have you disabled UAC?

Hello,
if you are using vista or windows 7 beta have you disabled UAC?
if yes please explain why.

 

I have always ran UAC on my machines. Two days ago I got a copy of Win7 RC to try out on my laptop and set it to the highest level.

I don't want to break my no-malware streak which is going on 2 1/2 years now

 

I have UAC disabled on both my Vista machines. Not so much because it is intrusive, but I use some expensive-to-replace programs that don't run properly with UAC on because of virtual store. I do use Online Armor with Run Safer to reduce the privileges to Local User for key applications like browsers.

 

Looks like you're a prime candidate for the Norton UAC tool.

 

Is there an advantage of Norton UAC over Run Safer? I can currently selectively run applications from LUA and cause all new applications to run as LUA processes unless I upgrade their privileges.

 

Why should one disable User Account Control ?
I no longer test Win7 but when I used it I even upgraded the default level to ask for everything (just like in Vista) .

 

AFAIK Run Safer allows high security tokens by default, and applies medium tokens only to select processes, i.e. UAC becomes an opt-in. This is inherently less safer than the default opt-out UAC mechanism because although you may think you're safe if you run your browsers with Run Safer, you never really know which process the next exploit will strike at.

Norton UAC simply allows Vista to "remember" your answer to UAC prompts so you don't get bothered each time. A better solution IMO.

 

Two possible reasons for that. One, they're pros who know what they're doing. Two, they're complete n00bs.

 

Vista64 Home Premium. Disabled UAC causes it's a PITA.

 

Hello,
oh new username;d
I dont know why someone would disable UAC thats why im asking.
ive never disabled UAC.

 

so if you found sudo annoying you would run as root?

 

But I don't think this gets around my expensive programs that are incompatible with virtual store. They work fine with Run Safer because they are N/A. And new programs are all Safer unless I change it, so kind of an opt out. Maybe next generation of the programs will be compatible.

 

I disable any password changes, and disable all non use accounts and admin, mask the one I use. You should have last user removed so knows who was last on. Each system just says "Server User, Power User, Wireless Laptop User" thus using the aliases to mask the real user name used. Works well still to access all the network systems. Server will only allow the one user access to all shares, all those security risk "everyone, users, remote bla, bla are disabled on shares.

Years ago you were to setup the system/install apps under the admin, then disable that account. Just have Power User or Limited User rights. Still that policy is still in use.

There is so much web security protection against unauthorized access. Do any of you use your GP and SP to tighten your systems. I do..

 

I disabled mine because my family's too dumb to adapt to it. My bro's an arrogant, self-proclaimed tech-savvy. My mom and dad are less than your average joe. If they are just smart enough, perhaps I wouldn't have the need assist them in securing the computer in the first place.

 

The first thing that I did when I installed Vista was disabling UAC.
After that I got into policies. Lua SRP etc.
Now I am testing out a LUA with UAC enabled.

 

I got at least 5 times more prompts in Vista than I do in Linux. Maybe 10 times more.

Oh & I run as user in Linux. Lol, accusing someone of running as root in Linux can be considered an insult you know.

 

What is the purpose to this poll?

 

cause use defensewall

 

I was just wondering LOL.
I have around the same amount of UAC prompts in vista as I do in linux.

 

to see if people keep UAC enabled or not and if not why.
microsoft finaly implemented something to force lower rights yet everyone complains it prompts to much....
i used to get alot of prompts but the lastest versions of software are better and have learnt how to work with UAC.
if microsoft had introduced UAC in 2K or XP by now all applications would work with lower rights.
UAC had to be introdcued. users are so used to running with admin rights and not knowing its a big risk.
I hate using XP now. i like using a standard user account with UAC. its secure and i dont have to switch account to do admin stuff.
the reason sudo on linux genarates less prompts is because at the start all applications were designed to run with only the rights that are needed.

 

I have been using Vista with UAC turned on for over a year. It adds another layer of protection and doesn't annoy me so why turn it off?

 

And yet, miraculously, out goes their common sense when they switch to Windows.

 

One of the best features of Vista, and for people saying it can be bypassed, I say anything can be cracked if it is worth doing it. Personally I'm moving into a new direction (for me anyway) in computer security: I try to keep sensitive material on USB external drives, and re- image my system regularly (every 3 months) with a known clean image. You can't steal anything in an empty system, and I can install a clone in 10 minutes.

 

I am doing the same. I have no sensitive information or multimedia files on my internal HD and like to make an image allot. I also restore allot so my system stays in top shape.

 

I had UAC disabled until I had all my back-level programs updated. UAC objects to programs that want to save user data under \Program Files\ (rightfully so). UAC is enabled now.