Proof that UAC is useless.....

Yes, this is absolutely correct, and a design (or rather, setup) decision that Microsoft can rightly be criticized for. It is clear why they chose to do this: Because otherwise they'd be immediately swamped with phone calls from angry incompetents, complaining about how their new Windows OS "doesn't work", when in reality the fault lied, and still lies, with idiot developers still developing applications as if they were running on a DOS box. I can understand why they did what they did, therefore, but I still think they should have put their foot down and told developers to start coding their applications so that they can be used on a secure OS.

 

All I am saying is that there is no fundamental difference between Windows and Unix systems in that respect. Remember, many unices used to have the popular "sudo"...

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but switching user contexts always requires a password. Anything else is a bug, and has nothing to do with the design of Windows, or IE, for that matter.

Emphasis is on "available" in the above. By default, standard Unices do not have such restrictions enforced. You can implement the same kinds of things in Windows, too.

Yes, no doubt. Nevertheless, the average competence of Unix users is far higher than the one of Windows users. One of Microsoft's problems was how to deal with this demographic. I am not saying that they always made the right choices there, but it is something to keep in mind.

 

Gee, all that sort of sounds like... wait for it... Vista and UAC. ...big ol' grin...

Gary

 

As I said or posted, I said those statement not for misleading or something similar and it is for myself only. Personal, OK?
Hell yeah! I don't use UAC. I have ZERO problem until now. Wait until I have encounter the problem then you can LOL me heavily. But it's not happening forever.
I don't like challege PRO people.
-No Offense Again-

 

Then keep it to yourself. The very fact that you chose to post such nonsense in a public forum can and will, if left unchallenged, mislead others into thinking they can be perfectly safe with UAC. If you wanted to keep it personal and didn't want comment on it, then don't post it at all.

Gary

 

Hello? I said I keep it for myself from the beginning.
I said it is PERSONAL for me only and I didn't tell anyone to follow me as well.
Since when I said FOLLOW ME and DISABLE UAC? I didn't say it.
I just want to share my personal experiences, isn't that normal?
In addition, is this the 1st time you see an user disable UAC? LOL.

Actually, based on many research, I find a lot of UAC haters and UAC fanboys too. UAC hater(included me) always think UAC is useless and disable it. Yet, I am not thinking it is useless as mentioned earlier in this topic. However, I like to disable it. User Preferences, MS did give us choice on DISABLE/ENABLE UAC. I don't find it is illegal even it is dangerous(I didn't encounter any problem without it for such a long time with a few machines).
As for UAC fanboys, some of them are aggresive when respond to UAC disabled users. I just realise this. XD

-No offence-

 

While in this case I agree with your opinion on the subject, he has an equal right to express his opinion.

 

Well, thanks for supporting me for this "express my opinion". Some people are thinking I am trying to act stupid and mislead everyone in this world for disabling UAC. What a pain.
+REP!

 

I think that you're trying to stay civil and doing a good job.
I think Gary is pretty much always civil on NBR.
It does seem that there might just be a little bit of a language barrier issue here perhaps.

 

The problem is DarkSilver that disabling UAC is generally nonsense.
There was one special case davepermen told me about - a Media Center/Server and some recording software where UAC was a problem.
(But this was one specific isolated case - Media Centre/Servers should have UAC enabled!)

On any "normal" computer UAC should be enabled.

And if software does cause problems - you can actually manually, on a case by case basis disable UAC for that program only.
(See davepermen's sig for details - it should be in there)

Also:
UAC has nothing to do with anti virus software, add blocker etc. and nothing to do with Windows Defender either.

Its a security measure in its own - protecting the system.

People who support UAC do this because they found out/were told what it really does and how it works.

It not only warns you if system files are changed, but also virtualizes certain files - I think Gary (ScuderiaConchiglia) is one of the people who will be able to tell you more about that.

The seatbelt comparison by the way is a very good example.

And this may be important to people doing internet banking:
UK banks introduced it and then withdrew it following protest.
They added a clause to their terms and conditions stating that the bank/their insurance would not cover any damage done to your acount if your computer was insufficiently protected - diasbling UAC would be a case of reduced protection.
I'm not sure if any bank uses this clause at the moment - people would need to check their terms and conditions.

 

Deveperman did tell me about this. Don't worry. LOL.
I just disable on my machines. >.< It has nothing to do with the other machines out there.
I know it is important OK? LOL.
I know it is just like you're inside a car, driving, you got your safety belt basically. UAC is just like Air Bags for extra protection. In short, another layer of protection.
Now, you have seen I know all about it. I know those annoying messages can be disable manually per program as well.
The problem is the user itself(me), don't like. LOL. User preference. XD
Just like some people didn't do defragment or maintenance at all.
I am dead know UAC is important, I didn't say it is useless. OK?

I am wondering why I already repeat this so many times, still, telling me the same thing about UAC. Lastly, it is only my opinion and my choice to disable UAC. If my machines spoiled because of UAC disabled, I will take it as a lesson and enable UAC but it is not, I won't do it. Moreover, I always format my laptop, I don't actually care about it.

 

Yes, he certainly does. But when he makes the following claim:

and then tries to indicate it was personal and not misleading, I challenged it. It was not just misleading, it was wrong. And it was not personal. It was "you" not "I" or "me". But I can understand the misuse of the pronoun. However without clarification that misused pronoun can lead someone down the wrong path. So I clarified it.

I only suggested that he should not have made the statement in the first place AFTER he took umbrage with the fact that I commented on/clarified it. I stand by that, if he didn't want comment, then don't post it. Attempting to quash comments by making some incorrect statement and then adding a disclaimer that it is "personal" is a nice try at prior censorship. I never suggested he didn't have the right to his opinion. I only suggested that he had no right to attempt to keep others from expressing theirs.

Gary

 

Oh noes, I don't use UAC, i'm doomed to suffer the wrath of hackers and viruses and malware for all eternity!!!

On a more serious note, how would you disable uac for specific programs?, and plz don't say its that one norton program.

 

Welcome on joining my gang. LOL. + Rep for you too.
I wonder why have people challenge me? Language problem perhaps(maybe I should say sorry 1st).
Ok. Now, isn't this post said that,

I already told about it since the start that it is personal for myself only. So, please open your eyes and double check.
In addition, I think I am not TRYING to indicate it is personal. Instead, I INDICATED it is personal WITHOUT TRY.

About,

This 1 sounds like I am misleading, but, again it is for myself only since it followed by the "-NO OFFENSE- Do not QUOTE the sentenses above, they are not mean to insult or mislead the other. I am a noob who want UAC turned off, that's all, it is personal.".
Moreover, I did not have problem without UAC with all my security tools. So, I did survive and again, if I failed you can LOL me. Yet, it ain't gonna happen.

 

ASKing you about everything is not called security , really UAC sucks , it asks you about everything and can't realy do anything by its self except just blocking

 

No, UAC is important.
If you used Linux you realise they have the same thing except hardwired into the core for ages.
Sudo is the equivalent concept of UAC except Microsoft should have added it long ago so people wouldn't be complaining now.
However there is a problem with UAC, due to permission settings in Vista UAC is too strict.

 

Search for davepermen here on NBR - he used to have instructions in his signature.

If it aks you about everything then something is wrong with your computer.

It only asks me about - hmm - CCleaner, Defragmentation, Disccleaner and the System tools - all of which in the end affect system files not user files.

Not programs that you should be using every day anyway.

No other program so far has brought up a UAC prompt (apart from installation).

 

UAC is not too strict.
People are just used to being able to do to their computers what they want without getting a warning or response...

And you are right - Linux uses the sae idea with the root password.
Its just that most "normal" people don't know it (and don't use Linux either)

 

Honestly, if I don't have it, are you sure my System is going to be infected very soon?
We have used XP for years and we don't have UAC on it. Yet, survived.
I know you have great manner, please don't scold me or anything on this question. Thanks.

 

No, but are you SURE you won't. Look, just because I could get on a high wire and successfully walk from one end to the other without a net, does that mean I am safe? No, it means I was lucky. It does not mean I am safe. The same applies here. Yes, we all ran XP as admin's with everything we did having full access to the machine. And most of us were lucky that nothing went wrong. But we weren't safe, we were lucky. So now Microsoft rightly enables, by default, the same sort of safety measure that has been in Unix and its derivatives for years, and was available with effort for windows since NT, to help us be safe. It's possible to turn it off. But when you do so you won't be safe. And it is wrong to tell others you will, or even "you can survive without UAC" implying it is safe.

You asked.

Gary

 

That's just personal opinion, OK? I have it disabled is my own choice and MS let me do it too. It is not against the rules or illegal.
I know the concept of UAC and how it protect the System. But I don't want it ^^! Just like driving a Car, some people fasten the seat belt, however, some people do not. It is unsafe without seat belt but is their own choice. If accident happen, they can't blame anyone. Just like me, I didn't turn-on UAC, if something stupid happen, I will just LOL and OK because is my own choice, who to blame?

 

Gary pretty much hit the nail on the head on that.
(Couldn't post earlier due to Wi-Fi trouble at the sation )

Well on UAC:
You can have UAC disabled and not get a virusfor years, you can have UAC enabled and catch one within days.
But it really is recommended to leave it on.
Also - it should only pop up if you or a program attempts to modify the system - ths does not include user files.
If it pops up more often then that means something is wrong.

On the seatbelt idea:
If you don't wear a seatbelt you can become a projectile and injure/kill others.
E.g. the driver if you sit in the seat behind him.
I'm pretty sure the front passenger can easily leav a car thtough the windscreen too... the drivermaybe not so easily - anyboby got information on that?
In these cases the seatbelt not only protects you, it protects others too.

And on computers its the same.
If you diable UAC you disable a defense - if you legally share files with friends via a USB drive for example - you could pass on malware by accident.
If that malware doesn't do anything to system files UAC won't notice it - but if it does, it warns you before it can contaminate your system.

 

I agreed with you.
Because I know if something goes wrong, UAC will keep prompt us.
However, currently I don't have time to tweak around my UAC using deveperman guide. In addition, I find my System survived without it for 1 year++. So, I didn't deep into UAC and have it disabled.

 

You know I'm a UAC convert too
(originally disabled it - until Dav told me what it really does)
And now find that it really doesn't bother me at all.

Maybe you could say which programmes exactly cused problems?

On the oter note - Gary aluded to it - turning UAC on now can lead to problems
(Doesn't have to)

On that note, I suggest you make it your resolution to switch UAC on the next time you do a clean instal/recovery on your laptop.

 

Probably, because I do a not complete OS installation. Due to I didn't delete the partition and recreate it again(I do a quick format only). I got some problem on my OS. I think I will delete all partitions and then recreate them again, only install the OS. Glad that you're not as extreme as Gary. LOL.

 

Well - a quick format shouldn't cause problems...

Not using UAC on a partition/external HDD and then turning it on can lead to UAC prompts on that partition/HDD for non-system files.

And speaking about extremes - Gary knows more than I do - and I think sometimes it just get's tireing to argue about the same all the time.


Word in itallics edited - orginal word was "should" which is wrong. Sorry about any confusion.

 

tl;dr all of the posts. But I guess we all agree that UAC is not useless as in the title thread, but it is pretty much about personal preference of using it or not.

cheers ...

 

No UAC isnt useless, BUT for some users its quite annoying [(since not all of us just surf web pages and play solitaire) insert silly comment here] so we get more UAC warnings than the "average" user, which in most cases is rather annoying.

Second, people keep talking about safety belts and bla bla, dont forget that, as some already mentioned, UAC is a security feature on its own. Dont forget we already have like five (!) when we get a computer, (windows firewall, windows defender, and in most cases, mine at least a suite program with an antivirus, anti-malware and so on), so no we are not exactly talking about a safety belt here we are talking about getting in a car and start buckling up with 10 belts.

On a side note, the days that we were disabling UAC to get the silly popups to stop are over since there are tweaks in Vista that still let you keep some benefits of UAC (like executing programs as non admin), same tweak that they pretty much implement on windows 7 by turning UAC to the lowest option if im not mistaken.

So to recap, UAC is not useless, yes 5 security programs/features make the computer "less" safe than 6 (does this means we have to install 1000 security programs to feel safe ?), some users are a bit more annoyed from those popups than others depending on usage.

 

I think the only thing this thread is "proof" of is that threads about UAC being useless are useless.

People who don't know how to turn it off or those who actually understand UAC will leave it on; people who think they know something about computers will turn it off.

And there is not a darn thing anyone can do to change this. It's like a MAC vs PC thread

 

No, we didn't; that is, not all of us did. I have been running all of my day-to-day work as a limited user since the days of Windows 2000. And guess what: This has worked just fine for many years now. With the exception of a few crappy applications (Intuit software such as Quicken come to mind), most reputable software has worked just fine. If I encountered software that did not work, I just got rid of it, and replaced it with software that worked. I have been doing perfectly fine this way, for more than eight years now, on a number of computers, including our family computer that's used by my wife and kids. As an added bonus, in all those years I haven't used a single piece of anti-virus, third-party-firewall, or any other anti-this-or-that software. Like I said, without a single incident.

Let me emphasize that I do not necessarily recommend this approach to the general public, but my experience certainly shows what is possible.

 

Agreed. Especially to those people(included me) who like to tweak around the OS or experiment something such as Drivers Installation and Benchmarking stuffs.
Actually, and really, UAC is important but with all the other security tools(firewall, windows defender, premium AV/IS, anti-malware/spyware, blockers), you can survive basically. Unless, there is something BIG which need the power of UAC to stop it. Some may be disagree with this I think but this is my very own opinion on this UAC disabling topic.

Now, I need a External HD(don't have it LOL). ZZZZZ. Gonna delete all the partitions and install the OS again. After that, only try out UAC disable per program stuffs.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. I have no problem at all with this comment. It is the first one you have made which acknowledges the danger, rather than implying that the danger doesn't exist. Please understand that my ONLY intent in any of this was to try to clarify when folks imply that there is no danger and that someone can be safe without UAC. If your reply above had been your first in this thread I would have never said a word, because it tells the whole story to a newbie who stumbles across it.

We're good, now. Thanks for making your position more clear. Sorry it had to be so painful for us to get here.

Gary

 

Hey wait a second, I am not extreme, just passionate. ...big ol' grin...

The quick format would not be the source of any problem. I would not worry about that at all.

The issue that DetlevCM was talking about with turning UAC on or off after you use the machine for a while has to do with the virtualization of portions of the file system and registry. In addition to the protections you saw with UAC, it also creates virtual paths to the program files directories. This prevents any application from directly writing to the program files directory. UAC redirects all such attempts to a separate directory that is created for each user. One big benefit of this (as well as protecting the program files from viruses attempting to overwrite files and installing them selves in out of the way places) is that this allows each user of the computer to have their own files that store settings and "in process" games. If you share a machine with other folks, each of you can play the same game that was not designed to keep saved games for different users to be able to do so. UAC does the same sort of thing for portions of the registry.

And therein lies the issue. If you use UAC for a while and save a game or save some program settings and then turn off UAC, the virtual directories are no longer reachable by the program. (They are still there, the program just can't see 'em.) Likewise if you have it off for a while and then turn it on, the settings and saved games will "disappear" to the program.

This can easily be overcome by going to the old location and copying the files to the new one. But man can it scare the life out of someone when they go "where is my saved game I have been playing for weeks!".

See no extremes.

Gary

 

Why should a quick format cause any issue? It wipes out the allocation tables, it just doesn't wipe out the rest of the drive. It should not make any difference at all.

Not sure I understand about the turning on UAC after a period of time leading to prompts on non-system files. What are you referring to there?

Gary

 

Yikes... I may have missed out a "n't" - let me correct that, but keep the quote...

How did that happen...

Of course it shouln't cause any problems.

Thanks

 

Actually I did the same, I had two logins on my machine, one with full admin used ONLY when applying updates or other maintenance stuff, and also to facilitate the "run as" option for those troublesome apps like Quicken.

I realized I was generalizing when I made the "all" comment, and totally expected you to call me out on it. ...big ol' grin...

Gary

 

Gary, you've just posted the ultimate remedy.

'Disabling UAC can destroy ALL your saved games'.

BAM! And UAC will be used again....

And for the rest, this poor old dead horse has been beaten so many times, it's not funny anymore.

 

Man, I have to learn to put down the Coca Cola can before I read a post here. I almost spewed diet Coke on the screen from laughing.

Gary

 

Disabling UAC can destroy saved games? LOL?
I don't think so.

Gary, thanks. You finally understand me.
+REP for you!

 

It won't destroy them but it WILL hide them. If the game writes the saved game file to the game's program file directory (many do) it will NOT go there when UAC is turned on. UAC will automatically redirect the IO to a per user set of program file directories. This will be totally invisible to the game.

If you then turn off UAC, the game will go directly to the game's program files directory and it will not be able to find the saved game. (The original saved game file still exists, the game just won't be able to find it.)

Here is more info about the virtualization:

http://www.vistax64.com/vista-accou...ccount-control-data-program-files-folder.html
http://www.dcr.net/~w-clayton/Vista/UAC/UAC_app_compat_and_virtualization.htm
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Protecting-System-Files-UAC-Virtualization-Part1.html


Gary

P.S. I understood you all along, I just wanted you to make it clear to others who stumble on to this conversation that you understood there was a risk without UAC and you were willing to live with that risk. I am glad you were willing to do that. Many others take the position that there is NO risk.

 

My, my....

The UAC debate is back with a vengeance.

 

Nah, the vengeance is all over now. We are sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" eating s'mores.

Gary

 

I don't use UAC, a firewall or an anti virus of any kind.

I have never gotten a virus. Maybe I'm just lucky though. =x

 

How would you possibly know? Without any of those in place, for all you know you might very well have a root kit involved and your machine may be one of the thousands of zombie participants in a Eastern European botnet.

Gary

 

You are just lucky. But what Gary said is correct - you don't really have much way of knowing now, do you?

 

I doubt I have a virus since I've had my computer for a week and all I've been doing is playing offline games and browsing this site once in a while.

 

Reduces the chance, but doesn't make it impossible.

For all you know, someone may have hacked into NBR and exchanged a genuine add with a malicious one...

(Just as an example)

 

I thought most people use ad-blockers?

 

FF users may.

I use a Kaspersky Add blocker.

You can theoretically also post malicious code.

The key thing is:
No internet site is safe.
Any site can be hacked and afterards contain malicious code.
Or "bad sites" can be set up to deliver malicious code.

Of course visiting trustworthy sites helps staying secure and malware free, but its no guarantee.

 

nothing in life is guaranteed so there's no point in worrying about it.