I turned off UAC

DanS · Feb 16, 2009

Justin <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote in
news:upSuRh9jJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

(Top-posted for brevity.....)

Don't you just love it how some people, when they hear you don't like
something, it's because you don't understand it or how to use it or too
stupid to understand it.

How come, I know what it does, I know how it works, I don't like it is
never good enough for some people. (rhetorical)


> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>> Justin wrote:
>>> Kayman wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:03:01 -0500, Justin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For various reasons I turned off UAC.
>>>>> Is there a way I can prevent that bubble in the lower right from
>>>>> warning me constantly?
>>>>
>>>> Five Misunderstood Features in Windows Vista
>>>> Ã‚Â¡E User Account Control
>>>> Ã‚Â¡E Image management
>>>> Ã‚Â¡E Display Driver Model
>>>> Ã‚Â¡E Search
>>>> Ã‚Â¡E 64 bit architecture
>>>>
>>>> 61-49b1-87ce-6d4a39e83747&DisplayLang=en
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The User Access Control (UAC) can detect rootkits before they
>>>> install. AV-Test.org carried on a test of common AV applications to
>>>> find out how good they detected rootkits. The examiner had to turn
>>>> off UAC because it detected every rootkit used in the test.
>>>>
>>>> Avoiding Rootkit Infection.
>>>> "The rules to avoid rootkit infection are for the most part the
>>>> same as avoiding any malware infection however there are some
>>>> special considerations:
>>>> Because rootkits meddle with the operating system itself they
>>>> *require* full Administrator rights to install. Hence infection can
>>>> be avoided by running Windows from an account with *lesser*
>>>> privileges" (LUA in XP and UAC in Vista).
>>>>
>>>> You should understand the reason why UAC is there. You should read
>>>> about the two access tokens for user/admin on Vista, and yes, if
>>>> UAC is disabled,
>>>> then Run As Administrator is disabled too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, listen to the experts and be guided accordingly!
>>>>
>>>> Good luck
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand why UAC is there.
>>> I also understand that it interferes with Firefox/Thunderbird's
>>> update and the Java updater as well.
>>
>> Interferes as far as what? I have Thunderbird and Java in use, and I
>> see no interference with UAC enabled, other than you have to approve
>> the update.
>
> As in when it tried to update, the UAC prompt comes up; I allow it and
> it still doesn't update.
>
> 
>>
>> Do you really know what UAC is about? It's about not allowing a
>> user-admin to run on the Internet or do anything else as a
>> full-rights admin like on XP.
>
> I know that.
>
> 
>>
>> The admin-user is only a user with Standard user rights, that must be
>> escalated to admin rights, the escalation to full-admin rights only
>> last for the moment of escalation to do the task, and then the admin
>> user is returned to being a Standard user again with Standard user
>> rights only, not admin rights.
>
> I know that too.
> 
>>
>> Unlike XP that has no UAC, Vista doesn't allow a virus or malware the
>> ability to have full rein on the computer once it has compromised the
>> machine like on XP with a full-rights admin user using the machine.
>>
>> Malware or a virus can only run under the context of the user account
>> that is using the computer. If admin user on Vista is only a Standard
>> user with Standard user rights in reality that must be escalated to
>> full admin rights, then that mitigates the damage that can occur
>> because the virus or malware is not running with full admin rights
>> with the user that's using an admin account on Vista.
>
> I know that too.
> 
>>
>> Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>> users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.
>>
>>

DanS · Feb 16, 2009

"xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote in
news:OsuDngDkJHA.4276@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

The bottom line is that there are millions of users out there and no
> one including yourself can possibly know each and every one's
> knowledge and skill level. There are many ignorant computer users,
> but even more with more than adequate knowledge and skill sets.

Are you friggin' kidding me ?!?!?!

More with adequate knowledge and skill sets than unskilled, computer-
illiterate ?

That is completely backwards. Of the typical home PC user, 80% are
dangerously computer illiterate, 15% are adequate, and 5% are fairly highly
skilled and knowledgable.

Jack the Ripper · Feb 16, 2009

Justin wrote:
> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>> I understand why UAC is there.
>>> I also understand that it interferes with Firefox/Thunderbird's
>>> update and the Java updater as well.
>>
>> Interferes as far as what? I have Thunderbird and Java in use, and I
>> see no interference with UAC enabled, other than you have to approve
>> the update.
>
> As in when it tried to update, the UAC prompt comes up; I allow it and
> it still doesn't update.

And some how, you think this is a UAC problem? When on the same token, I
do it and I have no problem?

Jack the Ripper · Feb 16, 2009

DanS wrote:
> Justin <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote in
> news:upSuRh9jJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>
> (Top-posted for brevity.....)
>
> Don't you just love it how some people, when they hear you don't like
> something, it's because you don't understand it or how to use it or too
> stupid to understand it.

Which is usually the case.
>
> How come, I know what it does, I know how it works, I don't like it is
> never good enough for some people. (rhetorical)

This is your pov, which is not good enough.

paliometoxo · Feb 16, 2009

well for those who only read email and visit a few websites how much
skill do you really need to do that?

--
paliometoxo

Jack the Ripper · Feb 16, 2009

paliometoxo wrote:
> well for those who only read email and visit a few websites how much
> skill do you really need to do that?
>
> 

Are you taking to yourself? How much trouble would it be for you to
learn how to reply post.

Jim Moriarty · Feb 16, 2009

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:27:46 -0600, paliometoxo
<guest@unknown-email.com> wrote:

>
>well for those who only read email and visit a few websites how much
>skill do you really need to do that?

That's where all the virus and malware infestations come from you
boob.

DanS · Feb 16, 2009

Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in news:ejlXzxHkJHA.4028
@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> DanS wrote:
>> Justin <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote in
>> news:upSuRh9jJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>>
>> (Top-posted for brevity.....)
>>
>> Don't you just love it how some people, when they hear you don't like
>> something, it's because you don't understand it or how to use it or too
>> stupid to understand it.
>
> Which is usually the case.
>>
>> How come, I know what it does, I know how it works, I don't like it is
>> never good enough for some people. (rhetorical)
>
> This is your pov, which is not good enough.

Not good enough for ???????

Gene E. Bloch · Feb 16, 2009

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:17:43 +0200, Thegrackfire wrote:

> Not Even Me wrote:
>> "Kayman" <kayhkay-nospam-@operamail.com> wrote in message
>> news:tkyvtjw916zj.1t5r5ei02wrl4.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> Now, listen to the experts and be guided accordingly!
>>> Good luck 
>>
>> Most users with a brain don't like the constant nagging of UAC.
>> As good as the idea may be, the implementation is so poor as to render it
>> useless.
>>
>> 
>
> no one seems to have mentioned
>
> TweakUACâ„¢ is a free software tool that you can use to quickly turn UAC
> (User Account Control of Windows Vista) on or off, or to make UAC
> operate in the quiet mode. This software is FREE, no strings attached.

OK, then, I'll mention it

However, in quiet mode, TweakUAC still makes Windows bring up the annoying
shield that the OP wanted to get rid of.

I decided not to follow your advice about turning that off, though, in case
some significant message would eventually be suppressed. Just paranoia, I
guess.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

Justin · Feb 16, 2009

Jack the Ripper wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>>>>> users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.
>>>>
>>>> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
>>>> implementation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's the posts of the ignorant. I would rather have it enabled so
>>> that I am not on the Internet with full admin rights, like the
>>> previous versions of the NT based O/S(s,) which are open by default
>>> O/S(s) and wide-open to attack/compromise by default.
>>>
>>> Is that so hard for you or anyone else to understand?
>>
>>
>> As long as you're not logged on as admin you should be fine. At most
>> I keep users at Power User rights.
>> While I understand running as admin is unsafe, simply having the
>> account enabled is not a security risk.
>
> I am going to try to explain this again. The out of the box admin
> account on Vista that is given to a user or any subsequent admin account
> that is created on Vista with UAC enabled is NOT a full-rights-admin
> account. It's only a Standard user account, which must be escalated to a
> use the full-adminrights token to do anything requiring
> admin-full-rights as an administrator.

I get it.
I don't need any escalation to admin. The problem is, what if there's
some malware. Some malware named "winenhancer." The user sees the UAC
prompt "Winenhancer must access the internet!" and the user clicks on yes.
So UAC only works when the user knows everything about the PC, which is
unrealistic for a standard dumb user whose job is to type out proposals
and reports.

Jack the Ripper · Feb 16, 2009

Justin wrote:
> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>> Justin wrote:
>>> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by
>>>>>> Vista users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's the posts of the ignorant. I would rather have it enabled so
>>>> that I am not on the Internet with full admin rights, like the
>>>> previous versions of the NT based O/S(s,) which are open by default
>>>> O/S(s) and wide-open to attack/compromise by default.
>>>>
>>>> Is that so hard for you or anyone else to understand?
>>>
>>>
>>> As long as you're not logged on as admin you should be fine. At most
>>> I keep users at Power User rights.
>>> While I understand running as admin is unsafe, simply having the
>>> account enabled is not a security risk.
>>
>> I am going to try to explain this again. The out of the box admin
>> account on Vista that is given to a user or any subsequent admin
>> account that is created on Vista with UAC enabled is NOT a
>> full-rights-admin account. It's only a Standard user account, which
>> must be escalated to a use the full-adminrights token to do anything
>> requiring admin-full-rights as an administrator.
>
>
> I get it.
> I don't need any escalation to admin. The problem is, what if there's
> some malware. Some malware named "winenhancer." The user sees the UAC
> prompt "Winenhancer must access the internet!" and the user clicks on yes.
> So UAC only works when the user knows everything about the PC, which is
> unrealistic for a standard dumb user whose job is to type out proposals
> and reports.

Oh, I get it. It's not the responsibility of the dumb user to know what
he or she is dumbly clicking on as they point and click. It's their
responsibly to know the situation, but they don't and most never will.

However, network admins take that responsibly for this type of worker
by using a network proxy that only allows the users to go to approved
sites closing the attack vector and mitigating such damage, as its their
responsibility to protect company's interest and not some office clerk,
lock them down.

Just like with Linux which has the same kind of an approval process
within its O/S, they point, click, approve and it's all bets are off.
But with UAC enabled when one does this, the damages are mitigated to a
certain degree as UAC protects critical areas and also not allowing the
malware to continuously run under the context of the user-admin
full-rights access token, to spread damage.

But rather with UAC enabled, the compromise runs under the context of
the admin's Standard user token, because admin user on Vista is returned
to using that token upon privileged escalation completion, and it's a
limit rights token, which mitigates/limits damage.

Like I said, nothing is bulletproof not even god's O/S Linux, but UAC on
the MS platform is better than have nothing at all, which is the case in
fact with the previous versions of the NT based O/S platform, open by
default O/S(s), to help protect the O/S.

Jack the Ripper · Feb 16, 2009

DanS wrote:
> Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in news:ejlXzxHkJHA.4028
> @TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
> 
>> DanS wrote:
>>> Justin <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote in
>>> news:upSuRh9jJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>>>
>>> (Top-posted for brevity.....)
>>>
>>> Don't you just love it how some people, when they hear you don't like
>>> something, it's because you don't understand it or how to use it or too
>>> stupid to understand it.
>> Which is usually the case.
>>> How come, I know what it does, I know how it works, I don't like it is
>>> never good enough for some people. (rhetorical)
>> This is your pov, which is not good enough.
>
> Not good enough for ???????

You are boring.

Not Even Me · Feb 17, 2009

I run scans weekly and don't find myself infected.
Malwarebytes, Spybot Search & Destroy, Spyware Doctor, Superantispyware, and
rootkit unhooker all report no infections.
Even Trend Micro's RUBotted shows clean.
I repair computers and I have seen machines with hundreds of spyware
programs, virus, root kits, bots, you name it.
But I clean them all up or format/reinstall as necessary.
It's amazing what you can find on a machine (and successfully remove) when
you boot from a CD and scan without allowing the OS to be active.

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
news:uvizVRCkJHA.5732@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Not Even Me wrote:
>> I understand how and why, I just don't like the constant nagging.
>> If I wanted a Nanny, I would have hired one, not had one snuck in the
>> back door with a new OS.
>> Turning it off completely mucks up some other things, so I shut down as
>> many of the nags as possible.
>> The problem is, with the constant nagging, you become accustomed to just
>> clicking through to get the retarded thing off the screen.
>> I don't really care what happens as long as I don't have to see that
>> stupid prompt ever again!
>> That is just one of many reasons Vista will never be on my LAN.
>> BTW: I enabled the hidden admin account in Vista and use it every day.
>> I haven't been infected yet.
>> But I've only used it since early Beta...
>
> Or you don't know that you have been infected nor do you know how to go
> look from time to time to see if the machine has been compromised as the
> compromise sits there right in your face or it hides itself.
>
> What? I don't get many UAC prompts to even be concerned about it. And if I
> do get a unexpected prompt, then I will know that something dubious might
> be happening.

Not Even Me · Feb 17, 2009

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
news:ejlXzxHkJHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> DanS wrote:
>> Justin <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote in
>> news:upSuRh9jJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl: (Top-posted for brevity.....)
>>
>> Don't you just love it how some people, when they hear you don't like
>> something, it's because you don't understand it or how to use it or too
>> stupid to understand it.
>
> Which is usually the case.
>>
>> How come, I know what it does, I know how it works, I don't like it is
>> never good enough for some people. (rhetorical)
>
> This is your pov, which is not good enough.

And just what makes your POV superior or more important?

Not Even Me · Feb 17, 2009

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
news:eUh6F1LkJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Justin wrote:
>> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>> Justin wrote:
>>>> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>>>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper
>>>>>> <Jack@Rripper.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>>>>>>> users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
>>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the posts of the ignorant. I would rather have it enabled so that
>>>>> I am not on the Internet with full admin rights, like the previous
>>>>> versions of the NT based O/S(s,) which are open by default O/S(s) and
>>>>> wide-open to attack/compromise by default.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that so hard for you or anyone else to understand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As long as you're not logged on as admin you should be fine. At most I
>>>> keep users at Power User rights.
>>>> While I understand running as admin is unsafe, simply having the
>>>> account enabled is not a security risk.
>>>
>>> I am going to try to explain this again. The out of the box admin
>>> account on Vista that is given to a user or any subsequent admin account
>>> that is created on Vista with UAC enabled is NOT a full-rights-admin
>>> account. It's only a Standard user account, which must be escalated to a
>>> use the full-adminrights token to do anything requiring
>>> admin-full-rights as an administrator.
>>
>>
>> I get it.
>> I don't need any escalation to admin. The problem is, what if there's
>> some malware. Some malware named "winenhancer." The user sees the UAC
>> prompt "Winenhancer must access the internet!" and the user clicks on
>> yes.
>> So UAC only works when the user knows everything about the PC, which is
>> unrealistic for a standard dumb user whose job is to type out proposals
>> and reports.
>
> Oh, I get it. It's not the responsibility of the dumb user to know what he
> or she is dumbly clicking on as they point and click. It's their
> responsibly to know the situation, but they don't and most never will.
>
> However, network admins take that responsibly for this type of worker by
> using a network proxy that only allows the users to go to approved sites
> closing the attack vector and mitigating such damage, as its their
> responsibility to protect company's interest and not some office clerk,
> lock them down.
>
> Just like with Linux which has the same kind of an approval process within
> its O/S, they point, click, approve and it's all bets are off. But with
> UAC enabled when one does this, the damages are mitigated to a certain
> degree as UAC protects critical areas and also not allowing the malware to
> continuously run under the context of the user-admin full-rights access
> token, to spread damage.
>
> But rather with UAC enabled, the compromise runs under the context of the
> admin's Standard user token, because admin user on Vista is returned to
> using that token upon privileged escalation completion, and it's a limit
> rights token, which mitigates/limits damage.
>
> Like I said, nothing is bulletproof not even god's O/S Linux, but UAC on
> the MS platform is better than have nothing at all, which is the case in
> fact with the previous versions of the NT based O/S platform, open by
> default O/S(s), to help protect the O/S.

Real time scanning by (even free) third party programs provides (in many
cases) superior protection with less annoyance.
So why put something in the OS that just pisses many people off and is (by
MS admission) made irritating on purpose?

Saucy · Feb 17, 2009

"Not Even Me" <cargod01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uNylAgOkJHA.5732@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
> news:eUh6F1LkJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Justin wrote:
>>> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>>> Justin wrote:
>>>>> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>>>>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper
>>>>>>> <Jack@Rripper.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>>>>>>>> users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea,
>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the posts of the ignorant. I would rather have it enabled so
>>>>>> that I am not on the Internet with full admin rights, like the
>>>>>> previous versions of the NT based O/S(s,) which are open by default
>>>>>> O/S(s) and wide-open to attack/compromise by default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that so hard for you or anyone else to understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as you're not logged on as admin you should be fine. At most
>>>>> I keep users at Power User rights.
>>>>> While I understand running as admin is unsafe, simply having the
>>>>> account enabled is not a security risk.
>>>>
>>>> I am going to try to explain this again. The out of the box admin
>>>> account on Vista that is given to a user or any subsequent admin
>>>> account that is created on Vista with UAC enabled is NOT a
>>>> full-rights-admin account. It's only a Standard user account, which
>>>> must be escalated to a use the full-adminrights token to do anything
>>>> requiring admin-full-rights as an administrator.
>>>
>>>
>>> I get it.
>>> I don't need any escalation to admin. The problem is, what if there's
>>> some malware. Some malware named "winenhancer." The user sees the UAC
>>> prompt "Winenhancer must access the internet!" and the user clicks on
>>> yes.
>>> So UAC only works when the user knows everything about the PC, which is
>>> unrealistic for a standard dumb user whose job is to type out proposals
>>> and reports.
>>
>> Oh, I get it. It's not the responsibility of the dumb user to know what
>> he or she is dumbly clicking on as they point and click. It's their
>> responsibly to know the situation, but they don't and most never will.
>>
>> However, network admins take that responsibly for this type of worker by
>> using a network proxy that only allows the users to go to approved sites
>> closing the attack vector and mitigating such damage, as its their
>> responsibility to protect company's interest and not some office clerk,
>> lock them down.
>>
>> Just like with Linux which has the same kind of an approval process
>> within its O/S, they point, click, approve and it's all bets are off. But
>> with UAC enabled when one does this, the damages are mitigated to a
>> certain degree as UAC protects critical areas and also not allowing the
>> malware to continuously run under the context of the user-admin
>> full-rights access token, to spread damage.
>>
>> But rather with UAC enabled, the compromise runs under the context of
>> the admin's Standard user token, because admin user on Vista is returned
>> to using that token upon privileged escalation completion, and it's a
>> limit rights token, which mitigates/limits damage.
>>
>> Like I said, nothing is bulletproof not even god's O/S Linux, but UAC on
>> the MS platform is better than have nothing at all, which is the case in
>> fact with the previous versions of the NT based O/S platform, open by
>> default O/S(s), to help protect the O/S.
>
> Real time scanning by (even free) third party programs provides (in many
> cases) superior protection with less annoyance.
> So why put something in the OS that just pisses many people off and is (by
> MS admission) made irritating on purpose?
>

Didn't he just explain it to you? Re-read his post:

"But rather with UAC enabled, the compromise runs under the context of the
admin's Standard user token, because admin user on Vista is returned to
using that token upon privileged escalation completion, and it's a limit
rights token, which mitigates/limits damage."

Combining secutity features such as UAC and real time scanning makes systems
more difficult to compromise both directly and indirectly [say, by social
engineering].

Saucy

DanS · Feb 17, 2009

"Not Even Me" <cargod01@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:OeencdOkJHA.4448@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

>
> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
> news:ejlXzxHkJHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> DanS wrote:
>>> Justin <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote in
>>> news:upSuRh9jJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl: (Top-posted for
>>> brevity.....)
>>>
>>> Don't you just love it how some people, when they hear you don't
>>> like something, it's because you don't understand it or how to use
>>> it or too stupid to understand it.
>>
>> Which is usually the case.
>>>
>>> How come, I know what it does, I know how it works, I don't like it
>>> is never good enough for some people. (rhetorical)
>>
>> This is your pov, which is not good enough.
>
> And just what makes your POV superior or more important? 

It wasn't even a POV or opinon, but an observation.

Jack the Ripper · Feb 17, 2009

Not Even Me wrote:
> I run scans weekly and don't find myself infected.
> Malwarebytes, Spybot Search & Destroy, Spyware Doctor, Superantispyware, and
> rootkit unhooker all report no infections.
> Even Trend Micro's RUBotted shows clean.
> I repair computers and I have seen machines with hundreds of spyware
> programs, virus, root kits, bots, you name it.
> But I clean them all up or format/reinstall as necessary.
> It's amazing what you can find on a machine (and successfully remove) when
> you boot from a CD and scan without allowing the OS to be active.

I don't care if you run scans weekly are not as the compromise can fool
the detection software and hide itself, just like it can fool the O/S.
And what about zero day exploits where there is no detection signature
published for the detection solution at the time of the compromise?

You clean a machine that has hundreds of infections and compromises when
the only safe course of action is flatten the HD?

Jack the Ripper · Feb 17, 2009

Not Even Me wrote:
> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
> news:ejlXzxHkJHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> DanS wrote:
>>> Justin <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote in
>>> news:upSuRh9jJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl: (Top-posted for brevity.....)
>>>
>>> Don't you just love it how some people, when they hear you don't like
>>> something, it's because you don't understand it or how to use it or too
>>> stupid to understand it.
>> Which is usually the case.
>>> How come, I know what it does, I know how it works, I don't like it is
>>> never good enough for some people. (rhetorical)
>> This is your pov, which is not good enough.
>
> And just what makes your POV superior or more important?
>
> 

What makes you think that your pov is superior, important or the course
of actions you have posted about anything you have done here that you
have to me is significant and I should respect your pov?

What you have doing now and what you have done in the past as I have
encountered you is give me a lot of lip service.

Jack the Ripper · Feb 17, 2009

Not Even Me wrote:
> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message
> news:eUh6F1LkJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Justin wrote:
>>> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>>> Justin wrote:
>>>>> Jack the Ripper wrote:
>>>>>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:43:31 -0500, Jack the Ripper
>>>>>>> <Jack@Rripper.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing is bulletproof, but one doesn't see a lot of posts by Vista
>>>>>>>> users about virus or malware issues, not like you see on XP.
>>>>>>> No, but you do see a lot of posts about how UAC sucks. Good idea, bad
>>>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the posts of the ignorant. I would rather have it enabled so that
>>>>>> I am not on the Internet with full admin rights, like the previous
>>>>>> versions of the NT based O/S(s,) which are open by default O/S(s) and
>>>>>> wide-open to attack/compromise by default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that so hard for you or anyone else to understand?
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as you're not logged on as admin you should be fine. At most I
>>>>> keep users at Power User rights.
>>>>> While I understand running as admin is unsafe, simply having the
>>>>> account enabled is not a security risk.
>>>> I am going to try to explain this again. The out of the box admin
>>>> account on Vista that is given to a user or any subsequent admin account
>>>> that is created on Vista with UAC enabled is NOT a full-rights-admin
>>>> account. It's only a Standard user account, which must be escalated to a
>>>> use the full-adminrights token to do anything requiring
>>>> admin-full-rights as an administrator.
>>>
>>> I get it.
>>> I don't need any escalation to admin. The problem is, what if there's
>>> some malware. Some malware named "winenhancer." The user sees the UAC
>>> prompt "Winenhancer must access the internet!" and the user clicks on
>>> yes.
>>> So UAC only works when the user knows everything about the PC, which is
>>> unrealistic for a standard dumb user whose job is to type out proposals
>>> and reports.
>> Oh, I get it. It's not the responsibility of the dumb user to know what he
>> or she is dumbly clicking on as they point and click. It's their
>> responsibly to know the situation, but they don't and most never will.
>>
>> However, network admins take that responsibly for this type of worker by
>> using a network proxy that only allows the users to go to approved sites
>> closing the attack vector and mitigating such damage, as its their
>> responsibility to protect company's interest and not some office clerk,
>> lock them down.
>>
>> Just like with Linux which has the same kind of an approval process within
>> its O/S, they point, click, approve and it's all bets are off. But with
>> UAC enabled when one does this, the damages are mitigated to a certain
>> degree as UAC protects critical areas and also not allowing the malware to
>> continuously run under the context of the user-admin full-rights access
>> token, to spread damage.
>>
>> But rather with UAC enabled, the compromise runs under the context of the
>> admin's Standard user token, because admin user on Vista is returned to
>> using that token upon privileged escalation completion, and it's a limit
>> rights token, which mitigates/limits damage.
>>
>> Like I said, nothing is bulletproof not even god's O/S Linux, but UAC on
>> the MS platform is better than have nothing at all, which is the case in
>> fact with the previous versions of the NT based O/S platform, open by
>> default O/S(s), to help protect the O/S.
>
> Real time scanning by (even free) third party programs provides (in many
> cases) superior protection with less annoyance.

BS, as it's just a program that can be fooled like any other program's
job that is to detect.


> So why put something in the OS that just pisses many people off and is (by
> MS admission) made irritating on purpose? 

Why put something in the O/S? Why put something in the O/S? It's because
the buck stops at the O/S, and it stops nowhere else but the O/S.

Log in or Sign up

I turned off UAC

DanS Guest

DanS Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

paliometoxo Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Jim Moriarty Guest

DanS Guest

Gene E. Bloch Guest

Justin Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Not Even Me Guest

Not Even Me Guest

Not Even Me Guest

Saucy Guest

DanS Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

I turned off UAC

DanS Guest

DanS Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

paliometoxo Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Jim Moriarty Guest

DanS Guest

Gene E. Bloch Guest

Justin Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Not Even Me Guest

Not Even Me Guest

Not Even Me Guest

Saucy Guest

DanS Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Jack the Ripper Guest

Share This Page

Useful Searches