions. Obviously, they do not have access to all data involved, and the sector of data that they do have access to is likely weighted by the nature of those that might have sought help.

Since a great many people are their own administrators, it is obvious that simply being an administrator does not make one infallible. Perhaps this would be more applicable to a business network, with a variety of users involved, but for the majority of us using private computers, these "facts" have little relevance.

EDIT: It would have been more accurate to say that computers would be less vulnerable if there were no people involved at all, but I'm not ready for computers to take over the world.

 

[jav]

To be able to fully access the validity of those findings, one would need to better under exactly who Beyond Trust is (the name does not inspire confidence), and the means that they used to come to these conclusions. Obviously, they do not have access to all data involved, and the sector of data that they do have access to is likely weighted by the nature of those that might have sought help.

Since a great many people are their own administrators, it is obvious that simply being an administrator does not make one infallible. Perhaps this would be more applicable to a business network, with a variety of users involved, but for the majority of us using private computers, these "facts" have little relevance.

EDIT: It would have been more accurate to say that computers would be less vulnerable if there were no people involved at all, but I'm not ready for computers to take over the world.

reports are based on all security bulletins published by Microsoft in 2009 and all reported vulnerabilities of Windows 7 reported to date...
So the results are based on real and legit facts.

Similar article: Report: Windows 7 holes eased by axing admin rights | InSecurity Complex - CNET News

Original BeyondTrust Analyses report: http://www.beyondtrust.com/download...ust_2009_Microsoft_Vulnerability_Analysis.pdf (on pdf format)

 

[seekermeister]

Personally, I don't find that the source of the information is MS to be particularly reassuring.

 

[karlsnooks]

I agree with Seekermeister.

A report from an independent source would be more credulous.

"I am good because I say I am good" does not carry much weight with me.

 

[Silverscreen]

Just the fact I saw a 100% in there makes me question the validity of the claim, I doubt its truly possible to relieve 100% vulnerabilities with something so simple, If it were true, truly true, Microsoft would have caught it sooner, not that I have much faith in their qc, but I believe them at least competent enough to catch something like that sooner if it were possible.

 

[windows7user]

Actually, this information doesn't surprise me. I'm a student majoring in computer engineering and actually this is actually a big reason why people who use Linux and Macs are safer. Not because Linux is just built to be more secure (at the kernel level, I think Windows 7 is just as secure as Linux since Windows implements DEP and ASLR), but because they emphasize not using the root account (Admin) as the default account. If you need a program to run in administrator level, Linux will ask you then to input the root password. UAC, as I see it, was suppose to be an easier alternative to Linux's way of inputting an admin password everytime; instead you answer yes or no to a question. Unfortunately, people find it more annoying to answer a Yes/No question than typing your password everytime.

You see, when a program runs in an administrative level, it can do more damage. Linux prevents this by encouraging the use of a lower level account and having the user to input the root password when only necessary. In contrast to Windows, most people use the Admin account as their default account. Hopefully, UAC would notify the user if he/she would like to run a program, but most of the time just mindlessly click Yes not checking if the program is safe.

 

[jav]

Personally, I don't find that the source of the information is MS to be particularly reassuring.

I agree with Seekermeister.

A report from an independent source would be more credulous.

"I am good because I say I am good" does not carry much weight with me.

Just the fact I saw a 100% in there makes me question the validity of the claim, I doubt its truly possible to relieve 100% vulnerabilities with something so simple, If it were true, truly true, Microsoft would have caught it sooner, not that I have much faith in their qc, but I believe them at least competent enough to catch something like that sooner if it were possible.

ok, I see. None even bothered to read original report.

@Silverscreen, if you have read report. It says 100 % of Microsoft Office vulnerabilities reported in 2009 and published in security builitten...
Who says Microsoft hasn't caught it already? It only says that it could be prevented running as LUA.

@karlsnooks

It's not Microsoft who is saying I am good because I am good!!!
It is report from "BeyondTrust".

On my last post I reffered to Microsoft security bulletin.
Let me clarify it:
Microsoft Security Bulletin (aka Technet security Bulletin) is a report of security vulnerabilities reported to Microsoft, and confirmed as security risk by Microsoft...

For example this is a out-of-band Security Bulletin for March 2010:
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS10-018 - Critical: Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (980182)

I am the same as you guys.
I DO doubt trustworthiness of "BeyondTrust".
But I don't doubt on facts they used for anlyses. (I mean core fact, which are Security Bulletins)

Hope, none was offended by my words

 

[ACR731]

I don't want or need Microsoft telling me how to use MY computer, or what I can access in their OS. I (and all Windows 7 users) paid a lot of money for the OS. Microsoft needs to shut up and let people use their computer the way they want to, and not how Microsoft wants us to.

 

[karlsnooks]

acr,
Amen! I run my computer wide-open, that is no user account restrictions. I run as administrator. I stay away from peer-to-peer networks and dubious websites. Between google and whois I can determine if a site is to be avoided. I do not go to sites recommended by others (including those that appear in this forum) without first checking to see if the site is reputable. I use Firefox with NoScript and also WOT (web of trust) add-ons. I use Microsoft Security Essentials and Windows Firewall (although the default configuration is weak in my opinion).

True, with GPEDIT.MSC I can turn-off some of the annoying -do you really want to do this?- nag screens from Microsoft but easiest is to turn the things off completely.

I want control of my computer and I don't want MS trying to put their ways onto my computer.

 

[Silverscreen]

ok, I see. None even bothered to read original report.

@Silverscreen, if you have read report. It says 100 % of Microsoft Office vulnerabilities reported in 2009 and published in security builitten...
Who says Microsoft hasn't caught it already? It only says that it could be prevented running as LUA.

Yes, I actually have read it, I know it said 100% of problems reported between 2009 and 2010, I still find it hard to believe when 100% is being thrown around in a situation like this, but its just an opinion.

 

[jav]

Yes, I actually have read it, I know it said 100% of problems reported between 2009 and 2010, I still find it hard to believe when 100% is being thrown around in a situation like this, but its just an opinion.

Sorry for being a bit aggressive on last post

I do understand what you mean. I never liked 100% things myself.

But in my opinions 100% of all malware and 100% of all reported and published malware are different things.
Second one is acceptable, thought one may still doubt.
First one, none can know it...

Anyway, we all have different opinions and so I respect yours.

 

[manhunter2826]

True to say (?) that most/much of the damage inflicted by viruses and malware is reliant on Admin-rights access to the OS. Indeed, should not one browse the Internet only as a standard user?

 

[Tepid]

And to all of you who say the following.......

I don't want or need Microsoft telling me how to use MY computer, or what I can access in their OS. I (and all Windows 7 users) paid a lot of money for the OS. Microsoft needs to shut up and let people use their computer the way they want to, and not how Microsoft wants us to.

Don;t complain about how Horrible Windows is when you run this way.
And don't expect any shop to charge you less than $100 to fix it WHEN, that's right WHEN it does break.

You make your decisions, you live with them.
You have been warned, you have been advised, You are on your own.

*****************8

Actually, this information doesn't surprise me. I'm a student majoring in computer engineering and actually this is actually a big reason why people who use Linux and Macs are safer. Not because Linux is just built to be more secure (at the kernel level, I think Windows 7 is just as secure as Linux since Windows implements DEP and ASLR), but because they emphasize not using the root account (Admin) as the default account. If you need a program to run in administrator level, Linux will ask you then to input the root password. UAC, as I see it, was suppose to be an easier alternative to Linux's way of inputting an admin password everytime; instead you answer yes or no to a question. Unfortunately, people find it more annoying to answer a Yes/No question than typing your password everytime.

You see, when a program runs in an administrative level, it can do more damage. Linux prevents this by encouraging the use of a lower level account and having the user to input the root password when only necessary. In contrast to Windows, most people use the Admin account as their default account. Hopefully, UAC would notify the user if he/she would like to run a program, but most of the time just mindlessly click Yes not checking if the program is safe.

This has been advised since day one that NT/2000/XP have been released.
DON'T RUN AS ADMIN. But they dropped the ball when they setup Windows out of the Box as an Admin to make it easier to setup, people nver took real control of their PC's. They assumed they should run as Admin and it was never changed. Now they are trying to change it to cut down the infection prone system, and people still complain.

Get use to it, or stop using Windows.

 

[CarlTR6]

Windows 7 administrator account is not as wide open as it was in XP. I guess that is a good thing security wise, though annoying at times. I, stay away from peer to peer sites and never click on an unknown (to me) link without checking it first.

 

[Tepid]

Well,, the biggest thing that MS are trying to do, is make it easier to be protected, at least more than they were (something a lot of people complain about with XP, "It's not secure, WhAAAaaa").

Now, it's the opposite, "Don't tell me what to do" mentality. People, You can't have it both ways.