Vista UAC - Fact or Fiction?

HI guys,

I started this thread so that hopefully the answers can be used by people who are less knowledgeable and/or starting out with Vista (myself included).

UAC (User Access Control), There are various reports saying it's good - speeds up your Pc or it's bad as you can lose game data etc. I would like to clear the grey area if possible.

Also if you get performance gains without causeing other problems, great. However if it's going to cause problems then it would be good to know?

Here are the scenarios I thought might be useful :-

1). I you use another browser and do not use IE ever (Windows updates does not use this anymore) so would it be safe to diable UAC?

2). If I have completely set-up a Vista Pc including games e.g. Bioshock, Mass Effect, TES4, Oblivion & UT3. If you then stop UAC, will it cause any problems to programs installed whilst it's been running?

3). Does turning off UAC actually increase performance?

4). What problems can you expect from turning off UAC (not counting virus' and such like through IE)?

Thanks

OB

 

I notice no performance increases by turning UAC off, rather I gain sanity in the fact I'm not having to approve every task I already know I want to do. granted the security increase is nice, Id rather not be second guessed on every operation I do.

 

I don't mind UAC at all. They come up when I access system files or change system settings, but during normal usage I rarely see them.

 

It bothered me for a week but not any more.

 

What you will see with UAC on is some pop-up prompts (unfortunately often the same pop-up prompts, over and over), some increased security due to the restrictions on priviledge escalation, and some (particularly older) programs that simply will not work, mostly because the want to write to PROGRAM FILES and cannot be redirected to PROGRAM DATA, but now and again because they utilize older, or perhaps undocumented, interfaces that are simply disallowed now.

 

UAC still protects the operating system when running other browsers such as Firefox, Chrome, etc., just like it does with any other regular program that doesn't prompt for approval when running it. With IE it just locks things down a bit further, offering some protection for personal files as well as the OS.

No. It's a security and administrative feature, not a performance feature.

 

All it actually is is annoying.

UAC should stand for Undeniably Annoying Confirmation.

 

I hate UAC, it asks you if you want to do something you've already told the computer to do - what's the frigging point in that. Granted if I had a virus I dare say UAC would be helpful, but I have Kaspersky for that which is far less annoying than the UAC as it doesn't interrupt me with an "are you sure you really want to do that, are you? are you? are you really sure?" pop up message each and every time I do something that a fweu (f wit end user) wouldn't normally be doing, i.e. looking at the contents of his hard drive...

 

1) It is safe for me. I use Firefox 3 with ABP.
2) It is best to disable UAC immediately after you first install Windows (if you want to have UAC disabled) - so that it won't affect installed programs.
3) No. Just decreasing the level of annoyances the user will get while using Windows.
4) I never encounter any problems by turning off UAC. As long as you never run any weird/dodgy programs you'll be safe without UAC.

Just think of it this way:
1. Did you able to survive in XP? XP doesn't have UAC, then... if your answer is yes you survived, then you can survive without UAC.
2. Are you annoyed by the UAC confirmation? If you aren't, then just leave it on.

UAC is for increased security after all. Some people trust their safe way of using their computers and choose to disable it because they don't feel like they need it and UAC annoys them.

 

Cheers.....

 

Let's be really honest.

You should not turn off UAC.
Honestly, the vast majority of people who find it "annoying" or think they are too smart for UAC probably shouldn't either.

Everyone (minus only perhaps the people who do NOT ever connect to the internet or any network of any kind) should learn to deal with UAC and its annoyances in order to combat the bigger annoyances. (namely bot/zombie networks and "smart" people who have let their computers get taken over by script-kiddies.)

In a nutshell, UAC solves the number one security hole in every windows computer. The simple fact that every user runs with elevated permissions.
When you have UAC active windows turns OFF admin priviledges until you need them EVEN if you are an administrator.

What this means is that even if a malicious process, program, or website makes it through a hole in security, there is at least one more hoop to jump through.
"Are you sure you want to run Xwd23nqs.exe in administor mode?"
That's right, if it wants to write to registry, any of the system directories, or do any number of things that the vast majority of users just plain don't need to do that often, it is going to "annoy" you and ask you.

Wouldn't it be nice if your dog would "annoy" you and ask you before it did something stupid? Your kids? Your spouse? Seriously... if every one of these things would "annoy" me instead of doing something stupid without my input, I'd be overjoyed.

Yes, this means some annoyances while you get used to dealing with UAC.
People are just too used to doing admin things at all times that a millisecond of delay to make sure its the right thing seems like too much.

My computer rarely asks for permission to do something unless I REQUIRE admin access... I even have to take one step farther and do this many times more often than the standard user as I have both local admin and domain admin on separate accounts. My main user(s) are both low-priviledged users.
Still, I just type in the account/password when the situation arises and it isn't any trouble.

If you've ever used any *nix OS, you will find UAC clumsy, but familiar.

UAC is far from perfect, and far from unbeatable... but it makes the user responsible for the computer's actions.

If you choose to abdicate that responsibility and control to dumb luck or how "smart" you think you are then so be it.

-Removing or using UAC does not change performance, unless you count the moment of clicking "yes" as performance.
-Using UAC does not make you invulnerable, nor does removing it instantly make your computer a zombie... but if you are on a network of any kind with internet access you did just take off the bullet-resistant armor while walking through the ghetto.
-Some people ARE smart... but their roommates/friends/significant others' are not. I have been to one too many of my smart friends' houses to debug them due to someone "else".

 

Kaspersky can only stop what it knows about. UAC will stop ANY program from running until you OK it. Really, you're free to use your computer without UAC, it's just a very bad idea. Kinda like riding a motorcycle without a helmet... you're legally allowed to do it (at least here in Colorado), it's just a very bad idea.

 

Well... UAC will only stop those programs that require administrator privileges to run. But... those that run without admin privs can't make changes to the OS or the system configuration.

I only mention it because a lot of people seem to think UAC is about stopping programs from running. It's really about managing priviliges.

But Pitabred's point is right: rather than trying to guess what's bad based on what it knows about or trying to detect bad behavior, UAC's rule is: check with the user before allowing any program to run with admin privileges.

 

I like UAC and it does not bother me. To a pro that know what he is doing, you may not need it but I consider myself a pro and you sometimes dont know what is going on be behind the scene. Most people out there that use computers are computer stupid and that is what UAC was designed for. It seams like there are a lot of great things out there and people always put them down because to them they may not need it but instead people need to look at it as it is a great feature, may not apply for what I do but is great for most people out there.

 

+ 1. Seriously, great way of saying it.

To the OP, it's not really a bother-I'd leave it on.

 

Agreed. Some sanity here. Though, I still won't be turning it back on for myself haha. But I did leave it enabled on purpose for my sister's laptop for good reason.

 

i switched it on for a while but found that my system borders on hanging a few times when the dialog pops up. even deleting files pops the dialog up. it hung on me when i dragged a file to the recycle bin. decided to switch it off in the end. how do i create whitelist for the UAC? that will help me switch it back on.

 

Here's one way: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=436&page=4

 

Been a lot of threads on this...do a search for a lot of info.

My opinion, as it has always been, is that UAC is the first thing to disable after an install. CFP, AVG, FF+ABP, and SB will carry me through.

 

Wow, thanks guys (",)

I'm sure that the info and/or wisdom will help anyonie who is considering turning it off but, not quite so sure what it's actually doing etc.

I'll add this to my care & Maintenance guide, where it can be read easier than searching for info.

Once again thanks

OB

 

i am just wondering if UAC would really help to protect the user/pc if the user end up giving permission every time any way? i still cannot figure out how this works...

 

No.

If you read the prompt it says "If you started this action, continue." (It also tells you the action or program file that needs to be approved.)

So if you didn't start an action that you expect to need admin privileges, then you need to click Cancel.

If you're just going to approve every prompt that pops up even when you aren't trying to run anything, then there's no point.

 

Indeed. Sorry to be blunt, but if you OK every window regardless anyway, you deserve everything you get. Prompts are there for a reason.

 

the only time that the dialog comes up (so far) is when i am actively doing something, so i naturally click ok

so i suppose the concept is that the dialog should come up when a malware tries to do something in the background?

what i don't understand is why does it ask me when i am deleting a file?

i think the UAC is a good concept, it is just badly designed.

p/s: has anyone of you actually cancelled an action due to UAC dialog? as in has UAC actually "saved" your skin so far?

 

I have not really had it happen per say but I found a good example of when it would have saved me.

I am computer savvy so I know where to go and where not to go and what to download and what not do download.

However I share my computer with my wife and I cant say the same for her

The example tho actually happened at work, I run a virus scan on our computers ever once in a while and about 2 months ago, guess what I found?

New Folder.exe quite clearly a virus, named as a new folder and with the icon for a folder.

I agree that when I used to use UAC (I have it turned off now, not because of the pop ups but because I get tired of having to run programs in admin mode even tho I am the admin) that I was one that would click and not read.

However if this virus had been on my computer at home I myself could have very easily clicked it and run it without ever knowing until it was too late, but with UAC on, even as a click and go guy I would have known somthing was up if I open a "new folder" and the dialog pops up.

So that is a perfect example of how it can save you despite its design, not saying that that situation will occure often if ever but UAC protection was what popped in my head instantly when I found that virus.

 

The only time that I get an UAC prompt deleting anything is when I am deleting a folder in program files.

Edit: I just tried to delete a file and it is not the UAC that popped up, it was the same prompt that pops up in XP when you are confirming an action. Are you sure it is the UAC that you are seeing?

 

As joy mentioned, first are you sure if its the UAC popup?

If it is, then again, as joy mentioned, you are probably deleting some system files / files from within the program' / system folders or files which are linked to those places!!

Please be careful though Cheers.

Edit: And yes, when I started working with Vista Ult. for the first time, it did save me on a few occasions, though I don't remember exactly what it was... but I have learnt a lot since then, and these days I am just extra careful, even when having the UAC on and whenever it pop' up, I don't see it as an annoyance anyways... just for used to it and take it as a confirmation of what I am doing Cheers.

 

It's one of the first things I disabled.

You save a minimum of 5 seconds everytime you launch a program. How is that not a performance increase. No more launch program, read the popup, make a decision, click to finally launch program again.

I mean do I really need UAC when I have software that controls program permissions, firewall, antispyware, antivirus and detection, PC Health, etc.? No I don't. It is another barrier to help protect your PC but it is ok to ask yourself if you really need it.

I find UAC to be unnecessary and redundant.

 

That is unequivocally and totally false. The ONLY time UAC pops up is when an application requires ADMIN rights to perform a function.

Redundant? What application do you have that monitors ADMIN rights and alerts you when some task is about to do something that requires ADMIN rights to do so? Your firewall? Your antivirus? Your PC health? Which of them performs this VERY important function?

Gary

 

This.
10charrr

 

UAC seems to be similar in intent to Sudo in Linux, although not as well thought through or implemented. As the architecture of Windows evolves it will undoubtably get better.

Myself, I find it a bit annoying to be asked for my password everytime I make a change, regardless of OS. I would not have asked to make the change had I not intended it. If the underlying secuirty architecture is not sufficient to be capable of distinguishing my security credentials from some imposter or unauthorized credentials then that is a flaw in the architecture in my opinion.

 

Computers don't have room for "opinions". These mechanisms exist precisely BECAUSE the computer can't distinguish the credentials. A very normal mode of computer operating is that you double-click on an icon to start a program which runs other processes. You know, that whole multi-threading thing. For example, Google Chrome. Good app, right? What if you run a program that you downloaded THE EXACT SAME WAY (just double-clicking on the app), but it starts trying to do something nasty, like replace your kernel with a compromised one? How can the computer tell what you intended to have happen? The computer can't tell the difference between Explorer.exe telling it to delete a file and Explorer.exe telling it to delete a file, especially if the memory addresses of one of them have been tampered with.

That is the entire reason for sudo and UAC. They ARE the underlying security architecture. There is no real way around it unless we get to completely locked-down computers with only fixed functions, where software can't be installed or removed.

 

Just heads up Gary, maybe you should work on you wording a bit you're coming accross as a [edit]. I'm going to assume that you're a decent person who didn't intend to and that you are asking genuinely.

Yes, maybe it was a bit of an eggageration on my part but there is absolutely no need for the redundant action of needing to approve a program to run twice. Yes my firewall alerts me when ANY suspect unauthorized program tries to connect to the internet. My spyware alerts me when ANY suspect program tries to install or edit the registry, etc. Does it make any differnce whether or not it requires administrator prividges. No, it doesn't.

The UAC pops up way too much, it's a good idea but poorly executed.

 

Exactly. And if the computer is not exposed to any malware, that's the only time it will come up.

If the something requires admin privileges (which is usually the case with malware), such as modifying the OS, then yes.

Because it's not modifying the OS or anything that will affect other users.
If you try to delete files in the Windows or Program Files directories, then you will get UAC prompts.

 

sorta true.. both annoying and something i would rather not have

yup ur rite.... actually i wouldnt even consider using vista if i couldnt disable uac... if you're smart enough then you should really know what's going on with your system without a program needing to tell u - corse if u download torrents 24/7 then problems r sorta expected

 

The main issue with UAC is that there are way too many badly programmed Windows applications that assume that they have administrative privileges, but do not need them, or have been stupidly programmed to not use system variables to find appropriate directories and instead use hardcoded paths for installs and user data storage and stuff.

If UAC is annoying you, get better applications. Otherwise, you're just getting your machine set up to be another one of the zombie masses.

 

Maybe you should work on the sort of "advice" you are giving out. BTW I did see what you called me before pita had a chance to edit it.

If you think that it doesn't matter what functions need Admin rights then there is no point continuing this conversation. It is obivous you don't have a clue what you are talking about. But don't expect me to stand by and NOT correct such blantant falsehoods should the need arrise again.

Gary

 

Exactly. SuperAntiSpyware (The best on demand scanner out there) used to make UAC pop up, up until 1-2 months ago or so. They have fixed that in one of there newer versions.
I disagree that the badly programmed apps are the root of all evil here. For me, I use a lot of tools to maintain my PC such as Ccleaner, Revo, Glary, etc. These are awesome apps but need to be run as admin to perform. These are tools I access almost daily, so I know when UAC is going to prompt me. Any other app. doesn't prompt me so there are no surprises. I don't understand why people thinks its such a nuisance, its just making sure and verifying that YOU want to perform the selected action. With UAC if something changes in your system, you have no one to blame but yourself for either allowing it, or turning it off due to its "annoyances." So don't go blame Microsoft and Vista for something you could of prevented but were too "cool" to do so.

 

I'd like to point out, that disabling UAC is just as much taking responsibility for the infection of your computer as saying "yes" to everything.

UAC does indeed reflect incoming attacks... even ones antivirus anti-malware/spyware programs cannot as it does so before the OS can even begin to execute it and does not require a SCAN as it quite literally is an "anything which tries to do something administrative stop and ask user if they want to do that".

That level of protection is very hard to duplicate in anti-malware software and if you actually know what you are doing would actually cost you less time and performance running UAC than in running anti-malware software.
(smart people will actually use both IMHO)

Also, I seriously want to know how a "smart" person requires 5 seconds to decide if gamename.exe (after you just clicked the game icon) or x4xnbe73.exe (after you clicked on a website or did nothing) needs to run. Figure that's 4.5 seconds of staring at the screen with a blank expression and .5 seconds to make an intelligent decision and click?

Let's face it... UAC isn't really annoying time-wise.
It IS annoying being second-guessed... but then again it is a COMPUTER and this isn't because it is second-guessing you because it doesn't have the ability to do so!
This is about pride winning over prudence.

Kinda like playing ice hockey without a cup because "you will never get hit there anyways".

 

I dislike it. There's plenty of ways for viruses to trick users by exploiting the fact that it pops up too dang much.

Like the "New Folder.exe" guy. What better way to program a virus than to make it so it puts a New Folder.exe randomly on your hard drive with the true payload... and then, a user chances upon it and says "Oh, what's this?" and clicks on it. It's not hard to imagine especially since the Windows default is to hide the extensions. The user will be prompted by UAC and immediately think, "Oh God, just go away! *click*" ... and in that instant, everything UAC tried for is canceled out because the user DID click on it, and it's not unusual for UAC to prompt all the dang time. The user is responsible to a point... but lets face it, it's a flawed system. The system should adapt to the users, not the other way around. Since it's human nature to just click it if they get into the habit, make it rarer to require UAC, so that habit is never established. If it's uncommon, then the user is more likely to pay attention to it...

To see how to do it properly, install Ubuntu. I *never* feel like it gets in the way on Linux. It's partly due to the fact that most apps on Linux are aware of how to deal with sudo properly, but also due to the fact that Linux separates the user's space and the system's space much more effectively. You very rarely need to access the system's space, so sudo **only** appears when you're installing/uninstalling/etc stuff. I have never felt that it has gotten in the way. UAC, on the other hand, is freaking annoying.

I feel that when they improve it, it will be a good thing. But as of right now, it has no use other than to give you the appearance of safety. Well, at least that's how I feel about it.

 

This is a great example of why UAC is useful.

Double-click on something that appears to be a folder.
If UAC is off... no prompt, the malware just runs.
If UAC is on, a UAC prompt comes up asking if you're trying to run a program called "New Folder.exe".

I know which I prefer.

It isn't very useful to talk about what "the user" will do because different users are going to behave differently. When you find data about what percentage of users are doing what you describe, let me know. Although really I'm more concerned with what I would do rather than what some other people would do.

No, I have Ubuntu installed, and Ubuntu's version is not better. It prompts in basically the same situations as Vista: Installing software, changing system config settings, and writing to protected directories and files.

The one thing you're right about is that Linux has few if any apps that aren't written with privileges in mind. Most currently maintained Windows apps are alright too... but there's still some legacy stuff around that isn't designed to work in a limited-privilege environment.

The other main difference is that in the default configuration, Ubuntu caches privilege elevation approvals and automatically approves anything else that needs privilege escalation for the next few minutes. This does cut down on prompts but it's a big security hole too, since all a malicious program really needs to do is hang out in the background and wait for you to approve anything before doing its stuff. Linux kind of gets away with it for the time being though because it's not very much of a malware target.

KernalPanic, I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said here except for this. When the prompt is expected I click Continue pretty fast. But on the rare occasions when I wasn't expecting a prompt, I've spent a lot more than 5 seconds thinking about what could have caused it to pop up. And I consider that a good thing.

And if UAC hasn't popped up in a while, it can show the blank screen for a second or two before prompting. I like the screen darkening effect but they should really try to get rid of the screen blanking effect. Especially when it's slow.

So while UAC doesn't affect performance in the sense that most people talk about it, it will take a few seconds of clock time for the prompting process when you need admin privileges. Which is probably about once every day or so for me, once I have the computer set up and my programs installed.

And it may take more than a few seconds if it's something that I don't want to run. But in that case it's well worth it, and it saves time if it means I don't have to download and run malware removal programs or reinstall the OS.

 

Hmm, my default method is to allow anything I know, and DENY anything I don't.

Seriously, if I can't recognize both the activation AND the filename immediately, it gets a big fat NO until I do.

I truly wish more users would follow this policy.

On the other hand, taking a few seconds to handle something odd is a wise policy... but I would have thought that the benefits of this delay are self-evident.

I guess the whole "5 second delay every time it asks me" thing just struck me as rediculous.


UAC can be used to good effect... and DOES work when users are trained to use it.

Vista and UAC have dodged the last two "before the antivirus knew what it was" virus infections with a 0% infection rate compared to the almost guaranteed infection rate of XP computers.
Note I am happy with our anti-malware policies and protections in most cases, but some slip through and when they do you can bet the XP machine plugged into the network branch closest to infection will be infected and that the Vista machines probably won't be.

Furthurmore, as a rule in IT.... the "smart" people tend to be infected to the point of non-productivity more often than the people who don't think so highly of themselves.

 

It probably won't help the user that much. UAC uses the same principles that has been around for ages. You run a limited account and your account is elevated to admin only when you are doing admin stuff. This is seriously a more useful interface model for people with the expertise to differentiate between admin privileged and limited privileges. I personally think it is a very poor model for the casual user. For one, it requires the user to have enough knowledge to differentiate between malicious and legitimate actions. It does not guard against social engineering, which is a fairly common method of attacking a system. And there is no way to customize the level of prompts, like Comodo's Defense+.

The casual user is better off automating backups and rolling back to previous states as a method of protecting their data.

UAC is here to stay. Every operating system out there implements some kind of "elevated privileges on demand" model. It will also force developers to follow good programming practices.

Again, the most annoying thing about UAC is the fact that its prompt frequencies cannot be tailored, ie Comodo's Defense+ (I love that program. It is what UAC SHOULD of been.)

 

Actually, the Program Control in ZoneAlarm Firewall ( not the free version) is quite effective, and remembers what it is told.

I do find it somewhat amusing that the implementation of UAC in Vista creates so much dissent. After all, had Windows been architected properly in the first place it would have been impossible for applications to have been written that asked for or used facilities for which they were not entitled.

 

The problem with program assent is that if you say "Sure, Word is a good, safe application" and it remembers it, what happens when you get a dodgy script in a word document? Remembering programs is a BAD idea, because too many programs execute other programs. UAC does it properly... no exceptions, it blocks ALL accesses to anything sensitive until the user at the keyboard says it's ok.

The solution is to have applications programmed to not need extra permissions. They usually don't need them anyway, the programmers were just lazy and made bad assumptions. And that will only take time.

 

Here's your answer:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...s_despised_uac_nails_rootkits_tests_find.html

 

The "model OS" that most folks throw up when saying how poorly Windows was architected is some unix/linix variant. And all of those have this same sort of privilege escalation models.

So, the issue is NOT so much one of architecture as it is one of default privilege level for Joe or Jane user. With windows for YEARS it was admin, for unix/linix for years it has not been admin. So the windows applications programmers (not Microsoft) got lazy and assumed they had admin rights. Now along comes UAC with Microsoft trying (correctly) to amend their ways and assume that Joe and Jane should not have full admin rights. But the old legacy apps are the ones throwing these UAC messages where we should not expect them to be (we do expect them when installing or configuring apps) and people who think they know best start turning off UAC instead of demanding the legacy apps behave themselves like they should have all along.

Gary

 

I would probably point you at OS/360, OS/370, OS/390, MVS/ESA, or the newer Z/OS releases rather than some 'nix variant for something that has an architecture with security in mind.

And I also find it highly amusing that one can now write and speak of "legacy applications" in the context of Windows.

Nevertheless, I do agree that applications need to behave, and evolve along with the changes in their environment.

I only have one application that is due to be replaced (Quicken 2001 if you must know); all others are current and well-behaved. It does take some knowledge and discipline to keep up to date, however. This may be more than can be expected from the average PC user.

 

Check your facts. I didn't give out any advice. I just said what I did with my systems. That's my opinion and didn't tell anyone else what to do what I do. For some reason that upset you enough to respond in a unusually rude and defensive way.

I think the "edit" is pretty funny because it looks like I called you something really bad instead of alluding to the fact that I felt you were rude. It made me LOL!

Feel free to continue correcting mine and other peoples opinions. It's pointless IMHO but you seem really passionate about it so, more power to ya.