Aug, 2013

That is a level of implementation that I’m not concerned with. Microsoft could easily have implemented their own more secure version without harassing you indefinitely with their stupid “are you really sure you want to do that? i mean really sure. come on. are you positive? have you really thought this through? do you really, really, really want to create your own directory in c:\program files? and then do you really want to name it something in particular?”

The only security i really want from those things is to make the user think twice about what they are doing, not stop some sort of malware from infecting the system. also, it stops other people from installing (which is what always breaks my parents’ and brother’s computers when my young cousins want to install their stupid software).

MS was in a tough spot. They have all those programs out there needing administrative access because of all the hacks required to get windows apps to run across versions over the last couple decades… and yet they were under mucho pressure to improve security. So they just decided to inconvenience the user with admin access warnings until all the software providers updated their software. Its not just about security, its about “This program hasn’t been updated to our new way of doing things, doesn’t this PISS YOU OFF?” Its advertising for updates from vendors.

Maybe they should add a disclaimer to the confirmation window that says “…if you are seeing this message very often, please contact the software vendor to request that they update their software.” That would take the heat off Microsoft in an instant.

It’s a level of implementation you should be concerned with, because something that asks the user to confirm they are in control of the machine doesn’t do any good if a machine process can trick the OS into thinking the user is in control when he’s not.

Yes, I agree that Microsoft applied UAC to things that don’t need it; something is wrong with the rule system they cooked up to determine which settings need UAC and which don’t. I made that point a couple of times myself. But it’s all pointless if it isn’t actually secure.

More time consuming? i used OSX for a while, enough not to be a noob, but not enough to be the best, and i had no issues at all with their UAC. i had vista for less than a week and i was about to smash my brand new laptop because of Microsoft’s incredibly intrusive and utterly horrendous implementation. so, you are completely bass ackwards on that one.

Vista’s UAC is not going to stop viruses and malware. This is Windows. Every door they close leaves 4 other windows (pun not intended) open for malware programmers to sneak their code though.

All UAC is going to do is help keep machines running a little better by A) making someone think twice before they make that change and B) by preventing those without access from installing software or making changes that they shouldn’t be making. So, once you acknowledge that you recognize the changes you are going to make are possibly dangerous, it should leave you alone. But, because it doesn’t, so many people shut off their UAC and break the biggest new security enhancements that their bad programmers came up with.