Configure PG with limited user account ?

Discussion in 'ProcessGuard' started by Martin B., Nov 4, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Martin B.

    Martin B. Guest

    Hi,

    is there a way to configure PG with limited user account (having no admin rights) ?
    Run ProcessGuard works, but does not let me configure PG.
    "Run ProcessGuard As Administrator" says that it is already running.
     
  2. dog

    dog Guest

    The only way to get PG to run under a limited account with full control (including loading the GUI) is to follow the instructions HERE

    HTH;

    Steve
     
  3. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    It may be worth noting that those steps apply with Windows XP only. Windows 2000 does not allow username/password details to be saved with shortcuts, though you can specify "Run as different user" instead which results in a prompt for the username/password each time.
     
  4. dog

    dog Guest

    It's the same under XP, only the admin privileged accounts are listed in the drop down box, but the password does have to be entered manually. ;)

    Thanks

    Steve
     
  5. tlu

    tlu Guest

    This can be avoided by using Runasspc from http://www.robotronic.de/runasspcEn.html
     
  6. dog

    dog Guest

    Hi Thomas; ;)

    Well that's nice ... but ... I don't really see any reason to give a 'limited user' access to PG or anything else for that matter. I prefer that PG is active and invisible, and the way I have PG setup; the user doesn't see any prompts or anything ... it's either whitelisted or not. As for myself; I have no issue with entering an admin password to enable PG or the few other apps that require those privileges, when and if needed. All said; while it seems like a nice convenience, it isn't something I'd grant or use system wide.

    Regards;

    Steve
     
  7. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Hello Steve!

    I see your point. But I'm the only user on my computer, and in this environment I think risk is very limited if PG is started via Runasspc. On the other hand there are applications that do not need admin rights for their installation, and in these cases it's rather annoying if some of them require, say, global hooks and I wonder why they aren't working as expected just because I don't see any prompts as PG is not running under my user account - and starting via Runasspc is just more convenient...

    Insofar it would be a nice idea if the new PG version would offer the option of starting the PG GUI in a limited account just in a "display mode".
    Wayne/Gavin - what do you think about this suggestion?
     
  8. Gavin - DiamondCS

    Gavin - DiamondCS Former DCS Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Not for this next version, but not a bad idea. Maybe ? (later)

    Or the "GUI" could be eliminated and be integrated into the service..
     
  9. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Hm - you are aware of what Microsoft is saying about that?
     
  10. Gavin - DiamondCS

    Gavin - DiamondCS Former DCS Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Yes.. and its the stickiest of options ;)

    So.. PG main design probably won't change too much in the next major version. I do like the idea of PG being just a viewer when in limited accounts, if possible this might be the way to go.
     
  11. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    This would certainly be an improvment - but it would be nice if there was an option to make limited configuration changes too (e.g. no adjustment to global protection options, but the ability to add a new program protection entry for example). The ideal situation would be to be able to have the option to control PG via a limited account without needing any window open with Admininstrator access.
     
  12. beethoven

    beethoven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Posts:
    1,043
    I am a bit confused.
    From the above I understand that if PG is run under a limited user account, I will not see any prompts or error messages.
    I am in the same position as tlu (admin & user would be the same) and will shortly do a fresh install on my pc. I had intended to do the "proper" thing and not to run windows as an administrator. Of course I could set up PG under admin, but given the above, I am afraid the daily operation of PG in user mode will get more complicated ?
    Any advice on how to best do this?
     
  13. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    u could run PG in learning mode under an admin account, then after u get everything the way u like it, go back to ur limited account.

    or

    u can follow these instructions for running PG under a limited account
     
  14. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    Process Guard has 2 parts - the service which does the actual work (controlling what applications can and cannot do) and the UI (ProcGuard) which gives you the Process Guard window, the system tray icon, the popup windows and the ability to change the configuration.

    The service runs as part of Windows startup and always has the highest level of privilege (LocalSystem), regardless of what user you log in as. The UI however has to run as Admin - it will just hang (with an "Initializing..." message) otherwise. You can however use "Run As" to run it with Admin privileges from another account (it will give an error about PGAccount not running which can be ignored). See post #2 above and here (from the Tips, Tricks & FAQ's thread) for other methods.
     
  15. beethoven

    beethoven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Posts:
    1,043
    Thanks guys,
    I will study the links and see how it goes. I may be back with more questions once I get started on the fresh installation.:eek:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.