Windows 7 next year?

[Splash]

I think UAC does that on its own.

Or rather would, if only Microsoft made a compelling reason for Joe User not to just disable it. I run it on all the time, my Dad would probably disable it and then cry when he got hit by a drive-by installer from his browser which trashed his machine and start a rant about how poor an OS is because he thought it was the most secure version yet.

Unfortunately until people (and this goes for developers as much as users: why should an application require full administrative access in order to run?) get out of this "I know what I'm doing, I run everything as root" mentality then UAC is pretty much useless.

[dangel]

Unfortunately until people (and this goes for developers as much as users: why should an application require full administrative access in order to run?) get out of this "I know what I'm doing, I run everything as root" mentality then UAC is pretty much useless.

But that's chicken and egg - MS have to make the first move to force developers to conform. Of course that doesn't absolve users from needing to change attitudes - you can't add security without restriction after all - but most of the problem is that they're used to be able to do anything, anytime on Windows without encumberance. The other part of the problem is they read lots of people saying it's crap and then turn it off thinking they know best. Whilst that might be true for a narrow band of users - what about the average punter? Absolutely not.

Windows is held back (like a lot of software) by people's inability to accept change (note: for good reasons). MS have taken a lot of flak over Vista due to solid technical decisions - the new driver model, encouraging you not to run as admin and introducing UAC. All of those things are there to tackle the serious flaws in it's predecessor.

[directhex]

Or rather would, if only Microsoft made a compelling reason for Joe User not to just disable it. I run it on all the time, my Dad would probably disable it and then cry when he got hit by a drive-by installer from his browser which trashed his machine and start a rant about how poor an OS is because he thought it was the most secure version yet.

Unfortunately until people (and this goes for developers as much as users: why should an application require full administrative access in order to run?) get out of this "I know what I'm doing, I run everything as root" mentality then UAC is pretty much useless.

the big problem with UAC in my mind is the assumption that trust should only be granted instantaneously - if i'm doing five "root" actions within a minute, i should not need to agree to a UAC prompt for all of them. by all means keep normal confirm prompts, but asking again and again and again and again to agree to UAC prompts is silly

on a linux system with "sudo", there's a short grace period after you show yourself to be wearing your "system administrator hat" whereby it's assumed that you don't want to be bugged again about it.

the administrator needs greater powers than they have - it's maddening that even when you use "run as administrator", explorer will still tell you to bugger off when trying to explore certain folders, as you lack permissions. STOP. do not pass go. the administrator knows all. if the administrator wants in, let him in.

those are my grievances with UAC. i was hoping SP1 would address some of them.

[dangel]

the big problem with UAC in my mind is the assumption that trust should only be granted instantaneously - if i'm doing five "root" actions within a minute, i should not need to agree to a UAC prompt for all of them. by all means keep normal confirm prompts, but asking again and again and again and again to agree to UAC prompts is silly

Explorer did this for certain file actions - but they did improve it. Interestingly Directory Opus got it right from the get-go demonstrating that it was possible to write software that fitted into the model.
The noise has decreased but I think many users won't accept even one prompt.

the administrator needs greater powers than they have - it's maddening that even when you use "run as administrator", explorer will still tell you to bugger off when trying to explore certain folders, as you lack permissions. STOP. do not pass go. the administrator knows all. if the administrator wants in, let him in.

That's ownership though, surely? Whilst it is a murky, complicated world - taking ownership isn't toooooo hard.. I find this quite handy - add the following to a text file and save it as ownership.reg or similar:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00


[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\runas]
@="Take Ownership"
"NoWorkingDirectory"=""

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\runas\command]
@="cmd.exe /c takeown /f \"%1\" && icacls \"%1\" /grant administrators:F"
"IsolatedCommand"="cmd.exe /c takeown /f \"%1\" && icacls \"%1\" /grant administrators:F"

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory\shell\runas]
@="Take Ownership"
"NoWorkingDirectory"=""

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory\shell\runas\command]
@="cmd.exe /c takeown /f \"%1\" /r /d y && icacls \"%1\" /grant administrators:F /t"
"IsolatedCommand"="cmd.exe /c takeown /f \"%1\" /r /d y && icacls \"%1\" /grant administrators:F /t"

When you right click you'll see a new option "Take Ownership"


GUI version:



TakeControlb2.zip - Windows Live SkyDrive

[directhex]

Explorer did this for certain file actions - but they did improve it. Interestingly Directory Opus got it right from the get-go demonstrating that it was possible to write software that fitted into the model.
The noise has decreased but I think many users won't accept even one prompt.

explorer will show you a "be administrator for as many actions as you have selected" window, which will apply for (say) dragging 3 files at once to somewhere naughty. it doesn't handle, say, dragging one file at a time to three naughty locations. that's the complaint. i want a sudo-style "caching" of the fact that i'm being an admin.

That's ownership though, surely? Whilst it is a murky, complicated world - taking ownership isn't toooooo hard.. I find this quite handy - add the following to a text file and save it as ownership.reg or similar:

but it happens on system folders like (say) Application Data

and i don't want to mess with those.

i just think Administrator should be able to implicitly ignore all permissions if he wants to - otherwise, what's the point?

[dangel]

explorer will show you a "be administrator for as many actions as you have selected" window, which will apply for (say) dragging 3 files at once to somewhere naughty. it doesn't handle, say, dragging one file at a time to three naughty locations. that's the complaint. i want a sudo-style "caching" of the fact that i'm being an admin.

So you want explorer to allow you to do 3 unrelated actions with the same elevations? I might try turning UAC on to see what Opus does.. but i'd expect the same.

but it happens on system folders like (say) Application Data

and i don't want to mess with those.

i just think Administrator should be able to implicitly ignore all permissions if he wants to - otherwise, what's the point?

You can take ownership of Application Data (or ProgramData - App Data is just a junction on Vista) without causing mass destruction - multiple owners are allowed after all. I see what you mean though, and I've always felt that permissions and ownership are far too complicated at both file system and registry level, but it's outside the scope of UAC full stop. I guess the thing you're looking for is to be system - he who can (really) do anything.

[peterb]

I guess the thing you're looking for is to be system - he who can (really) do anything.

I think that is it - with 'rootly powers' comes 'rootly responsibility' - unfortunately I don't think the average Windows user understands that. In a *nix environment root can do rm -rf * and the system will obey. In Windows you would get loads of dire warnings - and probably correctly so. It is almost as if there should be a hierarchy of administration rights - from novice to expert - but then everyone would select expert - with appropriate consequences.

This is a chicken/egg situation. MS have insdvertently made a rod for their own back. Early consumer products had little security to speak of, the professional products rolled out to corporate bodies had system admins that understood their rights and responsibilities.

Rolling out the professional products to the average user meant that security had to be relaxed - it had to work out of the box. Tightening up (correctly) on security now is going to cause pain, grief and irritation to users who don't understand the concepts or requirements.

As Directhex says, the ability to run with limited admin powers while logged on as an ordinary user would be useful (although sudo itself needs setting up/administering - so it would have to built in out of the box).

[TheAnimus]

if UAC had a grace peroid, before asking people again, how many would get drive by download infections during that peroid?

I think the valid complaint is with explorer. Again. (see my many ramblings on the ****tieness of explorer)

But this time because UAC has been bolted onto it as if it where a XP app.

The vista explorer should build a queue of all the actions your trying to do, and allow you to have a quiet option.

[dangel]

if UAC had a grace peroid, before asking people again, how many would get drive by download infections during that peroid?

I think the valid complaint is with explorer. Again. (see my many ramblings on the ****tieness of explorer)

But this time because UAC has been bolted onto it as if it where a XP app.

The vista explorer should build a queue of all the actions your trying to do, and allow you to have a quiet option.

I *hate* explorer - and that's not limited to Windows Vista. It's only when you use something better that you realise what a smacktard it is.

[TheAnimus]

used the norton desktop with the pile of poo that was win 3.1

that had a truely great file explorer!

[Splash]

But... parent/child security token inheritance - start an application with administrative privileges (a command prompt, for instance) and anything launched from that session inherits the admin privileges. It's not something I've tried, but I would imagine running explorer.exe will allow you to do the things that you ask.

People do have a point though: the poor security model that most people are used to is a bad thing, and the only way to change it is to get people to understand why it's needed. Anyone (and I mean anyone) that runs their browser with admin credentials because they "know about computers and so they can" deserves every infection that they get in my eyes.

[directhex]

if UAC had a grace peroid, before asking people again, how many would get drive by download infections during that peroid?

mmm... not many, i would hope, but maybe it IS just hope. but the wife has taken to shouting in annoyance whenever UAC gets in her way, since it's so ham-fisted with it. i haven't admitted UAC can be disabled.

I think the valid complaint is with explorer. Again. (see my many ramblings on the ****tieness of explorer)

But this time because UAC has been bolted onto it as if it where a XP app.

The vista explorer should build a queue of all the actions your trying to do, and allow you to have a quiet option.

i just wish UAC were configurable, so at least my desired scenario were possible - i.e. a middle ground between "off" and "click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue. click continue."

[TheAnimus]

Do you mean the UAC (make the screen go dark) prompts which require password, or the "Are you sure you wish to do this?" ones?

[dangel]

You ought not to have to configure it though - explorer ought to work well with it given the explorer team can probably (via several layers of management) speak to the UAC team.

[directhex]

Do you mean the UAC (make the screen go dark) prompts which require password, or the "Are you sure you wish to do this?" ones?

the dark ones.

i don't mind being asked "are you sure". sometimes i'm not. but damnit, i'm the Administrator! respect mah autoritah!

[dangel]

What are you constantly doing that provokes the prompts then?
I'm interested to know the sequence that causes this barrage of prompting and the necessity of doing it..