UAC will not allow application to run

I have an application that UAC is blocking when logged in as standard
user. It asks for administrator credentials when trying to open the
application. I do not want to give the user administrator access at
all. Is there a way around this? For the meantime I have disabled
UAC in order to get the application to work. Of course now I cannot
run anything as an administrator unless I log off and log back on as
an administrator.

On Dec 5, 10:57 am, oracle8...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have an application that UAC is blocking when logged in as standard
> user. It asks for administrator credentials when trying to open the
> application. I do not want to give the user administrator access at
> all. Is there a way around this? For the meantime I have disabled
> UAC in order to get the application to work. Of course now I cannot
> run anything as an administrator unless I log off and log back on as
> an administrator.

I guess what I need is a way to tell UAC that it can trust this
application. I'm not trying to install anything just open the
application. Basically, UAC has made this program worthless and I
cannot seem to find a way to get it to work. I am not willing to
allow the user of the machine any administrative access. If I were to
give them administrative access it would be more dangerous than
disabling UAC. What kind of design is this?

oracle8202;536368 Wrote:
> I guess what I need is a way to tell UAC that it can trust this
> application. I'm not trying to install anything just open the
> application. Basically, UAC has made this program worthless and I cannot
> seem to find a way to get it to work. I am not willing to allow the user
> of the machine any administrative access. If I were to give them
> administrative access it would be more dangerous than disabling UAC.
> What kind of design is this?

Have you tried running the program in Windows XP Compatibility mode?

If that does not work, then perhaps contacting the program
manufacturers for an update is the only solution?


--
dzomlija

____________________________________
Peter Alexander Dzomlija
Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? -And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn-...

- ASUS A8N32-SLI-Deluxe
- AMD Athlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+
- 4GB DDR400
- 128MB ASUS nVidia 6600 PCI-Express
- Thermaltake Tai-Chi Watercooled Chassis
- 1207GB Total Formatted Storage
- Vista Ultimate x64
- CodeGear Delphi 2007See my rig at:
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...zomlija/Venus/

My Weblog:
'http://dzomlija.spaces.live.com/' (http://dzomlija.spaces.live.com/)

Un-install the program. Then re-install it as admin. Right click on the
setup.exe, and choose "run as admin" from the menu. You will see a couple of
UAC prompts on installation, but from then on, the app should run without
giving you any prompts.

Kurt

> oracle8202;536368 Wrote:
>> I guess what I need is a way to tell UAC that it can trust this
>> application. I'm not trying to install anything just open the
>> application. Basically, UAC has made this program worthless and I cannot
>> seem to find a way to get it to work. I am not willing to allow the user
>> of the machine any administrative access. If I were to give them
>> administrative access it would be more dangerous than disabling UAC.
>> What kind of design is this?

<> wrote in message
news:859fc595-0db8-4c1a-bdc6-...
> On Dec 5, 10:57 am, oracle8...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I have an application that UAC is blocking when logged in as standard
>> user. It asks for administrator credentials when trying to open the
>> application. I do not want to give the user administrator access at
>> all. Is there a way around this? For the meantime I have disabled
>> UAC in order to get the application to work. Of course now I cannot
>> run anything as an administrator unless I log off and log back on as
>> an administrator.
>
> I guess what I need is a way to tell UAC that it can trust this
> application. I'm not trying to install anything just open the
> application. Basically, UAC has made this program worthless and I
> cannot seem to find a way to get it to work. I am not willing to
> allow the user of the machine any administrative access. If I were to
> give them administrative access it would be more dangerous than
> disabling UAC. What kind of design is this?

Can you not change the shortcut to run as administrator?
Regards Mike.

On Dec 6, 11:17 am, "Mike Cawood, HND BIT" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> <oracle8...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:859fc595-0db8-4c1a-bdc6-...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 10:57 am, oracle8...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I have an application that UAC is blocking when logged in as standard
> >> user. It asks for administrator credentials when trying to open the
> >> application. I do not want to give the user administrator access at
> >> all. Is there a way around this? For the meantime I have disabled
> >> UAC in order to get the application to work. Of course now I cannot
> >> run anything as an administrator unless I log off and log back on as
> >> an administrator.
>
> > I guess what I need is a way to tell UAC that it can trust this
> > application. I'm not trying to install anything just open the
> > application. Basically, UAC has made this program worthless and I
> > cannot seem to find a way to get it to work. I am not willing to
> > allow the user of the machine any administrative access. If I were to
> > give them administrative access it would be more dangerous than
> > disabling UAC. What kind of design is this?
>
> Can you not change the shortcut to run as administrator?
> Regards Mike.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If I do these suggestions then I would have to give the user
administrator access. Then the user could potentially wreak havoc on
the system. This program ran fine under XP with no admin privileges.
I want to continue this practice. If I allow a user admin privileges
what's to stop him from deleting audit trails, installing virus,
changing settings, and so on. They simply cannot have admin access.
I cannot believe that Vista would suggest giving everyone admin rights
in order to run an application. This sounds like a horrible security
practice. They are basically saying this application could damage
your system so you cannot run it without admin rights so give everyone
an admin password and then they can run whatever they like as long as
they enter the password! If that is the case why don't we just make
every account an admin account and turn off UAC altogether?

"I cannot believe that Vista would suggest"
There is no such suggestion from Microsoft.
If you have a poorly written program that needs Administrator access,
you need to accept that or move to a better written program.

The best fix is for the program manufacturer to write an update so the
program runs properly.
Have you asked the manufacturer about Windows vista compatibility?

If the manufacturer is not interested in Windows Vista compatibility,
then you have a few choices with two being:
1. Change to a program from a manufacturer that writes secure code.
2. Use work-a-rounds as suggested.
Of course some work-a-rounds compromise security.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar



<> wrote in message
news:3b7d30a6-1fbd-45b1-9f99-...
> If I do these suggestions then I would have to give the user
> administrator access. Then the user could potentially wreak havoc
> on
> the system. This program ran fine under XP with no admin
> privileges.
> I want to continue this practice. If I allow a user admin
> privileges
> what's to stop him from deleting audit trails, installing virus,
> changing settings, and so on. They simply cannot have admin access.
> I cannot believe that Vista would suggest giving everyone admin
> rights
> in order to run an application. This sounds like a horrible
> security
> practice. They are basically saying this application could damage
> your system so you cannot run it without admin rights so give
> everyone
> an admin password and then they can run whatever they like as long
> as
> they enter the password! If that is the case why don't we just make
> every account an admin account and turn off UAC altogether?

On Dec 6, 12:48 pm, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<jones_jupi...@hotnomail.com> wrote:
> "I cannot believe that Vista would suggest"
> There is no such suggestion from Microsoft.
> If you have a poorly written program that needs Administrator access,
> you need to accept that or move to a better written program.
>
> The best fix is for the program manufacturer to write an update so the
> program runs properly.
> Have you asked the manufacturer about Windows vista compatibility?
>
> If the manufacturer is not interested in Windows Vista compatibility,
> then you have a few choices with two being:
> 1. Change to a program from a manufacturer that writes secure code.
> 2. Use work-a-rounds as suggested.
> Of course some work-a-rounds compromise security.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>
> <oracle8...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3b7d30a6-1fbd-45b1-9f99-...
>
>
>
> > If I do these suggestions then I would have to give the user
> > administrator access. Then the user could potentially wreak havoc
> > on
> > the system. This program ran fine under XP with no admin
> > privileges.
> > I want to continue this practice. If I allow a user admin
> > privileges
> > what's to stop him from deleting audit trails, installing virus,
> > changing settings, and so on. They simply cannot have admin access.
> > I cannot believe that Vista would suggest giving everyone admin
> > rights
> > in order to run an application. This sounds like a horrible
> > security
> > practice. They are basically saying this application could damage
> > your system so you cannot run it without admin rights so give
> > everyone
> > an admin password and then they can run whatever they like as long
> > as
> > they enter the password! If that is the case why don't we just make
> > every account an admin account and turn off UAC altogether?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are correct, that was a poor chose of words on my part. I
understand that the end result is more security but Microsoft seems to
assume we all live in a perfect world where every application is
written flawlessly. Unfortunately, this is not the case and they
should allow some flexibility for users trying to migrate toward their
new OS. I'm sure the manufacturer will eventually get the software
working for Vista, but in the meantime are we supposed to sacrifice
security until all vendors catch up? It defeats the purpose of Vista
trying to be more secure in the first place.