Just be intelligent and you'll most likely have no problems.
[QUOTE=Robber;16600006]In Windows 7 it doesn't even ask if you [b]edit system settings[/b] or something. Only if a program wants to edit protected files(C:\, everything in C;\Windows, everything in C:\Program Files, etc) or [b]change system settings[/b] or registry keys.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that practically the same? And yeah, the Windows 7 UAC is much more controlled, and i'd just leave it on if i were you UNLESS you know exactly what you're doing..or if you just don't care :downs:
[editline]02:24PM[/editline]
If you're going to rate me dumb, at least give me a reason..Otherwise, we all know who'd be the dumb one :downs:
But really, so many people are rating "dumb", without posting a reason why they think my post was stupid, and possibly also what would be better.
When you turn UAC off in Windows 7, it removes all the nag screens, but the windows directory is protected
[QUOTE=SteveUK;16714774]When you turn UAC off in Windows 7, it removes all the nag screens, but the windows directory is protected[/QUOTE]
When you turn UAC off in Windows 7, you are giving every program, including malware, root access to modify and remove anything it wants, that includes the System32 folder. That analogy about linux was absolutely perfect, it is exactly what UAC is doing.
tl;dr - no UAC means every program can sudo itself
[QUOTE=mastersrp;16714195]Isn't that practically the same? And yeah, the Windows 7 UAC is much more controlled, and i'd just leave it on if i were you UNLESS you know exactly what you're doing..or if you just don't care :downs:
[editline]02:24PM[/editline]
If you're going to rate me dumb, at least give me a reason..Otherwise, we all know who'd be the dumb one :downs:
But really, so many people are rating "dumb", without posting a reason why they think my post was stupid, and possibly also what would be better.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Robber;16600006]In Windows 7 it doesn't even ask if [b]you edit system settings[/b] or something. Only [b]if a program wants to[/b] edit protected files(C:\, everything in C;\Windows, everything in C:\Program Files, etc) or [b]change system settings or registry keys.[/b][/QUOTE]
Hope it helps.
[QUOTE=robmaister12;16714835]tl;dr - no UAC means every program can sudo itself[/QUOTE]
Well just don't install anything like "Free smiley toolbar" or "SpySheriff". Be intelligent and you'll have no problems. The user has total control of his or her own actions, so if you get infected, it's your own fault.
[QUOTE=Lf752;16563671]UAC is for people who don't know how to turn it off.[/QUOTE]
UAC is most likely only useful to the kind of people that don't understand how to turn off UAC unless a popups tells them to.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;16740064]Well just don't install anything like "Free smiley toolbar" or "SpySheriff". Be intelligent and you'll have no problems. The user has total control of his or her own actions, so if you get infected, it's your own fault.[/QUOTE]
Whoever wants any of those programs should shut off the computer and come back in a year or five.
As much as I hate Norton, I actually replaced Vista UAC with Norton UAC. It surprisingly works better and there is a checkbox to "Remember this setting" so you don't have to do it every time.
[QUOTE=ole johan;16749046]UAC is most likely only useful to the kind of people that don't understand how to turn off UAC unless a popups tells them to.[/QUOTE]
You should probably read the thread.
UAC is a pointless, inefficient form of security which you can probably do without unless you're not sure what a CPU is (because that means you computer-dumb). Also anti-virus such as Avira will do.
[QUOTE=Juggernog;16752920]UAC is a pointless, inefficient form of security which you can probably do without unless you're not sure what a CPU is (because that means you computer-dumb). Also anti-virus such as Avira will do.[/QUOTE]
If you're going to pick between UAC and an Anti-virus, you're better off using UAC. UAC protects equally against all attacks whether it identifies an application as a virus or not, while an anti-virus will only protect against threats it can detect, and those it doesn't detect will be ran with full admin privileges upon their request.
I wouldn't call people computer-dumb so quickly until you can figure that one out.
[QUOTE=Juggernog;16752920]UAC is a pointless, inefficient form of security which you can probably do without unless you're not sure what a CPU is (because that means you computer-dumb). Also anti-virus such as Avira will do.[/QUOTE]
I agree on that one.
Man i hated when it poped up every time for xfire, steam, skype omg everything.
If it is coming up everytime for Steam, you are either running it as admin, or in compatibility mode, neither of which are needed after running Steam once.
[QUOTE=gparent;16752995]UAC protects equally against all attacks whether it identifies an application as a virus or not, while an anti-virus will only protect against threats it can detect, and those it doesn't detect will be ran with full admin privileges upon their request.[/QUOTE]
UAC will only protect against attacks that request elevation, and only against ones that the user doesn't initiate / recognize.
[QUOTE=Roast Beast;16754116]UAC will only protect against attacks that request elevation, and only against ones that the user doesn't initiate / recognize.[/QUOTE]
Right, but attacks that do not request elevation are a lot less likely to fuck your system over. UAC protects against attacks that actually matter - Those who try to install root kits, replaces system files, etc. A user land process isn't too dangerous until it requests elevation.
Also, UAC will protect against attacks the user initiates. For instance, a program setup will ask you for elevation even if you launch it yourself.
[QUOTE=gparent;16754534]Right, but attacks that do not request elevation are a lot less likely to fuck your system over. UAC protects against attacks that actually matter - Those who try to install root kits, replaces system files, etc. A user land process isn't too dangerous until it requests elevation.[/QUOTE]
True they can't cause a lot of damage, but they can still mess with your personal files and show you popups and whatnot.
[QUOTE=gparent;16754534]Also, UAC will protect against attacks the user initiates. For instance, a program setup will ask you for elevation even if you launch it yourself.[/QUOTE]
What I mean is if the user initiates an attack then they'll probably just click right through the prompt as a matter of course, for instance if they run an benign-looking installer with hidden malware.
[editline]11:22AM[/editline]
My point being, a good anti-virus is still needed even if you have UAC.
[QUOTE=Roast Beast;16755124]My point being, a good anti-virus is still needed even if you have UAC.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that, I'm just saying if you want to pick between the two I'd go for UAC :P
I did a UAC test once.
I used a virtual machine with 7 and installed everything as usual (Including Flash, which is important for this story).
And then I went to a webpage which I knew had adware.
Immediately when I entered the webpage I got an UAC prompt.
The UAC prompt said Adobe Flash Player was trying to get raised privileges.
Obviously this was NOT Flash Player.
If UAC had been off, whatever was hidden behind this "Flash Player" would have been able to self-install itself with full admin rights.
So to everyone saying UAC is useless, try again.
And if it annoys you on Vista, then I can ensure you that in 7 it is way better.
[QUOTE=Agent_Wesker;16563728]UAC prevents programs from modifying your system, it's there for a reason. So if you get a virus that wants to copy and paste itself all across your hard drive, UAC will pop up and let you know. It's more for advanced users as regular people will just click past it.
Edit:
It also prevents viruses from replacing high priority system files.[/QUOTE]
Even though UAC is the easiest antivirus thing to bypass......
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Worthless bump." - PacificV2))[/highlight]
Meh I don't bother it it doesn't bother me.
[img]http://gyazo.com/5269477865de49809b3686c937c498c2.png[/img]
READ THE FUCKING THREAD DATES BEFORE YOU POST
Oh shit ha ha at least I didn't bump it from 2 years ago.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
