IE7 protected mode

IE7 in Vista RTM build 6.6000 shows in its status bar “Internet | Protected
Mode Off�, even though I have protected mode enabled (which it is anyway by
default) as confirmed in Internet Tools | Security.

Now then, which one am I to trust/believe, the status bar message or the
Tools | Security checked settings?

Or is this just another bug in a buggy OS/browser??

Is there another way to confirm whether protected mode is on or of?

Any help and light on this one would be much appreciated.

"akita" <akita@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2FBCC340-C47B-479E-B7C3-B79EB50F759E@microsoft.com...
> IE7 in Vista RTM build 6.6000 shows in its status bar “Internet |
> Protected
> Mode Off�, even though I have protected mode enabled (which it is anyway
> by
> default) as confirmed in Internet Tools | Security.
>
> Now then, which one am I to trust/believe, the status bar message or the
> Tools | Security checked settings?
>
> Or is this just another bug in a buggy OS/browser??
>
> Is there another way to confirm whether protected mode is on or of?
>
> Any help and light on this one would be much appreciated.
>


Have you disabled UAC?

ss.

"Synapse Syndrome" wrote:

> Have you disabled UAC?

Yep, sure did - all those pestering warning windows even for the most benign
tasks such as copy & paste started to piss me off after some time, so I had
to give it the flick. Why?

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 00:06:00 -0800, akita wrote:

> IE7 in Vista RTM build 6.6000 shows in its status bar ´Internet | Protected
> Mode Off¡, even though I have protected mode enabled (which it is anyway by
> default) as confirmed in Internet Tools | Security.

Most likely you turned off UAC. Protected Mode requires UAC to work.

> Now then, which one am I to trust/believe, the status bar message or the
> Tools | Security checked settings?
>
> Or is this just another bug in a buggy OS/browser??

No, it's a misunderstanding on your part.

> Is there another way to confirm whether protected mode is on or of?

If it says it's off, it's off.

I see, urgh, this present UAC implementation is so annoying!

OK then, is there a way to turn UAC on in a limited way, so it ONLY, and
only, controls / enables Protected Mode in IE7?


"Erik Funkenbusch" wrote:

> Most likely you turned off UAC. Protected Mode requires UAC to work.

"akita" wrote:

> Yep, sure did

another stupid user

Hi,

No, there isn't. It's either on or off. In normal use, UAC should not
interfere with the user's operation of the system. The "annoyance" is when
one initially customizes the system and installs their software. Disabling
it removes much of the security functionality built into the system and can
potentially expose the machine to infection and/or attack, as well as the
myriad of self installing spy/ad applications.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"akita" <akita@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EE1A9E8A-6687-4697-8111-BE1A0963DBC8@microsoft.com...
>I see, urgh, this present UAC implementation is so annoying!
>
> OK then, is there a way to turn UAC on in a limited way, so it ONLY, and
> only, controls / enables Protected Mode in IE7?
>
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote:
>
>> Most likely you turned off UAC. Protected Mode requires UAC to work.
>

"akita" <akita@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EE1A9E8A-6687-4697-8111-BE1A0963DBC8@microsoft.com...
>I see, urgh, this present UAC implementation is so annoying!
>
> OK then, is there a way to turn UAC on in a limited way, so it ONLY, and
> only, controls / enables Protected Mode in IE7?

UAC isn't too much of a pain. In my experience it only really happens when
installing things and I am not going to do that every day.
People moaned about Windows security for years and when they get better
security they don't like it. lol
Seriously though you should really use it and get used to it, its there for
a reason and really once you get used to it there it won't impact your daily
computing at all :-)

"Beck" wrote:

> UAC isn't too much of a pain. In my experience it only really happens when
> installing things and I am not going to do that every day.
> People moaned about Windows security for years and when they get better
> security they don't like it. lol
> Seriously though you should really use it and get used to it, its there for
> a reason and really once you get used to it there it won't impact your daily
> computing at all :-)

OK, firstly: BETTER security would be OK and very welcome indeed; but
INVASIVE security measures are annoying and, as history has shown time and
time again, users will dump them sooner or later! Microsoft should have
learned that one by now!

With Vista out of the box installed, UAC is throwing up warning and/or
confirmation windows left, right and centre, even for simple every-day things
like copy, move, paste and delete. Now that level of invasiveness is
downright stupid since it will piss off most users rather sooner than later!

I have turned UAC off simply because I couldn’t find a way to customize it.
The help files are a tad obscure, and on-line help is next to useless. Oh,
before someone shoots his/her mouth off, I’m no dumb-ass newbie if it comes
to OS’s or software or programming, for that matter. In fact I’m lecturing
various IT strands at university level.

Anyway, don’t get me wrong, I do agree that UAC is a right step in the right
direction, but it needs to be far less intrusive than in its present
incarnation – as admitted pretty much by MS (the public release due out at
end of Jan / early Feb apparently will have a less intrusive / modified
implementation of UAC).

Another thing: without more detailed (and easily accessed) explanation,
users will be left wondering what the hell UAC is doing, or good for. Again,
history has shown that users will be far more likely to dump stuff that they
don’t understand, particularly if it gets in the way of every-day work. MS
needs to work a hell of a lot harder on explaining UAC properly and detailed,
and in layman’s terms.

Oh, and BTW, why should I get used to something that forces me to click on
two, sometimes three, extra warning dialogs for even simple tasks such as
copy, move, cut and paste? That’s a downright stupid suggestion and
implementation of an otherwise good idea!

Lastly, and getting back to my initial question in this thread, if
‘Protected Mode’ in IE7 is such a good thing – of which I am as yet not 100%
convinced due to a lack of more detailed information – why pack it together
with UAC instead of implementing it directly into IE7 (where it belongs)?
Again, this present implementation seems more like an afterthought than a
proper initially planned part of the programming structure. Then again,
proper and strategic system analysing has never appeared to be a Redmond
programming hallmark.

It’s a shame really. I DO like Vista and much applaud Microsoft’s belated
approach towards more inbuilt security as well as other measures that are
part of Vista (though it remains a crying shame that so many initially
planned great innovations of Longhorn have simply be dumped, possibly due to
a lack of competence). Still, Vista could be great, and could have been a
true alternative to XP-SP2. However, the more I use Vista, the more it
appears to be a set of great ideas bundled together in a rather odd,
confusing and conflicting manner; rather restricting the user in too many
ways (almost presuming all users are little moron children) than offering an
intuitive interface that allows free workflow without constant interruptions
and restrictions.

This, amongst other issues with the current crop of Vista, will
unfortunately very much delay a broad and rapid market penetration. As it
stands at present, there is very, very little incentive for users who are
running a well configured and secured XP-SP2 setup to take the plunge and
give Vista the chance it should deserve. Many users will wait for Vista SP1 –
even if this will take 12-18 months as presently expected - preferring to sit
on the sidelines to see how this Vista will develop; and how soon software
and driver vendors will recode products to allow for full Vista
compatibility, which even now remains rather limited.

Issues like the badly implemented firewall and UAC will not help sales, nor
inspire the trust in Vista that it should deserve

The claimed out-of-the box and all-secure Vista experience remains elusive,
or at the least crippling the user’s fun experience.

its a shame that you, and others so badly confuse the term "intrusive" with
a function that is only putting some control back into the users hands. a
box that pops up to warn me that something is installing, and asks me if im
aware and want to allow it is NOT intrusive, its informational, and gives
the user a CHOICE.

when you leave your house do you manually lock the door? a choice, right? or
do you just walk out and assume someone else will take care of it for you?
and even if it could be automated, wouldnt you still turn around and make
sure it was locked? most of us would.

stop being so lazy and helpless, and instead of bitching about change,
embrace it



"akita" <akita@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99E7B947-F1E1-4DD4-9F20-AE8F0491C6FC@microsoft.com...
> "Beck" wrote:
>
>> UAC isn't too much of a pain. In my experience it only really happens
>> when
>> installing things and I am not going to do that every day.
>> People moaned about Windows security for years and when they get better
>> security they don't like it. lol
>> Seriously though you should really use it and get used to it, its there
>> for
>> a reason and really once you get used to it there it won't impact your
>> daily
>> computing at all :-)
>
> OK, firstly: BETTER security would be OK and very welcome indeed; but
> INVASIVE security measures are annoying and, as history has shown time and
> time again, users will dump them sooner or later! Microsoft should have
> learned that one by now!
>
> With Vista out of the box installed, UAC is throwing up warning and/or
> confirmation windows left, right and centre, even for simple every-day
> things
> like copy, move, paste and delete. Now that level of invasiveness is
> downright stupid since it will piss off most users rather sooner than
> later!
>
> I have turned UAC off simply because I couldn’t find a way to customize
> it.
> The help files are a tad obscure, and on-line help is next to useless. Oh,
> before someone shoots his/her mouth off, I’m no dumb-ass newbie if it
> comes
> to OS’s or software or programming, for that matter. In fact I’m lecturing
> various IT strands at university level.
>
> Anyway, don’t get me wrong, I do agree that UAC is a right step in the
> right
> direction, but it needs to be far less intrusive than in its present
> incarnation – as admitted pretty much by MS (the public release due out at
> end of Jan / early Feb apparently will have a less intrusive / modified
> implementation of UAC).
>
> Another thing: without more detailed (and easily accessed) explanation,
> users will be left wondering what the hell UAC is doing, or good for.
> Again,
> history has shown that users will be far more likely to dump stuff that
> they
> don’t understand, particularly if it gets in the way of every-day work. MS
> needs to work a hell of a lot harder on explaining UAC properly and
> detailed,
> and in layman’s terms.
>
> Oh, and BTW, why should I get used to something that forces me to click on
> two, sometimes three, extra warning dialogs for even simple tasks such as
> copy, move, cut and paste? That’s a downright stupid suggestion and
> implementation of an otherwise good idea!
>
> Lastly, and getting back to my initial question in this thread, if
> ‘Protected Mode’ in IE7 is such a good thing – of which I am as yet not
> 100%
> convinced due to a lack of more detailed information – why pack it
> together
> with UAC instead of implementing it directly into IE7 (where it belongs)?
> Again, this present implementation seems more like an afterthought than a
> proper initially planned part of the programming structure. Then again,
> proper and strategic system analysing has never appeared to be a Redmond
> programming hallmark.
>
> It’s a shame really. I DO like Vista and much applaud Microsoft’s belated
> approach towards more inbuilt security as well as other measures that are
> part of Vista (though it remains a crying shame that so many initially
> planned great innovations of Longhorn have simply be dumped, possibly due
> to
> a lack of competence). Still, Vista could be great, and could have been a
> true alternative to XP-SP2. However, the more I use Vista, the more it
> appears to be a set of great ideas bundled together in a rather odd,
> confusing and conflicting manner; rather restricting the user in too many
> ways (almost presuming all users are little moron children) than offering
> an
> intuitive interface that allows free workflow without constant
> interruptions
> and restrictions.
>
> This, amongst other issues with the current crop of Vista, will
> unfortunately very much delay a broad and rapid market penetration. As it
> stands at present, there is very, very little incentive for users who are
> running a well configured and secured XP-SP2 setup to take the plunge and
> give Vista the chance it should deserve. Many users will wait for Vista
> SP1 –
> even if this will take 12-18 months as presently expected - preferring to
> sit
> on the sidelines to see how this Vista will develop; and how soon software
> and driver vendors will recode products to allow for full Vista
> compatibility, which even now remains rather limited.
>
> Issues like the badly implemented firewall and UAC will not help sales,
> nor
> inspire the trust in Vista that it should deserve
>
> The claimed out-of-the box and all-secure Vista experience remains
> elusive,
> or at the least crippling the user’s fun experience.
>