Is MS being pressured to retract the UAC feature from the next ver

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Security' started by SPEnthusiast, Jul 11, 2008.

  1. SPEnthusiast

    SPEnthusiast Guest

    Please take a look at this:
    http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/07/11/3541592.htm

    Numerous articles like this have appeared on the Web about businesses and
    government organizations not wanting to deploy Vista in their environments.
    The one above is about the FAA not wanting to do so, and I read one article
    recently about Intel not wanting to deploy Vista either.

    It has become common knowledge that security features like UAC and Windows
    Defender in Vista have put a lot of thieves out of business. Obviously these
    people have a lot of influence, if they can convince the FAA, Intel, etc.
    that Vista is bad for their employees.

    And now the consensus that they want to reach that they'll keep XP and keep
    ripping people off until Windows 7 is released.

    So, here's my question: Is Microsoft being pressured to retract features
    like UAC and Windows Defender from Windows 7? And will Microsoft cave in?

    Thanks.
     
    SPEnthusiast, Jul 11, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. You are asking a question relating to a future Windows operating system
    that no one in this peer-to-peer newsgroup can answer. Try
    back in about a year or so. In the meantime, here is some information
    you can read and digress:

    Inside Windows Vista User Account Control
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc138019.aspx

    Understanding and Configuring User Account Control in Windows Vista
    http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/00d04415-2b2f-422c-b70e-b18ff918c2811033.mspx

    User Account Control
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905113.aspx


    --
    Carey Frisch
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Desktop Experience -
    Windows Vista Enthusiast

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Please take a look at this:
    http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/07/11/3541592.htm

    Numerous articles like this have appeared on the Web about businesses and
    government organizations not wanting to deploy Vista in their environments.
    The one above is about the FAA not wanting to do so, and I read one article
    recently about Intel not wanting to deploy Vista either.

    It has become common knowledge that security features like UAC and Windows
    Defender in Vista have put a lot of thieves out of business. Obviously these
    people have a lot of influence, if they can convince the FAA, Intel, etc.
    that Vista is bad for their employees.

    And now the consensus that they want to reach that they'll keep XP and keep
    ripping people off until Windows 7 is released.

    So, here's my question: Is Microsoft being pressured to retract features
    like UAC and Windows Defender from Windows 7? And will Microsoft cave in?

    Thanks.
     
    Carey Frisch [MVP], Jul 11, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. SPEnthusiast

    Nonny Guest

    Your guess is as good as anyone's here. We're all just commun Vista
    users and don't work for MS.
     
    Nonny, Jul 11, 2008
    #3
  4. SPEnthusiast

    Pete Delgado Guest

    The reasons many govenrment institutions and businesses don't want to
    upgrade are many and they don't all center around UAC.

    For some, hardware budgets and training come into play. For others, legacy
    applications that are critical to the business are the concern. For some,
    waiting for Windows Server 2008 and all the related technologies so that all
    the interrelated technologies can be implemented and configured is the
    reason. Finally, for some the sage advice "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
    is at play.

    To state that UAC is the reason many have not upgraded is an
    oversimplification and completely ignores the history of such major
    upgrades.

    -Pete
     
    Pete Delgado, Jul 11, 2008
    #4
  5. SPEnthusiast

    Fmjc001 Guest

    I hope they keep the UAC. It means you can feel safe on your computer.
     
    Fmjc001, Jul 11, 2008
    #5
  6. SPEnthusiast

    SPEnthusiast Guest

    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.
     
    SPEnthusiast, Jul 11, 2008
    #6
  7. I turned it completely off. I feel safe AND I don't get all those
    damned popup screens every time I try to do something more complicated
    than surf the web or do email.
     
    John Amendall, Jul 11, 2008
    #7
  8. SPEnthusiast

    Charlie Tame Guest


    How the hell does UAC expose thieves?
     
    Charlie Tame, Jul 11, 2008
    #8
  9. SPEnthusiast

    Charlie Tame Guest


    But you're not safe, you are no safer than you were before, there is
    nothing new about UAC, it just used to be called common sense.

    If you answer yes to everything UAC has done nothing, you are infected.
    Very similar safeguards were possible with XP, almost nobody used them.

    So all it has done is make you "Feel" safe, and if that is what it takes
    you make you feel safe you likely never will be.
     
    Charlie Tame, Jul 11, 2008
    #9
  10. SPEnthusiast

    Beoweolf Guest

    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.
     
    Beoweolf, Jul 12, 2008
    #10
  11. SPEnthusiast

    f/fgeorge Guest

    It has also started to create an awareness by the causual user to some
    of the things that spyware, etc can do to our machines that in the
    past we have had no clue about. NO it is NOT going to stop an
    infection! BUT hopefully it is a first step in getting users to stop
    being Admins on their pc's and to just be Users like on the Mac's.
    Sure Mac's have viruses etc, but they are not a problem because they
    can't self install because the indivual is logged on as a User not an
    Admin by default. Sure the User can say yes and the viruses will
    install, but for some reason people don't do that. Education by MS
    would solve alot of the problems they are seeing!
     
    f/fgeorge, Jul 12, 2008
    #11
  12. SPEnthusiast

    Fmjc001 Guest

    I have it prompting for my password, so even if someone killed me
    before i locked my computer they still cant do anything without the
    password. Full drive encryption (256-AES), 3 firewalls. Only one on but
    have 2 backups just in case. Have 2 AV one on realtime other is for
    backup. Network Intrusion Detection, fingerprint USB and Local Security
    Policy is set to disable any sort of security flaw that i can see. GP
    disabling USB drives and CD drives for standard users and to top it all
    off if you click one of my Icons that i made it will do an emergency
    force shutdown. For eg, Registry or Local Security Policy have been
    renamed and if you click on something saying "Regedit" You get a
    "shutdown /s /f /t 1" command. Then you need my encryption codes. Oh i
    have memory firewalls and Auto backup sync that updates every 5 hours.

    Thats why i feel safe :). But the thing is, I dont have any sensitive
    data on my computer lol. But, i feel like i could keep CIA secrets for
    them :)
     
    Fmjc001, Jul 12, 2008
    #12
  13. SPEnthusiast

    Charlie Tame Guest


    Yes one hopes so, however things like Activex could always be
    restricted, the default settings did not do so. This is rather like the
    "Read in plain text" option that was finally added to OE. IS is not
    terribly insecure, the default settings were far less secure. I agree
    there is something to be said for forcing people to at least take notice
    of things, but one should not advertise this as anything other than
    awareness, it is not per-se a security enhancement.
     
    Charlie Tame, Jul 12, 2008
    #13
  14. SPEnthusiast

    Charlie Tame Guest

    Well that's okay, however UAC is helpless if you do something stupid,
    the publicity seems to suggest that UAC keeps you safe, rather it helps
    you to remain safe "Provided" that you have common sense. Unfortunately,
    present company excepted, the less knowledgeable still get caught.

    Also, I am suspicious of IE "Add ons". Many crippled PCs I see are
    running toolbars and crap that the users "Don't remember installing or
    don't remember why they installed it". When MS have to make some update
    to IE it is not reasonable to expect MS to consider whether this will
    affect some add on that was not written by them. Nor can the toolbar
    writers anticipate what vulnerabilities MS will have to act quickly to
    respond to.

    All of these things can result in broken systems and sometimes I think
    it would be much better if everything shipped locked down and users had
    to read a full explanation of the risks before unlocking "Windows".
     
    Charlie Tame, Jul 12, 2008
    #14
  15. SPEnthusiast

    Tom Allen Guest

    I'm puzzled by your term 'backup' here. Are they just alternatives or is
    it something more subtle ?
    When would you go to the backup of each ?
    I also tend toward belt plus braces myself.

    Regards
    Tom
     
    Tom Allen, Jul 12, 2008
    #15
  16. SPEnthusiast

    Charlie Tame Guest

    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.
     
    Charlie Tame, Jul 12, 2008
    #16
  17. That doesn't mean it is a UAC related reason, many companies still run
    Windows 2000 (if it ain't broke - don't fix it).
    I doubt that very much. Actually, IE7 has made great strides in curtailing
    foistware.
    You jump to conclusions. There is no evidence that they have influenced
    anybody. Some companies still have to have support in the OS for legacy
    (or badly written) programs. XP was gracious enough to still allow these
    badly written programs to run - Vista is just a little more insistant that
    the
    programs adhere to "least privilege" guidelines.
    No doubt while they're standing on a grassy knoll...
    I don't think that is at all likely.
     
    FromTheRafters, Jul 12, 2008
    #17
  18. Someone close to me had just purchased a new laptop, she said she
    purposefully requested XP rather than Vista because of all the talk
    about UAC - she opted for an easier OS.

    Later, she broke the LCD (involving a thumb-drive and a rather large
    housecat) gave it to me and purchased a new one for herself (XP again).

    It turns out that she had it set to autologon as full administrator rights
    user (no password) and she had saved an online chat log to her desktop
    with most of her personal information and last four digits of her account
    number - as a record of the purchase.

    Vista makes it harder to be so idiotic - but as you have learned, it is not
    impossible.
     
    FromTheRafters, Jul 12, 2008
    #18
  19. SPEnthusiast

    Kerry Brown Guest

    I agree UAC by itself is not a security feature. Some of the things that
    rely on UAC like IE protected mode, locked down ACLs. etc., are.
     
    Kerry Brown, Jul 13, 2008
    #19
  20. SPEnthusiast

    SG Guest


    Safe? well I hope something like this never happens to you.
    Quote from Ronnie Vernon MS-MVP

    It it only annoying until you run into something unexpected. Right after
    Vista was first released, we went through all of the debates about users
    getting to the point where clicking on the prompt became an 'automatic'
    response.

    One user told us about a utility that he downloaded and installed and he got
    the expected 'security warning' about the file not having a digital
    signature. He clicked to run the file anyway and the utility installed. He
    then got a message to 'click here' to configure your personal settings. He
    then received this prompt.

    http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa86/rvmv/UACPrompt2.jpg

    Without UAC, he never would have been aware of the second file being
    installed, since he had already permitted the program to run. Needless to
    say, he decided that he would leave UAC on.
    End Quote

    --
    All the best,
    SG

    Is your computer system ready for Vista?
    https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
    Want to keep up with the latest news from MS?
    http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&topic=t
    Just type in Microsoft
     
    SG, Jul 13, 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.