Slashdot Mirror


Benefits of Vista's User Access Control?

Abtin Forouzandeh asks: "Having used Vista for a few months, something keeps nagging me about the user account control. For the UAC to be useful, the user needs to have a fair amount of knowledge about: what the UAC is; what application it is blocking; the consequences of blocking the action; and an alternate approach if the blocked action did something useful. Anyone who has ever worked with end-users can tell you that they are generally disinterested in learning anything about computer usage beyond how to use word and make a spreadsheet. Frankly, even as a highly technical user, I nearly always approve the UAC dialog, even if I don't know the consequences. Since users lack knowledge, and Vista keeps asking esoteric/ambiguous questions, then users will always approve UAC dialogs. Since the UAC so clearly fails in its goal of making computing more secure, and substantially increases complexity, why is it common wisdom that turning off UAC is 'not recommended'? For 99% of users, is there any true downside? Has the community come up with ways to make UAC useful?"

5 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Serves it's purpose by linds.r · · Score: 3, Informative

    I tend to agree - they can still quote increased security, with UAC on of course, who would turn it off, you want less security? while the great majority of users turn off the misimplemented annoyance factory.

  2. I found it to be useless by Nichotin · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have been helping a Norwegian magazine write a 100 page Vista Special, one of my articles was about UAC. In the beginning I was very excited about this feature, thinking that it would provide some safety. Then, after a while, two things happened:
    1) I got tired of the constant nagging and the need to enable admin mode by default on several apps by default to avoid compatibility issues, and
    2) I realized that I clicked 'Allow' on anything anyway, the only exception would be a UAC dialog popping up from nowhere. This approach would make me wide open for attacks by supposedly trusted installers anyway.

    So I turned it off! I still havent had any malware or viruses (Symantec Corporate kills most of that anyway). My life got all jolly and happy again. I can only imagine that the same "always allow" mentality will be the same for less savvy users. You want to do your work, right?

  3. Re:Easy answer! by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 3, Informative

    The BSoD went away and was replaced with the "automatic reboot". I think there is an option or something to show the BSoD vice rebooting. For most people, the info in the BSoD is useless anyway.

    --
    I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  4. Re:useless but still the right thing by cornjones · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mod the parent up
    in the long run applications will have to avoid causing UAC prompts and eventually it will be possible to secure the "windows ecosystem" without breaking common programs.

    That is the important point here. There is no reason for many of these programs to be asking for 'administrative' access to do any of this shit. MS can't just cut it off b/c it will break most of it's install base. This is a way to guide software companies into writing programs with a thought to security, rather than just doing it the 'easy way'.

  5. Re:What the hell is the point? by chabotc · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Oh, and all of my hardware works. On both of my desktops and my notebook."

    Oh then please tell me why Vista degraded my nice SB FX DSP diving my 7.1 system into a software rendered piece of crap which is barely able to keep up with a 0.10$ intergrated sound chip

    All the DRM made direct access to the DSP 'illegal', so it can't be used anymore in vista, nor will it likely ever be

    Creative is advising every game creator to use OpenAL, to bypass this piece of crap situation DRM has brought us, so much for 'vista the ultimate gaming platform' :-)