Who has disabled UAC?
- Thread starter Born_2_Kill_83
- Start date
esoteric said:How do I turn it off? I cant find anything
[EDIT] Found it, amazing what you can find when you use the classic style menu's
In the 'new' control panel, all you have to do is type "uac" and it'll find it for you. (for future reference
)
Default Admin's. People turning UAC off. Disabling driver signing. Whatever next, XP luna themes for Vista? Might as well stay with XP, turning UAC and running as default admin is one of the biggest selling points of Vista. All you have left is - a pretty interface (if your into that kind of stuff)
Turned it off instantly - havent yet bothered to turn off Security Centre though
Have to do a rebuild on my main rig as it takes about 90 seconds to boot , once this is done I am going to try and persuade myself to use a standard user account and keep an admin one for installs and changes etc
Have to do a rebuild on my main rig as it takes about 90 seconds to boot , once this is done I am going to try and persuade myself to use a standard user account and keep an admin one for installs and changes etc
You can have a halfway mode - keep UAC switched on but get rid of the dialogs.
This means that most, if not all, programs are run as non-admin and can't cause chaos. Anything that requires elevation will get accepted automatically. You also get to keep IE's Protected Mode (that's even lower rights than normal)
http://brandonlive.com/2007/02/06/more-secure-way-to-disable-uac-without-losing-protected-mode-ie/
It's worth noting that as developers make their programs for Vista, you should see less and less UAC dialogs as they work out they don't actually need admin access.
This means that most, if not all, programs are run as non-admin and can't cause chaos. Anything that requires elevation will get accepted automatically. You also get to keep IE's Protected Mode (that's even lower rights than normal)
http://brandonlive.com/2007/02/06/more-secure-way-to-disable-uac-without-losing-protected-mode-ie/
It's worth noting that as developers make their programs for Vista, you should see less and less UAC dialogs as they work out they don't actually need admin access.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
i'm trying to work out exactly where UAC is a security feature?if a virus exploits some loophole and installs itself without being prompted then it doesn't help? if it pretends its something useful and some dopey user visiting some site says yes to what the site asks to install in the first instance, then they'll just say yes the second time too?
its nothing to do with security, its just, originally "do you want to install this", now you've got "are you really bloody sure about it"? its not, "are you really sure as i'm some kind of security application and i've detected this might be bad software or a virus", its just pressing a button once again.
as someone said in some thread, you know, somewhere, its simply a feature to add extra accountability onto the user. some idiot installs a virus because they are too stupid to know that software wanting to install from the pron site to know whats going on, they bitch to their ISP, their mother and M$ when they lose some important work because they have to reinstall. now M$ can say, but, we asked you twice if you wanted to install, you said yes TWICE< its your fault you stupid tit.
Security to me, is embedded routines to actively find and remove malicious software, or to prevent unauthorised installation of malicious software without your knowledge. UAC isn't security at all.
on old windows you could simply password an admin account, give a stupid parent, or client, or whoever simply access without the ability to do anything except use already installed applications. you can still do that, if you do it right there is no need for UAC at all, ever.
EDIT:- i guess the other way i'd expect improved security to work would be better code thats not as exploitable in the first place. but unlike most people i can understand that windows is far more widely used in a home setting, and those people are the biggest targets for virus makers, so if most people trying to write virus's are all going after windows more exploits will be found. linux i don't believe is safer, or OSX or anything else, windows is simply attacked more often by more people.
is there much of anything vista can do for me that XP couldn't? not in the slightest, is there that much honestly that win xp, functionality wise, improved over ME, no i still use computers in almost identical way with identical programs. however win xp for me brought about computing with next no crashes ever. Win ME/98/95 were pretty poor, win me i have to say was close to fine by the end of using it with rare crashes. but before Win XP there wasn't the real possibility of a year's uptime, it was just 100x's more stable, biggest improvement ever in the windows evolution. vista for me brings prettyness and very little functionality for me. not used search, don't use sidebar properly though i have it open and a clock up there, but mainly because it looks nice.
its nothing to do with security, its just, originally "do you want to install this", now you've got "are you really bloody sure about it"? its not, "are you really sure as i'm some kind of security application and i've detected this might be bad software or a virus", its just pressing a button once again.
as someone said in some thread, you know, somewhere, its simply a feature to add extra accountability onto the user. some idiot installs a virus because they are too stupid to know that software wanting to install from the pron site to know whats going on, they bitch to their ISP, their mother and M$ when they lose some important work because they have to reinstall. now M$ can say, but, we asked you twice if you wanted to install, you said yes TWICE< its your fault you stupid tit.
Security to me, is embedded routines to actively find and remove malicious software, or to prevent unauthorised installation of malicious software without your knowledge. UAC isn't security at all.
on old windows you could simply password an admin account, give a stupid parent, or client, or whoever simply access without the ability to do anything except use already installed applications. you can still do that, if you do it right there is no need for UAC at all, ever.
EDIT:- i guess the other way i'd expect improved security to work would be better code thats not as exploitable in the first place. but unlike most people i can understand that windows is far more widely used in a home setting, and those people are the biggest targets for virus makers, so if most people trying to write virus's are all going after windows more exploits will be found. linux i don't believe is safer, or OSX or anything else, windows is simply attacked more often by more people.
is there much of anything vista can do for me that XP couldn't? not in the slightest, is there that much honestly that win xp, functionality wise, improved over ME, no i still use computers in almost identical way with identical programs. however win xp for me brought about computing with next no crashes ever. Win ME/98/95 were pretty poor, win me i have to say was close to fine by the end of using it with rare crashes. but before Win XP there wasn't the real possibility of a year's uptime, it was just 100x's more stable, biggest improvement ever in the windows evolution. vista for me brings prettyness and very little functionality for me. not used search, don't use sidebar properly though i have it open and a clock up there, but mainly because it looks nice.
Last edited:
stealthgeek said:
Of course she did, so would 99% of people, espessially when under pressure at work. Nobody wants popups, we just want to close them - "go away...". I thought we had secuity to get rid of annoyances like that. MS builds one in
Most people who use PC's haven't got a clue what UAC is on about when asks for something.Like I said, its a bad, lazy way to implement security. Dump responsibility on the clueless user, good thinking MS!
Christ, I can't even create explicit exceptions in it. Apparently it's supposed to learn, but no, its still poping up all over the place every time I click on something.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 May 2005
- Posts
- 6,897
ScoobyDoo said:
Same here I cant stand it I cant understand why it's even needed
xb8browney said:
Oh dear. I take it all back. DataVampire is right. Poor MS. When it tries to emulate additional security that is present in every other modern OS - people complain and switch it all off saying they cannot understand why anyone would want to compromise their machine.
Small wonder people don't use Linux of OSX, the effort of reading a confirmation dialogue box is just too much for some.
Bear in mind if you switch UAC off, and your machine is compromised then a lot of OEM manufacturers will not entertain any support calls, and likewise MS. Just like the banks have done with chip and pin, so MS has done with UAC, the ball is in your park - your machine gets compromised now - look in the mirror for who to blame.
EDIT!
I take it all back- I eat my words. If installing a game can change your system so much that Vista suddenly thinks its pirated whilst window defenders doesn't even blink, then I guess UAC is pile of **** as well. My mistake.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 663
- Location
- London
bfar said:Of course she did, so would 99% of people, espessially when under pressure at work. Nobody wants popups, we just want to close them - "go away...". I thought we had secuity to get rid of annoyances like that. MS builds one in
True, like I said, security is only as strong as the user using it.
bfar said:
Well, no - would you prefer Windows decide for you which programs to run and which to disable? And its not bad or lazy, its been common in all Linux distros, and they have to type a password, not just click a button, when they want elevated rights!
bfar said:
News to me - where did you hear that UAC 'learns'?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,087
- Location
- Berkland
Rebelius said:
Should you be using an admin account for basic day to day running of the PC?
Am I missing something here? I just said I don't use an admin account for basic day to day running of the PC. I use a standard user account. I know the password for the admin account if I want to install something, but without my OK, things can't just install at will.leaskovski said:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,087
- Location
- Berkland
Rebelius said:
Sorry, my bad, i must have missed something
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,565
- Location
- West Sussex
nuked because it would give me graphic issues on my whole screen when it popped up everytime i wanted to do something. The whole screen would be a mess of colours while the box was asking for permission.
and it was dam annoying also anyway
and it was dam annoying also anyway