What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
172 Comments
- thesauce, on 10/12/2007, -20/+228I disagree with you that it's not annoying, but that is coming from a programmer/technician viewpoint. I think most people won't be bothered by it because most people don't do things that require the UAC to be in frequent use.
Also, this is coming from a security company. Of course they are going to say it is less secure. If everyone thought Vista was secure enough to not need an antivirus, Kaspersky wouldn't make money :) - Terc, on 10/12/2007, -50/+1637of7, clearly you've never witnessed a typical user on a computer. I'd be willing to bet that 95% of the time a Windows user clicks a button on a dialog box, they didn't read the message at all. Adding more dialogs will just encourage this behavior, thus rendering windows "security" useless. If users learn how to turn off this feature so it will stop "bugging" them, they will do so.
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -118/+211It's not annoying at all. Unless, that is, you're the kind of dumbass that's so annoyed by a seatbelt that you won't wear it. If you're so deficient in brainpower as to try to disable the guard on a circular saw. If you're the kind of person who tries to clean out a running mulcher by sticking your whole torso in. Only then will you be annoyed with UAC. It's very non intrusive. After the initial installations of VLC, Firefox, etc... I haven't really heard a peep out of it more than once a day. In those cases it's working exactly as advertised and asking if I'm the one who's trying to ***** with the settings or if it's some malicious software. In short..eat a bowl of dicks Kaspersky.
- thingalon, on 10/12/2007, -11/+53Terc, you are definitely right that most idiotic users click "Ok" as a reflex action the minute a dialog pops up. I know I've had to deal with enough tech support requests in which the user didn't know what they had just clicked "Ok" to at all.
But the UAC messages are pretty jarring. The screen blacks out for half a second and comes back slightly duller -- the glassy effects on the windows disappear, and it's quite clear that Some ***** Is Going Down. It would take a real moron to not pay attention to that sort of thing... and in those cases - well - what can you do? - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -13/+52I agree with "An anti-virus company saying that a new OS is not secure (and therefore people need their product) is NOT news."
But the typical windows user has no clue how to use Windows. I know this from being 2nd level desktop support at a large corporation with over 1500 windows based desktops and laptops and over 200 mobile users. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34In short: "Vista needs my product"... how convenient for you. And i'm sure you'll just be giving it aw... no, no you won't will you.
- zedebsky, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38Disabling security features is going to make any given system less secure.
- ear1grey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28My car is less secure than XP if I leave the doors open and the keys in the ignition.
The story here is what, exactly? - duckfighter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28benitojuarez -> What you should do, is to uninstall netlimiter, and complain to the developer. To adwise any user to disable a security-feature is plain stupid. Would you disable your firewall, if you were told to?
There will be some issues, until the developers get their software fixed, and work with UAC enabled. I have run vista for 2 weeks now, setting up visual studio, sql-server etc (which have issues with vista!), but after i was done, i havent had any issues. A have seen a few UAC, but not more than 1-2 per day. I am happy, and i feel safe. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30As a Mac user. Vista isn't going to be less secure than XP. The key fact is that UAC is enabled "out of the box". It's important things like the out of box configurations that help the overall security of an operating system. Since XP SP2 they have had the firewall enabled by default.
As Steve Gibson said on Security Now!, Microsoft appear to be adopting the stance of warning users, and more importantly developers, of new features (such as the firewall in Windows XP, and DEP) by having it switched off, or non-required by default. Then a bit further down the line they switch it on by default. Whilst it takes a little longer for the benefit of the features to be seen, in the long run it is the only way that they can implement these things. - Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -20/+45This seems to be a typical case of Microsoft bashing. Now I'm sure there times they deserver it, but this seems to be case of damned if you do, damned if don't. Microsoft has forever been criticised for their security (or lack thereof), yet when they improve it they criticised for that. Is it really Microsoft's fault if idiot users click dialog boxes without reading them?
Linux and OSX have basically the exact same security feature. - Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24*****.
Users should run as a standard user. Once you are setup with drivers etc (and only on a clean install is this really an issue), you hardly ever see UAC.
WTF are these people doing, copying and deleting from the Windows directory constantly? - borisyankov, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29Security companies are afraid of Vista! What a better proof that Vista is more secure?
I find an anti-virus totally obsolete on Vista, if you have some decent PC knowledge and not do too dumb things.
For the average user it might be too early to ditch the anti-virus apps though. - hmemcpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Trolls! Get back in your cave!
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -19/+36"Linux and OSX have basically the exact same security feature."
In Linux and OS X you actually have to enter your password. It can't be turned off (easily) or just clicked-through as a reaction. You actually have to type something in, which gives you time to let what you're doing sink in. It's a superior method over Vista and I wonder why Microsoft didn't adopt that aspect of it. - redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18no, that's a problem with netlimiter.
- Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I already ditched it 5 years ago on XP and have never had a problem.
- reticulate, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20I love ***** fanboys.
Used the retail version of Vista? You'd get like one UAC popup a day, if you're lucky.
IE runs in a sandbox, so it's not given kernal access anymore. In fact, sweet ***** all is given kernal access, just like your precious OSX. It's like sudo for Linux, but it doesn't give a timeout.
Where exactly the ***** is the problem? It's the biggest update in about 6 years, it runs quicker, it looks nicer and it throws in some extra stuff that people actually use.
Why the ***** hate? *****, my parents bought a Vista laptop the other day, and they've had maybe one or two UAC popups. They like it. They aren't elitist ***** who feel the need to look superior or diss Microsoft because it's what everyone uses. They just want a decent OS.
You know what? ***** me, they actually got one. So shut the ***** up. - redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18wow if you're getting UAC prompts when you click the start menu your computer is really ***** up.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21turning off UAC to run software? that's not Microsoft's fault that the fault of ***** developers.
It's not like Vista appeared from nowhere and they didn't have time to react. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Why not? Every other more secure operating system does this. It is an essential part of stopping the old scripting problems.
It's a benefit, unless you run an installer every 5 minutes, so get over it and live with it. - redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12no mr flesh, no. fact of the matter is.. you spelled "coming" wrong and a comment involving apple is not a free pass for being a dumbass.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Visual Studio 2005 runs fine with UAC enabled for me. Do you have the Vista update installed?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=90e2942d-3ad1-4873-a2ee-4acc0aace5b6&displaylang=en
In any case, I get maybe 3 or 4 UAC prompts a day. It doesn't really bother me. - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13This is of course a few weeks after Symantec says that Vista is more secure than XP.
http://www.techcentral.ie/corporate_it/Symantec_Clears_Vista/view - SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I've always been a little suspicious of Kaspersky. Their anti-virus is ranked as one of the most effective out there on % of viruses detected. They seem to know a hell of a lot of ways around security features in Windows, and they seem to know about some viruses awfully quickly... Are other companies just slack or are these guys firefighters making money by throwing fuel on the fire while people aren't looking, if you know what I mean?
- traherom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Oh, UAC is annoying. Punkbuster usually doesn't work with it enabled. ;)
UAC really isn't that bad, once you have your system set up. The only time I got really ticked off at it was when I was copying files around in the Porgram Files folder and I got prompted for every single one... - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16UAC will get fast and slow tracked on the personal PC.
People train easily, so it really doesn't matter what the dialog box says, no one is going to read it unless reading it matters. And when does reading it matter, when you DON'T KNOW why it showed up.
If i want to install a program and UAC pops up, i know it's okay because i'm installing a program i knew it was going to show up, it was expected, so i'll bypass it and click continue. If i'm typing up a word document and UAC just pops up for no reason i'm going to go WTF and try and figure out why UAC popped up randomly, since i didn't do anything to prompt it to activate. It's actually a very robust system, maybe over zealous, but people will learn when a prompt shows up and why. Anything that breaches ordinary will get more attention than normal. - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10neither me nor duckfighter said anything bad about microsoft in our posts.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I'm a Mac fan, but that is hardly a relevant comment.
- reticulate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@philipscomputer:
Yep, and that should say something about the people who are using the computers, not the OS they're using.
I guarantee you OSX or Linux would require the same authority to make changes that Vista requires when your moron users decide to delete the Program Files/Apps/Etc directories. Or visit every spyware-laden website Google can find for them.
The problem isn't the OS, it's the users. I work on a helpdesk, and I absolutely, positively guarantee that people would rather ignore such popups than click on them. Guess what? We get their laptops back, loaded with spyware, exactly because they ignore the warnings. Who the *****'s fault is that? You shouldn't have been surfing porno sites at work, and we caught you without trying because you were dumb enough to rock up with 50 spyware toolbars and so many TSRs I don't know where to start beyond a clean-reimage. Enjoy that early retirement.
Seriously. Blacking out the screen and letting people know that Actual Serious ***** is happening is a far better deterrent than a couple of easily ignored popup warnings. They might actually think twice before losing their jobs to a jerk-session, for one. - kayjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10FUD ???
sound like it... - littleblckheart, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16I bet you get all the ladies, women love misogyny. . .
And unlike women, you obviously have important things to say! - cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -1/+10Get a life, madmax3000.
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Neither of these headlines are accurate - neither the digg nor the article - both assert that Kaspersky definitively said that Vista is less secure then XP, while the exact quote was: "There's a question mark if Vista security has improved, or has really dropped down".
That reads 'we have no idea'.
Also, third-party AV providers fear Vista for their own self-interest, as Vista has made making their products effective much more difficult, while Microsoft has launched its own antivirus, anti-phishing, and anti-malware solutions.
While the Microsoft av product quality is still young, for distribution, branding, and marketing reasons any Microsoft product will be extremely difficult to compete with regardless of quality.
The majority of Vista users (not digg users) will *not* turn off UAC - in the enterprise you wont even be *able* to turn it off as a user.
80% of non-enterprise users will not touch the default setting even if they knew it existed.
For example, once my mom's computer is set up I have absolutely no idea why she would even run into UAC - she surfs the web, reads her email, she doesnt download programs or change her desktop. Never mind her running into it enough to want to disable it.
10% will know they can change it but wont because they will deal with the annoyance because of the security.
The last 10% will turn it off, and this is only the 10% of non-enterprise users.
But whats really important is that the users most affected by malware - i.e. idiots and especially families with kids who will download and run *anything* thats free - and their weekday enterprise alter-egos - will largely have UAC enabled.
So, yes, UAC will for practical reasons be a relevant security feature. - banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Sorry but I don't find the UAC bothersome at all.
No more so than being asked if I'm sure I want to delete a file, or something similar.
Thumbs up Microsoft. I just installed Vista Ultimate this weekend and I love it!! - Cherubim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Kasperksy is pissed because they can't sell the same old crap to end-users like they used to. Microsoft did a good job in locking down the OS with Vista thus reducing the dependency on third party AV products.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8FUD, FUD, and more FUD. Imagine that. A company that makes money selling you security software tells you everything is insecure? How convenient!
This is just like Symantec's frequent FUD about [insert product here] being insecure, blah blah.
Vista is a *drastic* improvement over XP. Across the board, not just security-wise. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fanboy or a salesman. - cloudsoup, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18I agree, it's just not annoying. You aren't continually bugged by it unless you're continually running installs or something similar.
- EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It seems Kaspersky doesn't know anything. UAC is not the only security control level. Even with UAC entirely disabled, Vista is far far far more secure than XP.
- chazuk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Digging him down for posting a fact? WTF? +1
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16UAC is actually a little less annoying than Linux security (at least for me in Ubuntu) which requires me to put in my administrator password when making changes (which I've kept to a quick and easy, one-handed password ;)...but I think the UAC thing pops up more often than Linux administrative changes. But then again, Linux is smarter. If you're working on the command prompt, it leaves administrative privileges enabled for an amount of time you can set, so you're not typing the password in for every command. And, the dialogue box only pops up when you're making changes through a GUI.
The thing that is worrisome for Vista-users is how Kaspersky mentions the 5 ways around UAC even when it is enabled.
wow brstilson was thinking the same thing as I typed. The thing is, Linux asks you for the password when you do something that's going to change the configuration of your system. Vista's UAC pops up when you're just doing some normal tasks, from what I've seen. - RileyKA, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Let me correct myself, %TEMP% has no Write or Execute. You can still read from it. My Bad...
- paker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Typical user? I know 2 that use Windows 98 that don't use anti virus programs or firewalls.
- chazuk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Spot on!
If people think they're that much of a PC expert that they turn off security features, only to get infected or ***** their install up they deserve it. - Captaffy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Even when you are logged in as an Adminstrator, you are still running as a User account. The UAC prompt occurs when it must elevate you to the Administrator level to accomplish something. So basically the difference between running as a User or an Administrator is that Administrators don't have to type in their password each time, and they can access all system settings.
And that is why you have to specifically run certain applications as Administrator by right-clicking and choosing 'Run as Administrator'. Kind of bizarre. - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Its true though, it simply DOESNT work with uac enabled. Itll install fine but uac denies access to any attempts to throttle bandwidth of a particular app without so much as an allow or deny box.
05.03.2007, NetLimiter Team
New NetLimiter 2 release which will fix major problems on new Windows Vista will be released in next few weeks.
It will fix bugs which occure during installation and registration process on Vista and many other not only Vista related problems. It seems english is not their first language but that doesnt really matter.
like i said, hopefully that will fix it, they are a pretty decent (IMO) team. - sid0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Sorry, but you're incorrect. I have UAC off. cd %temp% on a command prompt works.
- GliTCH82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"FYI all professional framers take the blade guard off."
UAC isn't about protecting you from yourself. There's more going on behind the scenes than the pop-up window asking you if you really want to do what you just told your computer you wanted to do. There's a whole sandbox/virtualization environment that protects your system from malware and viruses that is entirely disabled if you disable UAC, and AV software makers are annoyed because even they can't get the low level access to the Windows kernel that they used to be able to. This is great news, it means that if they can't modify your system at such a low level then viruses won't be able to either. Basically AV software makers are using FUD tactics to either scare people away from Vista and stick with XP where they can continue to pay $40 a year subscriptions, or raising enough doubts about Vista that you would shell out the money for their AV solution for Vista even when it isn't entirely hammered out yet. - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I honestly don't understand the point.
I can see how disabling UAC makes it less secure than having it enabled. But how can it make it worse than XP, which does not have UAC either? - raita, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I'm getting so tired of these Vista-bashings. Listen to the latest episode of Security Now: http://www.twit.tv/sn83 and you'll see that UAC is really good. Especially in a few years when software-developers understand that UAC is really anoying and that they should write their software not having to do UAC-required operations.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is