Access denied: Dragging and dropping URL icon into links folder

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

 

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.

 

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,

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

It's even sadder when MS butt kissers try to find excuses to validate
up some of the worst software changes in history,

 

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.

 

+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.

 

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.

 

You seem to understand.
The morons don't.
They degrade the very fundamentals they were tossing squirrels about 2 years
ago.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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>.

 

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+ wrote:

<What?>

<snipped>

<PLANK>

 

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

 

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".

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.

He is another Ringmaster Albright.

 

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

LOL.

Those two sponges couln't get wet in water.