UAC

Yaayuh! · 8 May 2012 at 13:44

(Windows 7)
I have so many program's that require me to 'OK' UAC to run. Therefore I have disabled it. Being a competent PC user and not a moron that clicks on every thing that wants to install itself, I should be fine.
However, is there an easy way (without task schedular) to disable UAC on selected applications?

KIA · 8 May 2012 at 15:11

Rossi~ said:
(Windows 7)
I have so many program's that require me to 'OK' UAC to run.

Such as...

j6m · 8 May 2012 at 17:16

Rossi~ said:
Being a competent PC user and not a moron that clicks on every thing that wants to install itself, I should be fine.

It's meant to stop the things that run without asking you first! :eek:

J.B · 8 May 2012 at 18:47

Im a bit miffed as to what you are running that requires admin privileges so frequently?

Alex74 · 8 May 2012 at 18:49

Rossi~ said:
However, is there an easy way (without task schedular) to disable UAC on selected applications?

In principle no, since otherwise it would rather defeat the point.

EDIT: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18401358 see this thread for an example on why we like UAC among other recommended security measures

Azuse05 · 8 May 2012 at 21:24

Rossi~ said:
Being a competent PC user, I should be fine.

If only life were that easy

As a side note to the above post, I still don't understand why java only updates once a month. Java 7 has only just come out and it's on update 4 already. I'll bet 90 odd percent of people on here haven't changed it either.

Java gets patched rapidly but doesn't bother to update itself - doesn't make sense (but does explain why it's such a big security problem).

Yaayuh! · 8 May 2012 at 22:13

J.B said:
Im a bit miffed as to what you are running that requires admin privileges so frequently?

Prime95, CPUZ, IBT, most overclocking utilities will ask for an 'OK' before running. Fresh build of Windows7 64bit Ultimate, so it's not like anything has be screwed up.

KIA · 8 May 2012 at 22:19

Azuse05 said:
As a side note to the above post, I still don't understand why java only updates once a month. Java 7 has only just come out and it's on update 4 already. I'll bet 90 odd percent of people on here haven't changed it either.

Java gets patched rapidly but doesn't bother to update itself - doesn't make sense (but does explain why it's such a big security problem).

It's frustrating. Monthly update checks and lack of auto-update make it a recipe for disaster. I'm hoping they'll copy Adobe & Mozilla by adding a system service to get around the UAC issue.

The Java entry in control panel doesn't seem save changes if UAC is enabled. The auto-update frequency reverts to monthly after I change it to daily. Do they really think we're all running XP with a local admin account? :confused:

EDIT: Just installed Java 7 in a VM. It looks like it's once a week. Maybe we're making progress?

EDIT2: A way to change the automatic-update frequency with UAC enabled. Control Panel > Right-click Java > Create Shortcut. Open an elevated command-prompt. Navigate to and open the shortcut. Make the change.

Rossi~ said:
Prime95, CPUZ, IBT, most overclocking utilities will ask for an 'OK' before running. Fresh build of Windows7 64bit Ultimate, so it's not like anything has be screwed up.

Clicking YES is effortless.

Stoner81 · 9 May 2012 at 13:36

Alex74 said:
In principle no, since otherwise it would rather defeat the point.

EDIT: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18401358 see this thread for an example on why we like UAC among other recommended security measures

The OP in that thread doesn't want anti-virus installed so it is hardly surprising he has become infected with something. I have UAC turned off all the time because it bugs the hell out of me but I run decent anti-virus and firewall (plus other things) and never had a problem.

Stoner81.

stealthgeek · 9 May 2012 at 13:50

Comparing UAC to anti-virus is like comparing apples to pears, they exist for different reasons, and one doesnt trump the other.

UAC's job is to verify with the user that the requested administrative action is OK to proceed with. If you ever had a WinXP machine a few years ago, before UAC, and something or someone had managed to compromize security, they could make changes as you without you ever knowing.

Then add to that, it protects against accidental changes that you might not have intended to make.

Finally, it virtualizes file/registry writes to protected areas in the filesystem/registry. This helps legacy apps run in a standard user context (Im guessing you are logged on with admin rights, so this is less of a concern for you)

All in all, its one click on Yes - hardly much of a bother, is it?

poker_999 · 9 May 2012 at 13:50

how do i disable this uac **** on vista

Alex74 · 9 May 2012 at 14:03

Stoner81 said:
The OP in that thread doesn't want anti-virus installed so it is hardly surprising he has become infected with something. I have UAC turned off all the time because it bugs the hell out of me but I run decent anti-virus and firewall (plus other things) and never had a problem.

Stoner81.

To some extent see stealthgeek's post. Vista shifted gears entirely with respect to security in a way that makes xp look incredibly outdated, and UAC is a very important part of that, in particular in terms of namespaces and access rights.

A large number of people had no problems running xp when they just had a antivirus and firewall running. That doesn't mean that there's no more one can or should do to help protect your system. If the worst should happen, there's a lot more you can do now to minimise the damage than before. Fair play to you if that works for you, but I'm personally happier with my setup and having to occasionally put in a password for admin rights.

Alex74 · 9 May 2012 at 14:05

poker_999 said:
how do i disable this uac **** on vista

Standard response: If you cant figure that out or google for yourself then you should probably leave it on.

Alternative response: See method 4: http://www.petri.co.il/disable_uac_in_windows_vista.htm

platypus · 9 May 2012 at 14:11

Have to say the UAC is fine for me.

Stoner81 · 9 May 2012 at 14:25

stealthgeek said:
All in all, its one click on Yes - hardly much of a bother, is it?

For me yes, I don't want to be asked 20 million times if I will allow something which I have just run I just want it to get on with it.

Stoner81.

HeX · 9 May 2012 at 14:55

KIA said:
Clicking YES is effortless.

stealthgeek said:
All in all, its one click on Yes - hardly much of a bother, is it?

It gets old very quickly.

'Yes, D3Doverider is fine to start at boot' (as it has been the past 100+ times!)

'Yes, I know what Steam is, just let me on my games'

'YES I DO WANT TO LOAD CPU-Z THAT'S WHY I CLICKED IT'

etc. etc.

UAC is a complete pain in the behind.

KIA · 9 May 2012 at 15:25

Stoner81 said:
The OP in that thread doesn't want anti-virus installed so it is hardly surprising he has become infected with something. I have UAC turned off all the time because it bugs the hell out of me but I run decent anti-virus and firewall (plus other things) and never had a problem.

AV doesn't not offer protection. The OP is not infected. He should really know better considering he works in IT.

Random botnet. How many different AV clients do you see listed?

HeX said:
'Yes, I know what Steam is, just let me on my games'

'YES I DO WANT TO LOAD CPU-Z THAT'S WHY I CLICKED IT'

UAC only intervenes when Steam wants to install a game.

CPU-Z is requesting additional privileges, hence the prompt. It isn't a simple "are you sure you want to run this application?".

weyland yutani · 9 May 2012 at 16:57

UAC prmopt are a royal PITA.

Off the top of my head, Afterburner, D3DOVerrider, MalwareBytes, Ccleaner, RealTemp, CPUZ all require a yes click before they'l run, bloody annoying on such frequently used and safe programs.