L
Les
Hi
Running Vista Ultimate 32bit.
As far as I can see, there exists a number of folders on my computer which I
as administrator do not have permission/ownership of sufficient to open or
view the contents. Indeed, as an example, my Documents and Settings folder
properties doesn't even tell me if there are any contents in this/these
folders.
Question 1: Can this (or other similar folders) be exploited by malicious
software?
Question 2: Do virus scanners have access to these type of
folders/contents?
Question 3: Do other normal malware detection programs have sufficient
access to these folders/files?
Question 4: Why is it thought necessary to hide the contents of these
folders?
I have read elsewhere on these newsgroups, that an administrator has no need
to access these folders! Why? An administrator, by definition, *does have*
the *rights* to full access.
The Administrator word has been corrupted now. It doesn't give the
privileges needed. It has introduced a new higher level of authority, which
I have read described as 'super-administrator' - this whole debacle is
laughable. Why could the authority of administrator not have remained so?
I have also read that MS are trying to combat the situations where normal
users were made administrators just to lessen the support needed if their
authority was less! If this is the case, then MS are barking up the wrong
tree in my opinion as what is to stop those users from being elevated to the
'super-administrator' authority just to lessen the support?
As may be obvious, my knowledge/understanding is very limited. I speak only
as a home user, the only user on my computer, who is annoyed by some of the
new security ideas introduced. I had to redirect an installation to my User
folder so that I didn't get the constant UAC warnings which occurred if I
installed into the Program Files folder. I feel the 'big brother' approach
does not and never will prevent security problems - the security problems
will just become more sophisticated to deal with - I don't really want a set
of folders which may provide nice hiding places for malicious software. The
old fashioned 'look for file xxxxx.by in the zzzzz folder' to see if you
have a malicious software program on your computer no will longer be valid
when these 'no-access' folders exist.
OK, rant over - went slightly off topic, but couldn't help myself. The
initial questions do stand though.
--
regards,
Les Hay, Livingston, Scotland
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000736-0, 25/04/2007
Tested on: 25/04/2007 16:27:12
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Running Vista Ultimate 32bit.
As far as I can see, there exists a number of folders on my computer which I
as administrator do not have permission/ownership of sufficient to open or
view the contents. Indeed, as an example, my Documents and Settings folder
properties doesn't even tell me if there are any contents in this/these
folders.
Question 1: Can this (or other similar folders) be exploited by malicious
software?
Question 2: Do virus scanners have access to these type of
folders/contents?
Question 3: Do other normal malware detection programs have sufficient
access to these folders/files?
Question 4: Why is it thought necessary to hide the contents of these
folders?
I have read elsewhere on these newsgroups, that an administrator has no need
to access these folders! Why? An administrator, by definition, *does have*
the *rights* to full access.
The Administrator word has been corrupted now. It doesn't give the
privileges needed. It has introduced a new higher level of authority, which
I have read described as 'super-administrator' - this whole debacle is
laughable. Why could the authority of administrator not have remained so?
I have also read that MS are trying to combat the situations where normal
users were made administrators just to lessen the support needed if their
authority was less! If this is the case, then MS are barking up the wrong
tree in my opinion as what is to stop those users from being elevated to the
'super-administrator' authority just to lessen the support?
As may be obvious, my knowledge/understanding is very limited. I speak only
as a home user, the only user on my computer, who is annoyed by some of the
new security ideas introduced. I had to redirect an installation to my User
folder so that I didn't get the constant UAC warnings which occurred if I
installed into the Program Files folder. I feel the 'big brother' approach
does not and never will prevent security problems - the security problems
will just become more sophisticated to deal with - I don't really want a set
of folders which may provide nice hiding places for malicious software. The
old fashioned 'look for file xxxxx.by in the zzzzz folder' to see if you
have a malicious software program on your computer no will longer be valid
when these 'no-access' folders exist.
OK, rant over - went slightly off topic, but couldn't help myself. The
initial questions do stand though.
--
regards,
Les Hay, Livingston, Scotland
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000736-0, 25/04/2007
Tested on: 25/04/2007 16:27:12
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com