Need to understand permissions and ownership

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luis Ortega
  • Start date Start date
Mr. Arnold said:
You don't know what you are talking about, and you really don't know the
protection that UAC provides to the O/S in other areas of protection to
protect itself. This is absolutely bad advise. Just because you want to
run with your draws down at your ankles and wide open to attack as you
run on the Internet does that mean that anyone else should follow in your
foot steps. You have certainly given no indication that you know how to
protect yourself or the machine.


Get a clue. Not everyone is running around with their jockey shorts at their
ankles. Ever hear of anti-virus programs and anti-spyware programs? Ever
hear of using caution on where you go on the net and to not open crap coming
in in your email............ People want control of their PCs. UA should
be a choice, not forced on people.
 
news.microsoft.com said:
Get a clue. Not everyone is running around with their jockey shorts at
their ankles. Ever hear of anti-virus programs and anti-spyware
programs? Ever hear of using caution on where you go on the net and to
not open crap coming in in your email............ People want control
of their PCs. UA should be a choice, not forced on people.

You ever hear of zero day in the wild exploits? That means it is new and
their are no definitions for them in detection files that those
solutions use.

If it can't be detected and it's able to do its damage before any
detection solution can detect it, then what? The AV, and in particular,
that snake-oil spyware crap you are leaning on like a crutch can easily
be fooled.

If the O/S can be fooled, than anything that runs with the O/S can be
fooled too.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc512587.aspx

It's not about what can be seen and detected. It's about what is not
easily detected that has hidden itself deep or disguised itself right in
front of your face.

<http://www.windowsecurity.com/artic...d_Rootkit_Tools_in_a_Windows_Environment.html>

You got some kind of 3rd party firewall solution running trying to
replace the Vista FW?

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839/2
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840

You need to get a *clue* and figure out what is happening with UAC,
because you don't know.

You sat up in this NG and talked about running old legacy solutions that
are non Vista compliant when UAC gives the compatibility for such
solutions to run on the computer. The very thing you want to disable.

<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc709691.aspx>
<http://news.softpedia.com/news/Admin-Approval-Mode-in-Windows-Vista-45312.shtml>
<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc138019.aspx>
<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc160882.aspx>
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa382503.aspx>

You might be real interested in the two links, because UAC is really not
the one that is stopping you in a whole lot of situations.

<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa382503.aspx>
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa382530(VS.85).aspx>

You can't even figure out how to stop the auto login and be bale to use
the built-in Administrator account that does give you the power, with
UAC being enabled to give compatibility to non Vista compliant solutions.

<http://www.computerperformance.co.u...a_Administrator_-_Super_User_(Hidden_Account)>

If anyone needs to get a *clue* as to what is happing, it's *you*.

You are completely off into left field. Like I said, your head is ten
bricks hard.
 
You really seem to be on a path that may get the person *jacked*.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa382540(VS.85).aspx

It's just very bad advise you are giving out here to think that you can
do on Vista what you did on XP without possible consequences due to your
actions.
You want to drop your draws down to your ankles than so be it. But why
must you take someone else with you?

First, I posted a long paragraph describing the dangers of doing what
I do and suggested that the user consider that first. I clearly
pointed out the consequences.

Second, you didn't have to "do" anything on XP, it already worked.
Also, Vista is no different that XP or win2xxx in terms of danger to
the OS if you remove file protections. If you were comfortable with
your skills and the OS's holes in XP, you can be comfortable in Vista.

Third, this global file protection scheme and UAC is a cheap,
band-aid, solution trying to cover up major architectural and physical
structure flaws in windows. Instead of fixing the problem, they
treated the symptom by massively prohibited access to anything except
C:\users. It's a nightmare for users and MS should be pistol whipped
for even thinking of it, let along shipping it.
 
+Bob+ said:
Second, you didn't have to "do" anything on XP, it already worked.
Also, Vista is no different that XP or win2xxx in terms of danger to
the OS if you remove file protections. If you were comfortable with
your skills and the OS's holes in XP, you can be comfortable in Vista.

Third, this global file protection scheme and UAC is a cheap,
band-aid, solution trying to cover up major architectural and physical
structure flaws in windows. Instead of fixing the problem, they
treated the symptom by massively prohibited access to anything except
C:\users. It's a nightmare for users and MS should be pistol whipped
for even thinking of it, let along shipping it.

No one could say it better. Amen!

If you want to keep your sanity just turn UAs off.
 
+Bob+ said:
First, I posted a long paragraph describing the dangers of doing what
I do and suggested that the user consider that first. I clearly
pointed out the consequences.

Second, you didn't have to "do" anything on XP, it already worked.

And it's an open be defult O/S that's wide open to attack when the
ignorant masses are using that O/S. You don't see a whole lot of users
posting in the Vista NG(s) about malware issues, like you see the
malware issues being posted in the XP and other NT based O/S solutions
NG(s).
Also, Vista is no different that XP or win2xxx in terms of danger to
the OS if you remove file protections. If you were comfortable with
your skills and the OS's holes in XP, you can be comfortable in Vista.

You want to talk to the ignorant masses about that. You'll want to talk
to the clueless about that, as they point and click away on XP running
with full admin rights being hammered.
Third, this global file protection scheme and UAC is a cheap,
band-aid, solution trying to cover up major architectural and physical
structure flaws in windows. Instead of fixing the problem, they
treated the symptom by massively prohibited access to anything except
C:\users. It's a nightmare for users and MS should be pistol whipped
for even thinking of it, let along shipping it.

Well, UAC is not going away not on Vista nor is it going away on Windows 7.

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/10/08/user-account-control.aspx

Please man please, there is nothing else that needs to be said about it.
Why beat the horse into the ground about it, because there is nothing
you can do about it? I don't want to continue to read about this from
you, as it's moot.
 
news.microsoft.com said:
No one could say it better. Amen!

If you want to keep your sanity just turn UAs off.

Yes, drop your linen and keep on grinin is the MO for today.
 
.......
Third, this global file protection scheme and UAC is a cheap,
band-aid, solution trying to cover up major architectural and physical
structure flaws in windows. Instead of fixing the problem, they
treated the symptom by massively prohibited access to anything except
C:\users. It's a nightmare for users and MS should be pistol whipped
for even thinking of it, let along shipping it.

Well, I see UAC as workaround
for Fool-Win-Users-Running-Admin-Accounts vulnerability :-)
In non Win OSs they usually do not do it.

For that problem it is hard to make official fix.
 
+Bob+ said:
Third, this global file protection scheme and UAC is a cheap,
band-aid, solution trying to cover up major architectural and physical
structure flaws in windows. Instead of fixing the problem, they
treated the symptom by massively prohibited access to anything except
C:\users. It's a nightmare for users and MS should be pistol whipped
for even thinking of it, let along shipping it.


Do you want to talk to me about how inferior Vista is suppose to be?

<http://www.securitypronews.com/news/securitynews/spn-45-20060601ASLRJoinsVistasBagOfTricks.html>

I am going to say it again to you. I don't see Vista users posting about
malware issues that much anymore as compared to the previous version on
the NT based O/S(s) where malware is hammering those O/S(s).

<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc162458.aspx>

Address Space Load Randomization

Despite measures like Data Execution Prevention and enhanced compiler
error checking, malware authors continue to find buffer overflow
vulnerabilities that allow them to infect network-facing processes like
Internet Explorer®, Windows services, and third-party applications to
gain a foothold on a system. Once they have managed to infect a process,
however, they must use Windows APIs to accomplish their ultimate goal of
reading user data or establishing a permanent presence by modifying user
or system configuration settings.

Connecting an application with API entry points exported by DLLs is
something usually handled by the operating system loader, but these
types of malware infection don't get the benefit of the loader's
services. This hasn't posed a problem for malware on previous versions
of Windows because for any given Windows release, system executable
images and DLLs always load at the same location, allowing malware to
assume that APIs reside at fixed addresses.

The Windows Vista Address Space Load Randomization (ASLR) feature makes
it impossible for malware to know where APIs are located by loading
system DLLs and executables at a different location every time the
system boots. Early in the boot process, the Memory Manager picks a
random DLL image-load bias from one of 256 64KB-aligned addresses in the
16MB region at the top of the user-mode address space. As DLLs that have
the new dynamic-relocation flag in their image header load into a
process, the Memory Manager packs them into memory starting at the
image-load bias address and working its way down.

----------------

You want to talk to me about how inferior Win 2k3 is and it's not a
solid and secure Web server platform with IIS, when Linux and Apache are
being hammered. Things started to change security wise on the Windows
platform.

http://www.zone-h.com/

Yes, I am going to continue to keep UAC enabled. I want folder
Virtulization doing its thing, because UAC is enabled. I want WRP doing
its thing. I want ASLR doing its thing. I want 3rd party security
vendors using WPF. I want MS to continue heading in the direction it is
headed with the security of its Windows O/S platforms.

Things are not as gloom and doom as you make it out to be with Vista,
and I want every last bit of what Vista has to offer in the form of
security enabled to better protect the machine.

Yes, it is doom and gloom on XP and Win 2k workstations in the home
user's hands, and XP is being HAMMERED by malware.
 
Back
Top