Possible UAC Improvement   

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?

date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:03 -0700   author:   Jim Selinsky .(donotspam)

Re: Possible UAC Improvement   

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:03 -0700, Jim Selinsky
<jselin@comcast.net.(donotspam)> wrote:

>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.  

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.

>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?

date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:02:56 -0500   author:   Nonny

Re: Possible UAC Improvement   

> 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.

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.

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

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

date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:57:02 +0100   author:   Steve Thackery

Re: Possible UAC Improvement   

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

>If you are using day-to-day applications which generate UAC prompts it's 
>probably time to update them.

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

date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:41:39 -0500   author:   Nonny

Re: Possible UAC Improvement   

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:41:39 -0500, Nonny 
wrote:

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

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.

date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:36 +0200   author:   Root Kit

Re: Possible UAC Improvement   

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:36 +0200, Root Kit 
wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:41:39 -0500, Nonny 
>wrote:
>
>>Bullshit.  Why pay for an update when the old program is getting the
>>job done?
>
>That's for oneself to decide. Then just don't whine about UAC.

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.

>However, what you *should* do is demand that the vendor fixes his
>broken software for free.

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

date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:07:48 -0500   author:   Nonny

Re: Possible UAC Improvement   

"Nonny"  wrote in message 
news:s8nm74dvuhml0qtmbc4ou7a2uehahc2lbe@4ax.com...

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

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*

date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:44:44 +0100   author:   Paul Smith

Re: Possible UAC Improvement   

"Paul Smith"  wrote in message 
news:6356D132-E287-4A53-93DE-0E004B9103D7@microsoft.com...
>
> "Nonny"  wrote in message 
> news:s8nm74dvuhml0qtmbc4ou7a2uehahc2lbe@4ax.com...
>
>> It's not broken, doofus,  it's out-dated.
>
> 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*
>

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.

date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:26:33 -0600   author:   Michael D. Ober obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam.

Re: Possible UAC Improvement   

date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:16:42 +0100   author:   Steve Thackery