Access denied: Dragging and dropping URL icon into links folder

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by eganders, Sep 18, 2008.

  1. eganders

    eganders Guest

    How can I get around this? Is there a place where I can disable some
    parts of the security profile?

    In Internet Explorer: Dragging and dropping the icon in the present
    URL to the links bar is allowed. Dragging and dropping the icon to a
    FOLDER on my links bar creates an access denied!##%%!!


    I am sick of this type of security.


    The stupid thing is I can drag and drop it to the links bar, cut it
    and PASTE it into the folder. Thanks, Microsoft, for the added extra
    steps in the name of security.


    This type of nonsense makes a joke of security.
    I don't want to turn off the User Account Control, I just want to
    SHAPE it.



    microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
     
    eganders, Sep 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. eganders

    eganders Guest

    Jan,

    The operating system is Vista and the IE is IE7.

    I am not sure what an elevation type is, but I would surmise that we
    are talking about whether I have been working with the same user name
    and as an administrator all along. I have except that I turned off
    the UAC during installation of all my programs so that I would not
    have any issues during installation. I turned it on after
    installation of all my programs was complete.

    Help me to understand how I could have different elevation types if I
    have always been logged in under the same user name with the same
    rights (as far as I can tell). What do I do to change the rights to
    the same (hopefully the GOD level of rights) for everything I do.
     
    eganders, Sep 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. eganders

    Ringmaster Guest

    Because the IDIOTS that wrote UAC didn't have a clue what they were
    doing. That's why! UAC is a mess. Even Microsoft now acknowledges
    that. It is a poorly designed and even worse implemented feel-good
    smoke screen.

    UAC really offers little real protection and only attempts to shift
    blame to the user by popping up next to meaningless nag screens
    reversing a decades old policy put in place by Microsoft to have
    applications by design run under administrator. That's the dirty
    little secret the fanboy and MVP crowd never want to discuss.

    UAC is a sham and doesn't really protect you from anything. It does as
    you've seen cause untold grief, anger and wasted afford. Perhaps worse
    it instills a "cry wolf" mind set in users very quickly. When UAC nags
    for nothing you quickly learn to ignore the warning, thus UAC is
    self-defeating. I haven't met a user yet that started out to delete a
    file or copy or move something or run some application he wanted to
    run being persuaded not to by UAC. They simply click through and do
    what they intended anyway.

    The best way to tame UAC is turn the damn thing off. Do you think for
    a second if it was critical it would even come with a off switch?

    If you want to fiddle with UAC you need to assign users as owners of
    your hard drives, folders and files. As you can figure out doing so is
    basically the same as turning UAC off.

    The whole issue is simply boiled down to a single point. Microsoft
    after decades of screwing things up from a security standpoint have
    raised the white flag and are finally admitting they can't and haven't
    protected you. So UAC serves as warning and little more than that if
    you do dangerous things, bad things can happen. Well duh, didn't you
    know that already?

    Instead of giving UAC some basic intelligence and the ability to learn
    from past user behavior it remains dumb as a doorknob. Rest assured
    UAC will be gone or totally rewritten in Windows 7. I doubt Microsoft
    ever got back more negative feedback from a single misadventure that
    the pile of crap called UAC and they will sooner or later either get
    rid of it or radically change how it works.
     
    Ringmaster, Sep 24, 2008
    #3
  4. eganders

    eganders Guest

    Ringmaster,

    Believe me, I have a tendancy to agree with you. It seems like most
    MVPs respond to my questions about these security issues WITH AN OTHER
    QUESTION!! I asked the question about why I get an access denied when
    dragging and dropping the URL into a folder on the links ribbon a
    couple days ago and STILL have no answer. Very sad.

    In another message in the Microsoft groups, I asked why the scheduler
    would stop running a set of DOS commands I set up and require the re-
    entry of the very same user and password to start the scheduler
    working again and I STILL have no answer. This seems to happen every
    few days. Can you imagine how important I would consider whatever the
    security issue is here if my hard drive crashed and the scheduled
    backup that those DOS commands represented had not run?? Do I have to
    ride herd on the scheduler to make sure it ran?? Who needs a
    scheduler where I have to set a reminder in Outlook to check if it is
    working??? Who gives a damn about security where the security is
    worse than the disease it is supposed to cure?

    The bottom line for me is: When I get an access denied, how do I get
    around it UNCONDITIONALLY. After all, this is MY machine, damn it. I
    want to do what I want to do... Get the hell out of my hair.
     
    eganders, Sep 24, 2008
    #4
  5. eganders

    eganders Guest

    Well, Microsoft called me last night and wanted to connect to my
    machine to see what I was talking about and see how I get the access
    denied. Wouldn't you know, it worked FINE. Not a hitch! If I was
    just a little paranoid, I would think there is a gremlin in the
    operating system just trying to try my patience.

    I hope that one of these damn "glitches" occurs again and I am going
    to disable the UAC. If that cures it, then the UAC can go to hell.
     
    eganders, Sep 26, 2008
    #5
  6. eganders

    +Bob+ Guest

    Save yourself the aggravation: shut off UAC and take ownership of the
    entire C: drive. That will solve most of the problems related to MS's
    childish, useless, and highly annoying Vista security scheme.
     
    +Bob+, Sep 26, 2008
    #6
  7. It's really sad when people don't try to understand anything or even
    take the time to understand it.

    If you listen to the two negative influences in the thread that even
    have problems taking a pi$$ in real life I suspect, you wouldn't even
    get out of your bed. :p
     
    Paul Montgumdrop, Sep 26, 2008
    #7
  8. eganders

    +Bob+ Guest

    It's even sadder when MS butt kissers try to find excuses to validate
    up some of the worst software changes in history,
     
    +Bob+, Sep 26, 2008
    #8
  9. eganders

    D. Eth Guest


    No, you twit.
    Linux ...you know ...the secure/OS non-violate has the same f-ing thing.
    You need a password/ UAC type interaction to accomplish certain functions.
    And if people just click yes all the time, linux has the same
    thing...remember password.

    You got a better idea ?
    No ?

    Of course not.
     
    D. Eth, Sep 26, 2008
    #9
  10. +Bob+ wrote:

    <snipped>

    Did I ring your bell? I don't recall ringing your bell to summons you
    for anything. Now go on back to your room, Lurch.
     
    Paul Montgumdrop, Sep 26, 2008
    #10
  11. Yes, on Linux one as to give that root admin user-id and psw to do
    anything which requires admin root privileges. And users on Linux run on
    or surf the Internet as a non-root admin user, which prevents something
    from installing itself silently on a Web site drive-by as an example. If
    something needs root admin privileges to execute, then the root
    admin/psw must be given on Linux by the user.

    As opposed to Vista with UAC enabled, the user/admin is locked down to a
    Standard user while on the Internet, the user/admin must allow or
    disallow the action at the UAC prompt or if it is a non-admin user, the
    user must give a user-id/psw at the UAC prompt to allow or disallow.

    Where is the difference? In both cases, the decision making process is
    squarely at the foot of the user to allow or disallow on Linux and Vista
    with UAC.

    I got maybe five applications I run on the machine that even require the
    UAC elevation. And I am not running those applications on a routine
    basis nor am I running around installing applications on a routine basis
    that require UAC approval.

    What I do is surf the Internet as user/admin that is really locked down
    to a Standard user, where I have a chance of being alerted if something
    dubious might be happening, and it's up to me to allow/disallow.

    I would rather do that on Vista and not surf the Internet as user/admin
    on XP or Win 2k with full admin rights where everything can install
    itself sightly, and I wouldn't have a clue that it has happened, and
    most surf the Internet on XP and Win 2k with Full admin rights (wide
    opened).

    I have a chance to protect myself better with Vista UAC.
     
    Paul Montgumdrop, Sep 26, 2008
    #11
  12. eganders

    D. Eth Guest


    You seem to understand.
    The morons don't.
    They degrade the very fundamentals they were tossing squirrels about 2 years
    ago.
     
    D. Eth, Sep 26, 2008
    #12
  13. I know. Their hatred of MS blinds them, and they can't see. How people
    let anything control them like that is beyond me. But it can, and it
    does happen.
     
    Paul Montgumdrop, Sep 26, 2008
    #13
  14. eganders

    +Bob+ Guest

    No, unlike an uneducated putz like you who is incapable of discussing
    an issue without throwing insults "hates" a company like MS. I don't
    "hate" anyone but I do make objective evaluations of software.

    UAC is a massive global block that is poorly designed and implemented.
    Instead of building an intelligent scheme for determining what
    programs and feature changes should be allowed to run, MS put a
    massive block to stop everything and anything from happening,
    regardless of the "danger". This results in users being constantly
    bombarded with UAC messages. That then causes them to get in the habit
    of simply OKing the messages and ignoring any possible security
    benefit related or simply shutting off UAC. But, to do any less than
    shut it off is to disable the ability to get work done.

    OTOH, a properly designed UAC that only popped up when there was truly
    a danger would have none of the problems of Vista's UAC and would
    actually increase security. MS took the cheap way out and it shows.

    Likewise, their file/directory protection scheme consists of globally
    prohibiting users from accessing anything but their specified user
    areas. This again results in repeated issues with file protection.
    Instead of adopting a proper file and directory protection scheme,
    they again chose a global block.

    Again, the only reasonable solution for anyone but a neophyte user is
    to disable it so that they can actually get work done and customize
    their system as needed. Once again, MS took the cheap way out and it
    shows.

    The root of the problem is that MS still doesn't have a proper system
    architecture or security structure in place. Years after the promises
    of NT providing a proper architecture, application and system software
    continues to mix in system directories. Programs and processes
    continue to have access to the core operating system when they should
    be shut down at the gate.

    *That's* what's wrong with Vista security and at MS. A *real* security
    model is what users have been asking for - not a simplistic band-aid
    applied on top of a poorly designed OS.

    If you want to argue the issues, have at it. If you want to throw
    insults, go back to the sandbox where you belong.
     
    +Bob+, Sep 27, 2008
    #14
  15. Look who is talking? I don't see nothing but name calling from you. It's
    that same Ringmaster Albright mentality.
    I have been using MS SQL Server, IIS, VS 2008 and a whole of host of
    other work activities with Vista UAC enabled, and it's not giving me any
    problems. I am NOT being bombarded with massive UAC prompts. Just
    because you read something and don't know what you're doing does that
    apply to all.

    They are doing the same thing on Linux with its security scheme with
    allowing the user to run with non admin rights and doing something that
    requires root admin rights by giving a user-id and psw to approve
    escalated rights at the time of approval to root admin rights, instead
    of doing everything with unrestricted Admin rights.
    It's not about the danger. It's about asking the user to give
    permissions to escalate privileges to full admin rights to allow the
    program to run or allow the user who is a Standard user as user/admin on
    Vista with UAC enabled or a Standard user to perform a task and return
    the user/admin back to Standard user once the escalation is completed,
    just like it's done on Linux.

    And there are many solutions with more and more solutions coming that
    are Vista UAC compliant that will run on Vista that only require
    Standard user rights to run. No UAC prompt is displayed if only Standard
    user rights are needed to run the application.

    On top of that, one can run as Super Admin with UAC enabled, which is
    user with Full Rights at all times, no UAC prompt is presented and still
    have the protection of UAC for Standard users who may login to the machine.
    This is not correct. It's a simple NTFS user permissions issue for the
    user/admin, because UAC is looking at the permissions of the user
    account as User, and it is looking at the Administrator group account as
    Administrator for the user/admin.

    And if they don't match in the permissions between the two accounts,
    then it's access denied, because Vista and UAC are looking at the
    user/admin and not just admin with full rights, like on XP or Win 2K.
    No, it's up to the user to understand what is happening, like I have had
    to understand what is happening with UAC enabled. And it doesn't take a
    rocket scientists to figure it out. But most Windows users like you are
    too lazy to figure things out. I have no problems (none) with UAC or
    Vista once I took the time to open up the hood and look.

    However, these same lazy Windows users run over Linux and have to figure
    things out on Linux in order to use the O/S properly and they become
    computer guru's according to them. :p
    Nonsense, MS is starting to change things on the platform starting with
    ..NET and now starting with Vista. You just don't know it. Nothing
    happens over night or as fast as you and some others think it should.
    But again, it's not your show, right?
    Like I told you, opinions are a dime a dozen. Everyone has got an
    opinion, even you.

    When did you become an expert's expert? Show me somewhere that your name
    is up in lights, and that anyone should take your word as gospel.
    I am not here to argue anything with you. You want to argue, then argue
    with yourself, because I am already tired of you, I don't want to have
    anything to do with you, and you mean nothing to me, period.

    You post again, and you're going to get the <snip> and <plank>.
     
    Paul Montgumdrop, Sep 27, 2008
    #15
  16. eganders

    +Bob+ Guest

    I suggest you don't take anyone's word for it. Go out in the real
    world and learn about real users, real networks, real people, and real
    businesses. Get out of your one person, personal use environment and
    you might learn something.
    All that says is that you don't have any facts in your head or the
    skill to find them, the ability to intelligently use logic and reason,
    or the ability to summarize facts into a discussion (it's a Junior
    High mentality).
     
    +Bob+, Sep 28, 2008
    #16
  17. +Bob+ wrote:

    <What?>

    <snipped>

    <PLANK>
     
    Paul Montgumdrop, Sep 28, 2008
    #17
  18. eganders

    D. Eth Guest


    Go back to clocking the clock at best buy.
    LOL
    Some expert.

    "yes, mam, just let me 'ave a look at it"

    LOL

    ole Bobbie
     
    D. Eth, Sep 28, 2008
    #18
  19. The man is a *clown* and he cannot analyze his way out of a paper sack.
    He is from the old school, before Apple was in a wooden box* and no one
    can tell him anything.

    This *clown* was doing the same thing in another NG that I had
    encountered him in, like the buck stops with him, he is the almighty
    software analyzer and his word should be taken as the gospel.

    Can you believe the off the wall nonsense analysis this moron came out
    with as to why things are happening? Things like this, "It's a *global*
    lockout". :p

    His name is up in lights alright. It's on his name-tag, and it shines
    every time he opens his closet door, turns on the light to see and it's
    on his Maytag repairman shirt - retired, while he puts on his shoes to
    make the trip to his garage in the back yard.

    The man couldn't help a fly find a garbage truck in 100 degree weather. :p

    He is another Ringmaster Albright.
     
    Paul Montgumdrop, Sep 28, 2008
    #19
  20. eganders

    D. Eth Guest


    I know.
    LOL.
    You watch him, I'll watch for the ringster !

    LOL.

    Those two sponges couln't get wet in water.
     
    D. Eth, Sep 28, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.