Re: Is MS being pressured to retract the UAC feature from the next

Well, nice to know I am protected from my own IT department and other legitimate sources, so if I have auto updates turned on and thus "Implicitly" trust Microsoft what is to stop their updates getting, er "Hacked" as you put it? UAC doesn't even ask about those.

SPEnthusiast wrote:
I'm sure you know the answer to your question, but I shall explain for the benefit of those on these forums that don't know that answer.

UAC protects you from software that you implicitly trust. So, this software could be from your IT department, or even from well known vendors. In both cases, there are malicious developers, i.e. hackers, that reengineer that software in a way so that it can spy on you and rob you.

Does that outline what you do?

"Charlie Tame" wrote:

My question was how does UAC expose thieves? I see no answer to how it exposes thieves.

Numerous people are fooled into downloading and installing malware that masquerades as security software. They "Think" Vista is more secure, but in those circumstances it is not. UAC asks are they sure, of course they are, it is an anti spyware / anti virus program - the website / spam email told them so.

So UAC is NOT a security feature, it is simply an advisory feature, as were the IE settings before it. For many it is a false sense of security, because even if the software is malware UAC will still permit it's installation if told to. Many expect it to "Know", just as they expect Norton (or whatever) to "Know".

That does not say there is anything wrong with UAC, only that there is a lot wrong with the perception people are given that "Somehow" they are safer.





Beoweolf wrote:
It's a common misunderstanding - what you don't see can't hurt you. Similar to an outdated image of an Ostrich with his head in the sand, thinking if he can't see you - you can see him.

Vista UAC, security exposes many of the "hidden" (surreptitious) uses/users of administrator level rights and/or attempts to access network resources. As mention, if you know what you are doing, if you take the time to study/research/learn your system and most importantly - if you care...you can be just as "safe" using XP. What Vista does is makes secure, the default option. This is in line with any Security professional training, not to mention common sense.

The average user, those that have enjoyed the benefits of blissful ignorance, have also enjoyed the ability to blame the Evil Empire for leaving so many holes in Microsoft Clients and servers. Generally speaking, the absence if page upon page of complaints about Microsoft security have come at the expense of numbers of users, companies and Govt's now complaining that Vista is somehow flawed as a result of it being built to insist on security, from installation thru production use.

Thou dost protest too much? There obviously is a learning curve, for hardware vendors - who chose to ignore years of warning, reams of documents explaining how this OS would not allow "shortcuts" which expose the Kernel to compromises. Software vendors and users were and are painfully made aware of the same issue Business as usual - Ain't no more.

Take the time (better use, just use pre-configured policy and templates) to configure your system (do yourself a favor - give those 8, 16 and off brand 32 bit cards a fitting funeral, they earned it); yes, become the informed user who has complained about security for so long - now that it is here ... whining about "It's too good" just doesn't make sense.


"Charlie Tame" <charlie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:err97W64IHA.1420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SPEnthusiast wrote:
I don't think a company like Intel is restrained by any kind of budget that would not allow an OS upgrade across the enterprise.

These "legacy applications that are crtical to the business" that you've mentioned are engineered to spy on people and rob them, which is why these businesses and government organizations can't deploy Vista. UAC would break those apps.

I'm using Vista with Windows Server 2003 as my domain controller, and everything works fine. I'll soon deploy Windows Server 2008, but it's no excuse to not deploy Vista.

Like I said, Vista exposes a lot of thieves.


How the hell does UAC expose thieves?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is MS being pressured to retract the UAC feature from the next
    ... UAC protects you from software that you implicitly trust. ... So UAC is NOT a security feature, it is simply an advisory feature, as ... Vista UAC, security exposes many of the "hidden" ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.security)
  • Re: Is MS being pressured to retract the UAC feature from the next
    ... My question was how does UAC expose thieves? ... Numerous people are fooled into downloading and installing malware that masquerades as security software. ... UAC asks are they sure, of course they are, it is an anti spyware / anti virus program - the website / spam email told them so. ... Vista UAC, security exposes many of the "hidden" uses/users of administrator level rights and/or attempts to access network resources. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.security)
  • Re: Is MS being pressured to retract the UAC feature from the next
    ... It's a common misunderstanding - what you don't see can't hurt you. ... Vista UAC, security exposes many of the "hidden" uses/users of administrator level rights and/or attempts to access network resources. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.security)
  • Re: Questions...
    ... outlines the exploit in all its gory detail. ... Second, while it is unfortunate that this is possible, it's hardly a security hole in Vista or UAC itself, and there's only so much that can be done about it. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Fortsetzen ?
    ... Ich kann dort unter Tools kein Disable und UAC finden. ... Ich hab ein englisches Vista. ... Du kannst auch den Security Center starten, ...
    (microsoft.public.de.vc)
Quantcast