Limited User Account Compatibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Does any one have any idea when the Beta will finally be upgraded to solve
the nuisance popups that occur in a multi-user environment? In fact you don't
really need a multi-user environment to be victimized by this misbehaviour,
inasmuch as Microsoft itself recommends that all web browsing be done under
limited user accounts as an added safety precaution. Does any one know when?
 
Should be added when Beta 2 is released later this year.

The reason it currently doesn't support limited user account scanning is
that MS released the app only 21 days after acquiring it from Giant Company.
The only changes made to the original app (single-user) were to change the
references to Giant Company to that of Microsoft/Microsoft Corporation. The
amount of time between when they acquired it and released it were not long
enough to redevelop the source code to support mulitple user accounts. It
can take several months to develop and throughly alpha (pre-beta, i.e.,
pre-public) test the app to make certain it works properly.

Alan
 
I forgot to mention that if you have a firewall in place and have the latest
version of the current OS, then it really doesn't matter if you use an
administrator account or a limited user account. To make your ssytem even
more secure, use a router with a built-in hardware firewall (both NAT and SPI
standards).

Most hackers aren't even going to take the time to try to get into a system
protected by a firewall since they can easily get into systems that aren't
protected. Trying to hack a hardware firewall can take quite a long time,
and there's no gaurantee that the user will keep their system turned on for
long periods of time. This makes it much more likely that they will target
unprotected systems that a not kept up-to-date.

Also, most hackers don't target individuals. Instead, they target companies
and schools where they can get their hands on large amounts of personal
information without much trouble. Imagine trying to get 100 different
individuals' banking account numbers by trying to hack their personal
computers. You might get a few of these because these people store those
numbers on their systems. But of these systems, only a few will be able to
be hacked into. It's much esaier to target a banking company's processing
center to get access to this type of information.

Alan
 
Alan:

I had always presumed that the incompatibility was due to the factor you
cited, but
consider it a lame excuse. I cannot think of any other consumer or even
business products that are released to the public in such a half-*ssed shape.
It's one thing to recruit the public to help discover and work out the bugs;
it's quite another to release software with known bugs and problems, I
believe, just to get something out the door.

Also, I do have the Norton firewall installed. But I do not fully understand
what vulnerability it has that installing a hardware firewall, too, would
rectify. Or is it just a case of redundancy? Any info you have on this issue
would be greatly appreciated. (BTW, forcing one's spouse and children to run
in limited accounts saves a lot more aggravation than just keeping out
hackers. It also prevents all manner of God knows what from being installed.)
 
The simple answer is that a software firewall (i.e., Nortonm ZoneAlrarm,
McAfee, etc.) can be turned off by a virus, Trojan, spyware, etc. and a
hardware firewall (i.e., a router) can't.

Alan
 
Aha! I hadn't thought of that, even though I am truly embarassed to admit it.
Thanks much.
 
Back
Top