TweakUAC - feedback?

"AJR" <ajrjdr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%23qAdCbu2IHA.2332@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Jon - your reply is excellent - hope you do not mind if I pass it on!


Thanks. Glad you appreciated it, and no problem. Spread the word bro ....
;-)

--
Jon

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:06:34 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> Just wondered if many people have tried it and does it do what it says on
>> the tin?
>
>Yes, it does what it says on the tin.
>
>But, I actually LIKE the UAC prompts! The fact is, they are pretty rare in
>normal use UNLESS:

That is a over simplification and not always true. The number of UAC
nag screens one can get depends on HOW you use your computer. For
example I have two large (750GB) external drives that have many image
or video files created while running under XP. All attempts to alter
any of these files was met with multiple UAC nag screens. Worse, it
was impossible to take ownership with all attempts on some files
having the allow options grayed out. The net result was Vista being
utterly stupid as it was designed, preventing me from
altering/deleting files I created under a prior version of Windows.

Many of these files had unique Registry keys as the owner, apparently
generated when created by the software that altered them in the first
place.
>
>The big advantage of the UAC prompts is that Vista TELLS you when something
>with security implications is about to happen. TweakUAC effectively just
>says "OK" to every UAC prompt. What is the use of that?

I'm all ears. Tell me how deleting a desktop shortcut, nothing but a
empty link pointing to nowhere, a common UAC nag, is in any way ever a
security implication.
>
>For instance, a UAC prompt when casually browsing the web should raise alarm
>bells with you. You really don't want an "automatic OK"!
>
>Seriously, I've been hammering my Vista machine for 18 months and, once I'd
>got it configured as I want it, UAC prompts are very rare indeed. The only
>time I ever see one these days is when I'm installing a new program.

Seriously, you just proved my point. You just said "once I'd got it
configured as I want it"... which implies you needed to do a lot of
tweaking before the majority of UAC nag screens went away. This is of
course why most people either ignore UAC nag warnings and always click
through or turn the damn crap off.

> I'm all ears. Tell me how deleting a desktop shortcut, nothing but a
> empty link pointing to nowhere, a common UAC nag, is in any way ever a
> security implication.

I've just deleted two of the desktop shortcuts on my machine. No UAC
prompts.

How on earth have you got your machine set up?

> Seriously, you just proved my point. You just said "once I'd got it
> configured as I want it"... which implies you needed to do a lot of
> tweaking before the majority of UAC nag screens went away.

You misunderstand. I wasn't tweaking things to make UAC prompts go away.
Why would I? TweakUAC will do that. I mean I was installing applications,
setting up my data storage and backup regime, messing about with various
other settings, etc. There were some UAC prompts during that period, which
is exactly what I would expect.

Since then? Hardly any.

As for your external drives, this is obviously a real problem for you. I
don't have enough expertise to know the best way to handle that, although on
the odd occasion I've experienced it myself I was able to sort it by
claiming ownership of all the files. I don't know why you weren't able to
do that - perhaps one of our resident experts might join in at this
point.... :-)

SteveT

I can see the benefit of UAC if the user has no anti-virus and anti-spyware
software installed and no firewall operating but do you need yet another
layer of security? Most up to date security software operates in real time
and adds it's own alerts. Even Windows Defender rings the alarm bells. Are
we running our computers to demonstrate security software or to do something
useful?



~~~~


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Smirnoff" <someone@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsC1BA86F-3B13-4FD2-80FD-126204C73647@microsoft.com...
> Have seen various fixes given in this group for the annoying UAC prompts.
>
> They range from turning it off completely, (NOT a good idea I think), to
> writing scripts etc.
>
> Saw a post mentioning TweakUAC.
>
> Apparently it allows you to run UAC in "quiet" mode. Keeping IE and other
> things protected without having to "Run as Administrator" to immunise
> Spybot S&D (for example).
>
> See : http://www.tweak-uac.com/
>
> Just wondered if many people have tried it and does it do what it says on
> the tin?
>
> Also, if it DOES do what it says on the tin, is it a good or a bad thing?
>

"Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ug1RHvv2IHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm all ears. Tell me how deleting a desktop shortcut, nothing but a
>> empty link pointing to nowhere, a common UAC nag, is in any way ever a
>> security implication.
>
> I've just deleted two of the desktop shortcuts on my machine. No UAC
> prompts.
>
> How on earth have you got your machine set up?
>
>> Seriously, you just proved my point. You just said "once I'd got it
>> configured as I want it"... which implies you needed to do a lot of
>> tweaking before the majority of UAC nag screens went away.
>
> You misunderstand. I wasn't tweaking things to make UAC prompts go away.
> Why would I? TweakUAC will do that. I mean I was installing
> applications, setting up my data storage and backup regime, messing about
> with various other settings, etc. There were some UAC prompts during that
> period, which is exactly what I would expect.
>
> Since then? Hardly any.
>
> As for your external drives, this is obviously a real problem for you. I
> don't have enough expertise to know the best way to handle that, although
> on the odd occasion I've experienced it myself I was able to sort it by
> claiming ownership of all the files. I don't know why you weren't able to
> do that - perhaps one of our resident experts might join in at this
> point.... :-)
>
> SteveT

Albright couln't configure a place setting.
UAC doesn't nag him, dreams of stranded sheep just interfere with his
thought process.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:30:55 -0400, "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol>
wrote:

>
>"Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:ug1RHvv2IHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> I'm all ears. Tell me how deleting a desktop shortcut, nothing but a
>>> empty link pointing to nowhere, a common UAC nag, is in any way ever a
>>> security implication.
>>
>> I've just deleted two of the desktop shortcuts on my machine. No UAC
>> prompts.
>>
>> How on earth have you got your machine set up?
>>
>>> Seriously, you just proved my point. You just said "once I'd got it
>>> configured as I want it"... which implies you needed to do a lot of
>>> tweaking before the majority of UAC nag screens went away.
>>
>> You misunderstand. I wasn't tweaking things to make UAC prompts go away.
>> Why would I? TweakUAC will do that. I mean I was installing
>> applications, setting up my data storage and backup regime, messing about
>> with various other settings, etc. There were some UAC prompts during that
>> period, which is exactly what I would expect.
>>
>> Since then? Hardly any.
>>
>> As for your external drives, this is obviously a real problem for you. I
>> don't have enough expertise to know the best way to handle that, although
>> on the odd occasion I've experienced it myself I was able to sort it by
>> claiming ownership of all the files. I don't know why you weren't able to
>> do that - perhaps one of our resident experts might join in at this
>> point.... :-)
>>
>> SteveT
>
>Albright couln't configure a place setting.
>UAC doesn't nag him, dreams of stranded sheep just interfere with his
>thought process.

Always the same predictable idiots running their mouths confirming
they are assholes. Good job Hobbes, now ask Frank to expedite your
membership in his Useful Idiots Club. You've learned a spot.

Same handful of losers trying to pick a fight.

I rather just expose you as the jackass you are. You're welcome.

Ringmaster wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:30:55 -0400, "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:ug1RHvv2IHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>>I'm all ears. Tell me how deleting a desktop shortcut, nothing but a
>>>>empty link pointing to nowhere, a common UAC nag, is in any way ever a
>>>>security implication.
>>>
>>>I've just deleted two of the desktop shortcuts on my machine. No UAC
>>>prompts.
>>>
>>>How on earth have you got your machine set up?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Seriously, you just proved my point. You just said "once I'd got it
>>>>configured as I want it"... which implies you needed to do a lot of
>>>>tweaking before the majority of UAC nag screens went away.
>>>
>>>You misunderstand. I wasn't tweaking things to make UAC prompts go away.
>>>Why would I? TweakUAC will do that. I mean I was installing
>>>applications, setting up my data storage and backup regime, messing about
>>>with various other settings, etc. There were some UAC prompts during that
>>>period, which is exactly what I would expect.
>>>
>>>Since then? Hardly any.
>>>
>>>As for your external drives, this is obviously a real problem for you. I
>>>don't have enough expertise to know the best way to handle that, although
>>>on the odd occasion I've experienced it myself I was able to sort it by
>>>claiming ownership of all the files. I don't know why you weren't able to
>>>do that - perhaps one of our resident experts might join in at this
>>>point.... :-)
>>>
>>>SteveT
>>
>>Albright couln't configure a place setting.
>>UAC doesn't nag him, dreams of stranded sheep just interfere with his
>>thought process.
>
>
> Always the same predictable idiots running their mouths confirming
> they are assholes. Good job Hobbes, now ask Frank to expedite your
> membership in his Useful Idiots Club. You've learned a spot.
>
> Same handful of losers trying to pick a fight.
>
> I rather just expose you as the jackass you are. You're welcome.


hehehe..he's nailed your stupid, dumb fukkin a*s so many times, like
everyone else here has been doing...you proly couldn't swim you've so
many holes!...LOL!

Ringmaster wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:30:55 -0400, "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol>
> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:ug1RHvv2IHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> I'm all ears. Tell me how deleting a desktop shortcut, nothing but a
>>>> empty link pointing to nowhere, a common UAC nag, is in any way ever a
>>>> security implication.
>>> I've just deleted two of the desktop shortcuts on my machine. No UAC
>>> prompts.
>>>
>>> How on earth have you got your machine set up?
>>>
>>>> Seriously, you just proved my point. You just said "once I'd got it
>>>> configured as I want it"... which implies you needed to do a lot of
>>>> tweaking before the majority of UAC nag screens went away.
>>> You misunderstand. I wasn't tweaking things to make UAC prompts go away.
>>> Why would I? TweakUAC will do that. I mean I was installing
>>> applications, setting up my data storage and backup regime, messing about
>>> with various other settings, etc. There were some UAC prompts during that
>>> period, which is exactly what I would expect.
>>>
>>> Since then? Hardly any.
>>>
>>> As for your external drives, this is obviously a real problem for you. I
>>> don't have enough expertise to know the best way to handle that, although
>>> on the odd occasion I've experienced it myself I was able to sort it by
>>> claiming ownership of all the files. I don't know why you weren't able to
>>> do that - perhaps one of our resident experts might join in at this
>>> point.... :-)
>>>
>>> SteveT
>> Albright couln't configure a place setting.
>> UAC doesn't nag him, dreams of stranded sheep just interfere with his
>> thought process.
>
> Always the same predictable idiots running their mouths confirming
> they are assholes. Good job Hobbes, now ask Frank to expedite your
> membership in his Useful Idiots Club. You've learned a spot.
>
> Same handful of losers trying to pick a fight.
>
> I rather just expose you as the jackass you are. You're welcome.

No Albright, it has been you that has started everything. You attack
people for reason, you have been doing it for so long and you are so
twisted that you can't see it.

So now that you have messed with so many, you twisted maniac in clown
clothing, you are being hunted like the rabid dog that you are you jackal.

"Smirnoff" <someone@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsC1BA86F-3B13-4FD2-80FD-126204C73647@microsoft.com...
> Have seen various fixes given in this group for the annoying UAC prompts.
>
> They range from turning it off completely, (NOT a good idea I think), to
> writing scripts etc.
>
> Saw a post mentioning TweakUAC.
>
> Apparently it allows you to run UAC in "quiet" mode. Keeping IE and other
> things protected without having to "Run as Administrator" to immunise
> Spybot S&D (for example).
>
> See : http://www.tweak-uac.com/
>
> Just wondered if many people have tried it and does it do what it says on
> the tin?
>
> Also, if it DOES do what it says on the tin, is it a good or a bad thing?
>


A discussion between MS-MVP Ronnie Vernon and someone name Bob. I think you
will find this interesting to read.

QUOTE:
Bob

<inline>

"Bob" <bob@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:8MOdnY5hI8aWaHvanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Ronnie
> Even with the prompt enabled it still requires the user to be
> knowledgeable of the application UAC is prompting about. Once elevation is
> allowed UAC does not protect the user. Clicking allow becomes nothing more
> than an annoying additional click which in many cases becomes automatic.

It it only annoying until you run into something unexpected. Right after
Vista was first released, we went through all of the debates about users
getting to the point where clicking on the prompt became an 'automatic'
response.

One user told us about a utility that he downloaded and installed and he got
the expected 'security warning' about the file not having a digital
signature. He clicked to run the file anyway and the utility installed. He
then got a message to 'click here' to configure your personal settings. He
then received this prompt.

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...UACPrompt2.jpg

Without UAC, he never would have been aware of the second file being
installed, since he had already permitted the program to run. Needless to
say, he decided that he would leave UAC on.


> Additionally, the most common way a PC becomes infected is by downloading
> something from the net and even with the UAC prompts disabled you still
> receive a security warning when you attempt a download.

Only in specific instances, such as an installation file that does not have
a digital signature attached. The security warning does nothing to protect
against 'drive-by' downloads that run automatically. Most of the smaller
software developers will not bother with a digital signature, simply because
it is time consuming and expensive for them.

>
> Personally, when I decide to run something I don't have a need to be asked
> to confirm it. If I didn't want to run it I would not have clicked on it
> in the first place.

It's not about you deciding to run a program, it's about 'isolation', it's
about 'integrity levels', it's about what background actions the program
will take when you do run it. Have you ever wondered why an application,
that does nothing more than make images look better, needs full and
unrestricted access to every part of your computer?

>
> The bottom line is UAC does no more than protect the user from himself,
> and even that still requires the user to be knowledgeable.

This is the whole point of UAC. The only way that a malicious program can be
installed is if the user gets complacent and stops paying attention to what
they are doing.

When Vista is first installed, a user will typically see a ton of UAC
prompts as they install all of their software programs and utilities, but
these will gradually become more rare. Windows has to overcome almost twenty
years of being a 'push button' operating system before it will attain any
semblance of a 'secure' operating system. The education of users as well as
developers will take some time. UAC and other security 'hardening'
procedures are not going to 'go away'.

When the majority of developers see the benefits, and start following the
Microsoft developer guidelines for coding their programs and applications to
run in a 'least user privilege' environment, UAC will become a prompt that
is rarely seen. The vast majority of windows software should not even need
to initiate a UAC prompt.

Take a few minutes to read the following article. It will give you a better
understanding, and show you the underlying reasons and goals of UAC.

The Long-Term Impact of User Account Control:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc137811.aspx


--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience



>
> "Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv@invalid.org> wrote in
> messagenews:3F04A9A8-EC21-412D-9ED2-3386B2E653BB@microsoft.com...
>> "Bob" <bob@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:VISdnaGl9rkOUnjanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> All of that nonsense can be eliminated by running UAC in "quiet" mode.
>>
>> This is a fallacy! If UAC cannot notify the user that a program is trying
>> to gain global access to the system, then it is effectively 'disabled'.
>> This so called 'quite mode' setting just changes a UAC registry setting
>> to 'automatically elevate everything without prompting'. This means that
>> when you click to open a file, it is 'assumed' that you already know that
>> the file will have unrestricted access to your computer.
>>
>> The main thing that UAC does is to detect when a program or application
>> tries to access restricted parts of the system or registry that requires
>> administrator privileges. When a program does this, UAC will prompt the
>> user for administrative elevation. Without this prompt, UAC cannot warn
>> the user, which means that it is effectively disabled.
>>
>> Some people will tell you that using "quiet mode" will still let IE run
>> in protected mode, but this just isn't true. Without the UAC prompt, a
>> malicious file that runs from a website can run, without restrictions,
>> and silently.
>>
>> Another issue is that with UAC prompt disabled, some legitimate
>> procedures will just silently fail to work properly, with no
>> notification, if you are logged on with a Standard User account, since
>> the application cannot notify you that administrative privileges are
>> required.
>>
>> Even the developer of the TweakUAC utility includes this statement about
>> his product.
>> "if you are an experienced user and have some understanding of how to
>> manage your Windows settings properly, you can safely use the quiet mode
>> of UAC." In my opinion, if you are an experienced user, the last thing
>> you would want to do is turn off the UAC notification.
>>
>> If you 'are' an experienced user, then you would already know how to
>> temporarily bypass the UAC prompt to perform just about any procedure in
>> Vista, such as running programs from an elevated command prompt, or using
>> an elevated instance of windows explorer.
>>
>> The last problem I have with this so-called 'quiet mode' is that it
>> dissuades developers from programming their applications to run in a
>> least user privilege environment.
>> --
>>
>> Ronnie Vernon
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows Desktop Experience
>
END QUOTE:
--
All the best,
SG

Is your computer system ready for Vista?
https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/
Want to keep up with the latest news from MS?
http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&topic=t
Just type in Microsoft

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:38:45 -0400, Van Helsing the Albright Hunter
<Hunt@Albright.com> wrote:

>Ringmaster wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:30:55 -0400, "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ug1RHvv2IHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> I'm all ears. Tell me how deleting a desktop shortcut, nothing but a
>>>>> empty link pointing to nowhere, a common UAC nag, is in any way ever a
>>>>> security implication.
>>>> I've just deleted two of the desktop shortcuts on my machine. No UAC
>>>> prompts.
>>>>
>>>> How on earth have you got your machine set up?
>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, you just proved my point. You just said "once I'd got it
>>>>> configured as I want it"... which implies you needed to do a lot of
>>>>> tweaking before the majority of UAC nag screens went away.
>>>> You misunderstand. I wasn't tweaking things to make UAC prompts go away.
>>>> Why would I? TweakUAC will do that. I mean I was installing
>>>> applications, setting up my data storage and backup regime, messing about
>>>> with various other settings, etc. There were some UAC prompts during that
>>>> period, which is exactly what I would expect.
>>>>
>>>> Since then? Hardly any.
>>>>
>>>> As for your external drives, this is obviously a real problem for you. I
>>>> don't have enough expertise to know the best way to handle that, although
>>>> on the odd occasion I've experienced it myself I was able to sort it by
>>>> claiming ownership of all the files. I don't know why you weren't able to
>>>> do that - perhaps one of our resident experts might join in at this
>>>> point.... :-)
>>>>
>>>> SteveT
>>> Albright couln't configure a place setting.
>>> UAC doesn't nag him, dreams of stranded sheep just interfere with his
>>> thought process.
>>
>> Always the same predictable idiots running their mouths confirming
>> they are assholes. Good job Hobbes, now ask Frank to expedite your
>> membership in his Useful Idiots Club. You've learned a spot.
>>
>> Same handful of losers trying to pick a fight.
>>
>> I rather just expose you as the jackass you are. You're welcome.
>
>No Albright, it has been you that has started everything. You attack
>people for reason, you have been doing it for so long and you are so
>twisted that you can't see it.
>
>So now that you have messed with so many, you twisted maniac in clown
>clothing, you are being hunted like the rabid dog that you are you jackal.

Still haven't learned how to spoof a newsgroup header have you.