Possible UAC Improvement

[Guest Jim Selinsky]

If I use a virus scanner Ex: McAfee, Firewalls ( windows or otherwise) and

malware detectors, These types of programs "remember" they have permission to

run certain apps. In order to take advantage of what UAC was intended for

without it being a "nag" it should actaully be capable of the same thing. Is

It?

or do we need to disable it like most posts suggest?

[Guest Nonny]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:03 -0700, Jim Selinsky

<jselin@comcast.net.(donotspam)> wrote:

<span style="color:blue">

>If I use a virus scanner Ex: McAfee, Firewalls ( windows or otherwise) and

>malware detectors, These types of programs "remember" they have permission to

>run certain apps. </span>

 

I think it's more than that. I think it's because they have been

written so as to NOT trigger the UAC nags. MS claims that those nags

are there partly to get software writers to write Vista-compliant

programs.

<span style="color:blue">

>In order to take advantage of what UAC was intended for

>without it being a "nag" it should actaully be capable of the same thing. Is

>It?

>or do we need to disable it like most posts suggest?</span>

[Guest Steve Thackery]

> In order to take advantage of what UAC was intended for<span style="color:blue">

> without it being a "nag" it should actaully be capable of the same thing.</span>

 

Apparently Microsoft said it would undermine the purpose of UAC - it would

be too easy for malware to put itself onto the "don't prompt" list.

<span style="color:blue">

> or do we need to disable it like most posts suggest?</span>

 

Absolutely not. Nobody "needs" to disable it. If you're using programs

that generate UAC prompts they are BADLY WRITTEN and fail to comply with the

XP programming guidelines (yes, I said XP, not Vista). The only exception

is software which is designed to perform system administrative tasks, in

which case you really should log on as an administrator anyway (and then you

just get the confirmation prompt - a single mouse-click or left-arrow,

Enter).

 

If you are using day-to-day applications which generate UAC prompts it's

probably time to update them.

 

SteveT

[Guest Nonny]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:57:02 +0100, "Steve Thackery"

<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

<span style="color:blue">

>If you are using day-to-day applications which generate UAC prompts it's

>probably time to update them.</span>

 

Bullshit. Why pay for an update when the old program is getting the

job done?

[Guest Root Kit]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:41:39 -0500, Nonny <nonnymoose@yahoo.com>

wrote:

<span style="color:blue">

>Bullshit. Why pay for an update when the old program is getting the

>job done?</span>

 

That's for oneself to decide. Then just don't whine about UAC.

 

However, what you should do is demand that the vendor fixes his

broken software for free.

[Guest Nonny]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:36 +0200, Root Kit <b__nice@hotmail.com>

wrote:

<span style="color:blue">

>On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:41:39 -0500, Nonny <nonnymoose@yahoo.com>

>wrote:

><span style="color:green">

>>Bullshit. Why pay for an update when the old program is getting the

>>job done?</span>

>

>That's for oneself to decide. Then just don't whine about UAC.</span>

 

Who's whining? Not this guy. I partially disabled UAC (using Tweak

UAC) less than a week after I installed Vista on this machine. Two

weeks later I totally disabled it.

<span style="color:blue">

>However, what you should do is demand that the vendor fixes his

>broken software for free.</span>

 

It's not broken, doofus, it's out-dated.

[Guest Paul Smith]

"Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:s8nm74dvuhml0qtmbc4ou7a2uehahc2lbe@4ax.com...

<span style="color:blue">

> It's not broken, doofus, it's out-dated.</span>

 

I take it the software was written after say 1999/2000. In that case it is

broken, and not outdated, there's no excuse for applications written after

2000 to assume they have administrative rights.

 

--

Paul Smith,

Yeovil, UK.

Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.

http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/

http://www.windowsresource.net/

 

Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail

[Guest Michael D. Ober]

"Paul Smith" <Paul@nospam.windowsresource.net> wrote in message

news:6356D132-E287-4A53-93DE-0E004B9103D7@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>

> "Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:s8nm74dvuhml0qtmbc4ou7a2uehahc2lbe@4ax.com...

><span style="color:green">

>> It's not broken, doofus, it's out-dated.</span>

>

> I take it the software was written after say 1999/2000. In that case it

> is broken, and not outdated, there's no excuse for applications written

> after 2000 to assume they have administrative rights.

>

> --

> Paul Smith,

> Yeovil, UK.

> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.

> http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/

> http://www.windowsresource.net/

>

> Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail

></span>

 

Assuming you are correct, Office XP, which was released after 2000, assumes

it has Administrator rights. It's EULA flag is in the HKLM registry hive

and not in the individual user hives. You must accept the Office XP EULA

running as an Administrator. MS never fixed this - instead they charged you

to upgrade to Office 2003.

 

Mike.