Do you use Vista's UAC?

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It isn't risky if you know what you are doing.

That is the wrong way to look at it. A risky operation is always a risky operation, even if being performed by someone who knows what they are doing. The difference between a novice and an expert is that the expert understands the operation is risky and is willing to asses if the benefits outweigh the risk. Then the expert takes appropriate actions to help shield against some of them risk prior to executing the operation.

No it is the right way to look at it.
It is my system and if I want to copy files, delete file, or install a program I will and without the OS second guessing me.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It isn't risky if you know what you are doing.

That is the wrong way to look at it. A risky operation is always a risky operation, even if being performed by someone who knows what they are doing. The difference between a novice and an expert is that the expert understands the operation is risky and is willing to asses if the benefits outweigh the risk. Then the expert takes appropriate actions to help shield against some of them risk prior to executing the operation.

No it is the right way to look at it.
It is my system and if I want to copy files, delete file, or install a program I will and without the OS second guessing me.

It's not second guessing you. Second guessing you would mean it doesn't let you do it. Under UAC you are basically running with a User account. When you attempt something that requires the admin portions of your security token it asks you before elevating.

You can leave UAC on and not get these prompts simply by changing the permissions of the "program files" directory structure. You'll get a UAC prompt once when changing the permissions but never again after that. Mind you that's incredibly stupid. When UAC (or anything else) is rapping you on the head going "mcfly? hello? mcfly?" maybe you should at least ponder why before brushing it off.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It isn't risky if you know what you are doing.

That is the wrong way to look at it. A risky operation is always a risky operation, even if being performed by someone who knows what they are doing. The difference between a novice and an expert is that the expert understands the operation is risky and is willing to asses if the benefits outweigh the risk. Then the expert takes appropriate actions to help shield against some of them risk prior to executing the operation.

No it is the right way to look at it.
It is my system and if I want to copy files, delete file, or install a program I will and without the OS second guessing me.

It's not second guessing you. Second guessing you would mean it doesn't let you do it. Under UAC you are basically running with a User account. When you attempt something that requires the admin portions of your security token it asks you before elevating.

You can leave UAC on and not get these prompts simply by changing the permissions of the "program files" directory structure. You'll get a UAC prompt once when changing the permissions but never again after that. Mind you that's incredibly stupid. When UAC (or anything else) is rapping you on the head going "mcfly? hello? mcfly?" maybe you should at least ponder why before brushing it off.

Nope.
Don't need it .
Its turned off, why do you care ?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Nope.
Don't need it .
Its turned off, why do you care ?

I don't want your computer spreading herpes on the same Internet that I use every day.

Other than that I don't care in the slightest what you do with your machine.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Nope.
Don't need it .
Its turned off, why do you care ?

I don't want your computer spreading herpes on the same Internet that I use every day.

Other than that I don't care in the slightest what you do with your machine.

It can't.
It isn't even on a network

 

[bsobel]

It can't.
It isn't even on a network

Yea know, I was gonna back Simlin up on this one, but in the words of Peter Grithin 'touche salesman, touche'

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Nope.
Don't need it .
Its turned off, why do you care ?

I don't want your computer spreading herpes on the same Internet that I use every day.

Other than that I don't care in the slightest what you do with your machine.

It can't.
It isn't even on a network

As you were then. Carry on.

 

[fritzfield]

UAC = OK with my 5 rigs ( all Vista 64)

 

[hclarkjr]

using it, no sense running vista if you are not going to use it IMHO

 

[Gooberlx2]

I think there was another thread just like this...but it was old.

Anyway, yes I use it...and it, along with parental controls, has probably prevented my brother-in-law from killing my computer with viruses from garbage pr0n sites and stupid little spyware programs, myspace garbage, etc...

 

[Zenoth]

Wow, thank you all for your responses and thank you for voting, keep doing so please

The more I read about it and the more I think I'm just going to leave my initial impressions of UAC behind for added security (I'm new to Vista thanks for a nice work around about the 60Hz Bug, the only thing that prevented me from using Vista since I'm on a monitor and regularly gaming, although it still doesn't work for DX10, I'm still trying to figure out a way around that one, but anyways, don't comment on this particularly, let's keep it at UAC stuff).

Because, you know, after using Windows XP since... well since around 2003 I believe it was, and you're never being asked permission to do anything by your OS, it is true now that I think about it that in the end it is Vista that grants more control for a user on its OS compared to XP. You can control way more things in Vista and one could in XP is my impression so far, and I'm just starting to see the point of the iceberg. I've seen what can be done with sepcol.msc for example and it is really great.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Nope.
Don't need it .
Its turned off, why do you care ?

I don't want your computer spreading herpes on the same Internet that I use every day.

Other than that I don't care in the slightest what you do with your machine.

It can't.
It isn't even on a network

Why didn't you say so in the first place?

:thumbsup:

 

[pcgamer321]

Best security ever.
Yes.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It isn't risky if you know what you are doing.

That is the wrong way to look at it. A risky operation is always a risky operation, even if being performed by someone who knows what they are doing. The difference between a novice and an expert is that the expert understands the operation is risky and is willing to asses if the benefits outweigh the risk. Then the expert takes appropriate actions to help shield against some of them risk prior to executing the operation.

No it is the right way to look at it.
It is my system and if I want to copy files, delete file, or install a program I will and without the OS second guessing me.

And guess what-if you can do it without prompts, so can a script Unless youre not connected to the internet, youre at risk

edit: nvm you said you arent on a network.

10/10 for troll post!

 

[rchiu]

Best security is good judgment with anti-virus, firewall and spyware scan/remover with all the latest updates, not UAC. It's stupid to think hackers won't find something to bypass UAC and blindly trust it. Plus UAC annoys the hell out of me, so I turn it off.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Best security is good judgment with anti-virus, firewall and spyware scan/remover with all the latest updates, not UAC. It's stupid to think hackers won't find something to bypass UAC and blindly trust it. Plus UAC annoys the hell out of me, so I turn it off.

To blindly disregard a great feature is also foolish.

The most malicious trojans will alter your system folder (and those therein), or your registry. The fact is, UAC is the only product that has stopped these with 100% success. The problem with other software solutions is they detect often AFTER the baddie has executed (not always, but mostly). UAC catches it BEFORE it executes.

 

[stash]

Best security is good judgment with anti-virus, firewall and spyware scan/remover with all the latest updates, not UAC. It's stupid to think hackers won't find something to bypass UAC and blindly trust it

Just as it is stupid to blindly trust A/V, firewalls and anti-spyware. Especially A/V and anti-spyware, since they are largely reactive solutions.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: stash

Best security is good judgment with anti-virus, firewall and spyware scan/remover with all the latest updates, not UAC. It's stupid to think hackers won't find something to bypass UAC and blindly trust it

Just as it is stupid to blindly trust A/V, firewalls and anti-spyware. Especially A/V and anti-spyware, since they are largely reactive solutions.

What part of "best security is good judgment" don't you understand. Just look at posts above and see how many people think UAC would stop 100% of attacks and tell me who blindly believe in one solution.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Best security is good judgment with anti-virus, firewall and spyware scan/remover with all the latest updates, not UAC. It's stupid to think hackers won't find something to bypass UAC and blindly trust it. Plus UAC annoys the hell out of me, so I turn it off.

You've got it reversed. You're safer with just UAC and no antivirus, firewall and spyware scanner. On top of that, that pile of software you listed saps plenty of resources, often more than the intrusions they're trying to prevent.

 

[stash]

Just look at posts above and see how many people think UAC would stop 100% of attacks and tell me who blindly believe in one solution.

Just look at my post and tell me where I said you should blindly believe in one solution.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: stash

Best security is good judgment with anti-virus, firewall and spyware scan/remover with all the latest updates, not UAC. It's stupid to think hackers won't find something to bypass UAC and blindly trust it

Just as it is stupid to blindly trust A/V, firewalls and anti-spyware. Especially A/V and anti-spyware, since they are largely reactive solutions.

What part of "best security is good judgment" don't you understand. Just look at posts above and see how many people think UAC would stop 100% of attacks and tell me who blindly believe in one solution.

You don't read much do you?

UAC Nails Rootkits

Now tell me which is more effective at preventing infection, depending on your alarm (AV and other scanners) or locking your solid steel door (UAC)? Fact is UAC is almost 100% effective at preventing infections when running as a standard user along with enabling DEP for everything. (In other words, run with least privileges full time as does both OSX and most Linux distros.)

The best AV scanner is only around 70% accurate in detecting and cleaning infections.

AntiVirus Detection Rate Thread

I think I will stick with UAC and no virus scanner.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
I think I will stick with UAC and no virus scanner.

Better performance that way, too.

 

[BD2003]

Yep, nothing like not needing antivirus anymore. I actually had a dual-boot system, where the XP partition got infected by a virus, despite having an AV scanner. Since I was already intending on reformatting, I ran the virus .exe just for sh*ts and giggles under Vista, and a UAC prompt came up. I said no, I dont want to copy files to the system folders. Virus blocked. Just ended up wiping XP off the drive for good, its just dated. UAC FTW.

 

[mechBgon]

Are you using Windows Vista's UAC?

Definitely :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It isn't risky if you know what you are doing.

That is the wrong way to look at it. A risky operation is always a risky operation, even if being performed by someone who knows what they are doing. The difference between a novice and an expert is that the expert understands the operation is risky and is willing to asses if the benefits outweigh the risk. Then the expert takes appropriate actions to help shield against some of them risk prior to executing the operation.

No it is the right way to look at it.
It is my system and if I want to copy files, delete file, or install a program I will and without the OS second guessing me.

Regarding your file-copying/deleting problems: consider fixing the underlying issue (permissions/ownership needs to be granted to your Users group), instead of shooting the messenger (UAC prompts).

 

[HannibalX]

I do not use it.