disable parts of uac

  • Thread starter Thread starter sanderl
  • Start date Start date
S

sanderl

Is it plausible to disable parts of UAC?
this because I hate the parts
-blocked startupprograms (in dutch geblokkeerde opstartprogramma's)
-'are you sure you want to proceed'-messages (weet u zeker dat u hiermee
door wilt gaan)
, but the other parts are very usefull.

so is it plausible to disable these parts?

the only thing I know is how to disable the whole UAC.
 
Is it plausible to disable parts of UAC?

You can set it so that you don't get the constant questions/messages

Google "TweakUAC.exe".

Download it and run it (one time run does it).
 
Silent mode will still block some programs at startup. However, using
TweakUAC and putting it in silent mode is definitely preferred to
disabling UAC altogether.

I found that a couple of my oft-used programs got screwed up while
using UAC in silent mode... dumped UAC completely and won't go back.
 
Silent mode will still block some programs at startup. However, using
TweakUAC and putting it in silent mode is definitely preferred to
disabling UAC altogether.

Silent mode is worse then disabling UAC all together because it gives
you a false sense of security. All an application has to do is have a
manifest that says grant full rights and it has admin rights to your
system.

If you need your application to run as admin on startup you should
code it (or bug the coder who coded it wrong) so the admin components
run as a service.
 
You may want to consider this article information (below) before
'hacking' the Windows system .... a Windows Vista empowered computer
is too pretty to "deface":

Techworld.com - Vista's UAC spots rootkits, tests find
http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=101583

Do you know what a rootkit is ? (Certainly one of the most dangerous
malware threats aside from a 'blended threat' attack). Do you know
what notifications you are turning off ? Are they malware alerts you
should attend for a stable and secure system ?

An easy way to wade through this is simply if you have ever had a
personal firewall installed that is quality and a tad "agressive" and
you get the several alerts. You go through them one by one and off to
the search engine to see if the process is part of Windows or trusted
software to give permission to.

What you may turn off with some hacker tweak is an actual alert to
malware much as the same as turning off firewall protection to a port
malware is communicating through - or allowing malware by clicking
"OK" to allow it internet access and defeating the purpose of the
security software (antivirus, antispyware, firewall).

I would investigate with extreme prejudice before proceeding as you
ask or are answered in today's crimeware enviroment.

MORE:
Is Limited User Account enough? Not really...
http://www.prevx.com/blog/83/Is-Limited-User-Account-enough-Not-
really.html
 
Thank you Wil and Gerald309, for correcting me. The Techworld.com
article finally convinced me to re-enable my UAC. What I thought was
"an annoyance" before, could really help prevent a catastrophe later on.

Setup a disciplined backup program and you won't have to worry about
it.

I could get the most biblical virus infestation and be back up and
running in an hour without even having to run a virus scanner.

I do daily full backups using Acronis True Image, and I backup my data
every two hours using Second Copy.
 
Let's try this on for a more intelligent answer than my gerald309
other account / no spam - since it was inspired here::

Warning: Why you should not use a ‘tweaking UAC’ software utility
June 15, 2008 by bluecollarpc
Warning: Why you should not use a ‘tweaking UAC’ software utility

Silent Mode tweak….

Simple. Number one the software utility is not a Microsoft Windows
product which is what these “hacker” utilities will be making changes
to - YOUR Windows Operating System. Just because they can create
software (anyone can) does not mean it is safe and secure and will not
corrupt Windows in some manner (and How to undo changes to the
Registry ?)

The bottom line is some programmer runs out and buys the Vista manual
from Microsoft and finds some hidden setting or creates one (just like
with XP for years) and runs out and opens their “donateware” on some
free blog which is illegal or even at Yahoo Groups or Microsoft News
Rooms which is also illegal - see the Federal Trade Commission, these
areas are not legally commercial - to get hopefully rich at any
expense of the Users with the all too familiar “As IS”…. (happens
everyday of the week in the ‘XP Years’ and is migrating to Vista, but
seems the majority of these type products do a fair and safe
operation, to be fair - but this type utility is circumventing Vista
security which you do not want to do and is why anti-malware products
like antivirus and antispyware have been manufactured to prevent
malicious malware applications from doing that)…..

Consider the following rather then these type hacker “tweaks” ….

You may want to consider this article information (below) before
‘hacking’ the Windows system …. a Windows Vista empowered computer
is too pretty to “deface”:

Techworld.com - Vista’s UAC spots rootkits, tests find
http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=101583

Do you know what a rootkit is ? (Certainly one of the most dangerous
malware threats aside from a ‘blended threat’ attack). Do you know
what notifications you are turning off ? Are they malware alerts you
should attend for a stable and secure system ?

An easy way to wade through this is simply if you have ever had a
personal firewall installed that is quality and a tad “aggressive” and
you get the several alerts. You go through them one by one and off to
the search engine to see if the process is part of Windows or trusted
software to give permission to.

What you may turn off with some hacker tweak is an actual alert to
malware much as the same as turning off firewall protection to a port
malware is communicating through - or allowing malware by clicking
“OK” to allow it internet access and defeating the purpose of the
security software (antivirus, antispyware, firewall).

I would investigate with extreme prejudice before proceeding in
changes not recommended in today’s crimeware environment - see the
following:

MORE:
Is Limited User Account enough? Not really…
http://www.prevx.com/blog/83/Is-Limited-User-Account-enough-Not-really.html


BCPCGroup ~ The BlueCollarPC.Net Website Security Group
———————————————————–
MEMBERS AREA:
http://www.bluecollarpc.net/joingroup.html
Mail domain bluecollarpc.net
Live List Owner: (e-mail address removed)
Service List Owner: (e-mail address removed)
Post to Group (Members Only): (e-mail address removed)
Help address (e-mail address removed)
Subscription address: (e-mail address removed)
Unsubscription address: (e-mail address removed)
#Sender Policy Framework (SPF, http://spf.pobox.com) Protected
#ALL Posts Moderated and List Protected with Antivirus Service.
Some List Features enabled:
*Guard archive (message digests). Archive access requests from
unrecognized SENDERs will be rejected.
*Subscription requires confirmation by reply to a message sent to the
subscription address.
*Unsubscribe requires confirmation by a reply to a message sent to the
subscription

Posted in BCPCNet WebLog
 
CarolinaFaithful said:
Thank you Wil and Gerald309, for correcting me. The Techworld.com
article finally convinced me to re-enable my UAC. What I thought was
"an annoyance" before, could really help prevent a catastrophe later on.


Glad to see you re-enabled it and you won't be sorry.

Read over this write-up by MS-MVP Ronnie Vernon. The only fault I see in it
is I didn't write it :>)

QUOTE:
Bob said:
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/aa86/rvmv/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/magazine/cc137811.aspx


--

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
 
tweakUAC is good and bad
the bad is if you have it off some programs will not install corrrectly. I
found that out the hard way
If you are installing a new program you need to remember to put it back on
robin
 
Back
Top