HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Can't get your software to work with the Windows User Account Control? Screw it, just disable it, no one will ever know. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
LG Split Screen Drastically Reduces Security
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Haha. We have a database here based on Foxpro that disables UAC upon install. That wasn't really a problem as users are using standard accounts anyway, but on the new Windows 8.1 machines, all of their Metro apps stop running until UAC is re-enabled. Luckily, the app still runs even with UAC.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 53,967
Wait... shouldn't Windows notify you when an application is attempting to change security settings on your computer?
mzs_biteme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,595
LG is using the same SuperDuper Windows root account/password that allows NSA to spy on you....
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 8,547
Yea I'm pretty sure I disabled that soon after installing windows do to some other piece of software that wouldnt work with it lol
Businesses, clients, and end users you obviously don't work for/with.
People who are smart. UAC got a deserved bad rap in Vista, but by sp2 and later win 7 it became one of the better features.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,859
UAC is worthless if it constantly prompts users (which it does). So it puts users into the habit of clicking "yes" without actually paying attention. UAC may make admins feel better, but it doesn't really do anything for the average user. Rights/permissions management is far more important.
EndlessRed
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 150
I always though LG stands for Le Gay?
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
UAC at minimum is sensible if you value your machines integrity and security.
Wait, there are people that want annoying pop ups every time they try to do something in Windows? I am honestly surprised. Disabling UAC is the very first step to a sane Windows user experience.
And someone believing that UAC in any constitutes "security" needs to be checked for brain damage.
And someone believing that UAC in any constitutes "security" needs to be checked for brain damage.
thebufenator
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,384
People who believe it is worthless do not understand threat mitigation
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
If that was happening then you would have a point.
I hardly ever install something.
It forms part of system security, sorry if you arent party to it.
UAC has stopped me from installing apps that demand higher privileges than they need.
I use other security to prevent unauthorised installations from starting.
Its a strange world.
You want to know something scary... the software that made our organization turn off UAC?
Microsoft Lync... Yup you read right, Microsoft's own IM software.
Lync's screen sharing feature is really easy to use, everyone from tech support to trainers use to to help people quickly. The problem is it doesn't support UAC (aka can't see the dialogs etc).
MS says its not supposed to be used for tech support or "admin" functions... and then they say many of their clients complain about this lack of feature... they are "thinking" of adding support.
Yet it all comes back down to ease of use... its really handy and easy finding people and remote controlling their computer via Lync.
InsanePerson
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 222
And thus, ensuing security issues can rightly be blamed on the user
UAC = Accountability
That is not a bad thing
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,703
Disabling UAC is a horrible idea, friend of mine who did it got a drive by cryptolocker from groove shark because he did it. The idea that simply visiting a website could give you malware seems like it would be something both businesses and users would be very sensitive about.
Wolf_Tech
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 231
Wait you like having to hit continue everytime something happens. UAC is a total joke. How about MS make a secure os and screw the UAC because 98% of the average user hits continue anyways.
Wolf_Tech
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 231
You only get cryptolocker if you run the file. which btw is posted on many security sites its bad. Also most antivirus's like norton and symantec pick it up. AVG does not.
Not going to argue about it because really I don't care if you want to be idiots, but your post is complete Fud. UAC doesn't nag and hasn't for years. Heck unless you are installing stuff constantly you should hardly ever see it. It is extremely effective and completely unobtrusive. If you are on win 7+ there is absolutely zero reason not to have it running. But go on, don't use it I have no vested interested in your time. If to enjoy removing garbage from your machine that's your deal.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
You do not mitigate a threat by using a system that creates pavlovian responses.
Seriously. Didn't we learn this lesson with early browser security?
If you put up annoyance messages every time a user wants to do something, you're NOT enhancing security. You're programming a lemming to auto-click YES by reflex.
Do you want to run this? YES.
Do you want to run this? YES.
Do you want to run this? YES.
*Half a trillion repetitions later*
Do you want me to maliciously reformat your hard drive? YES. Uh...Wait a sec!
And don't start with any "Well smart users would never..." bullshit.
This is the whole POINT of a programmed response. It happens by REFLEX.
I don't give a damn how careful, smart, educated, paranoid, WTF-EVER you are.
The most successful attacks on a computer attack the weakest link. The user.
UAC does JACK SHIT to mitigate that.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 13,080
Ummm, UAC does NOT constantly prompt you. Where the heck are you getting this misinformation from.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 13,080
Wait, there are people who do not understand what UAC is or how it actually works after all these years?
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 13,080
If you do not setup a standard and admin account then I might agree with your partially. However, UAC does not prompt you repeatedly and since Vista SP1, it hasn't. I hate that folks believe all you have to do is sneeze and UAC comes up.
I have no doubt you all run root access 24/7 on Linux too, right?
Apparently so, makes me sad.Wait, there are people who do not understand what UAC is or how it actually works after all these years?
You know, I don't see anyone bitching about and disabling their cell phone passwords and sudo on their linux machines and claiming that they reduce security. Seems to be a lot of biased people out there.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 53,967
That did bother me about the article. He says he had to uninstall it, but did he even try to enable UAC after it installed and giving the splitscreen program exclusive elevated rights manually like he preaches? What it sounds like is that this program creates a second virtual monitor, and doing that would trigger a UAC response. LG simply wanted to prevent that from happening.
Maybe for the casual user. Unless it is an application or installer that I, myself, have explicitly executed then I always take the time to read what is running. And I have clicked "No" on several occasions.
I think since Vista SP2 that UAC is actually a good stop condition at this point. People do stupid things accidentally or instictively all the time. Whether or not people develop an automatic response or not, that sound and popup does make your mind stop for a second to assess what is happening. But then again, self-awareness and common sense are rare attributes to have in this day and age...
Seventyfive
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,347
UAC is fucking retarded. I get why people use it in business, I won't argue that point. For home use? I've had it disabled since it came out and have NEVER gotten a virus. The way you avoid viruses isn't by some stupid UAC prompt, it's by using your brain. It still boggles my mind how people get viruses.
Did you download your favorite game of thrones episode and it's a 5mb file? Did you get a internet explorer pop up warning you that you're infected and you need to download a cleaner? Did you get some leet warez from some totally reputable website that's half written in russian and broken english? Guess what? THOSE ARE VIRUSES. I just solved your need for UAC.
Did you download your favorite game of thrones episode and it's a 5mb file? Did you get a internet explorer pop up warning you that you're infected and you need to download a cleaner? Did you get some leet warez from some totally reputable website that's half written in russian and broken english? Guess what? THOSE ARE VIRUSES. I just solved your need for UAC.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
Its not only about virii, its also about being alerted to and preventing unwanted elevation of privileges.
This could lead to giving control to programs that shouldnt have it, unwanted monitoring, unwanted leaking of information, virii, other malware ...
Stress and loss of time should be factored into this as a breach of your data not only puts it somewhere that can cause loss, but it can cost you a stack of time and worry correcting it, if it can be corrected.
A computer is a treasure trove repository of the lives of those using them.
It makes sense to be alerted when something attempts to make changes that can have far reaching consequences.
This could lead to giving control to programs that shouldnt have it, unwanted monitoring, unwanted leaking of information, virii, other malware ...
Stress and loss of time should be factored into this as a breach of your data not only puts it somewhere that can cause loss, but it can cost you a stack of time and worry correcting it, if it can be corrected.
A computer is a treasure trove repository of the lives of those using them.
It makes sense to be alerted when something attempts to make changes that can have far reaching consequences.
I deal with organizations all the time that get hit with Crypto, ransom ware and all kinds of intrusive software and virus's that have UAC enabled. It does nothing to protect the end user, other then asking their permission to run whatever program they shouldn't be in the first place.
It's a useless feature.
Educating end users goes a lot further when coupled along with good security software(Av & Firewalls) and a proper backup and recovery options.
Everybody gets a virus or a piece of malware running amok in the environment at some point in time, it's inevitable.
Having a proper plan in place to deal with it, is the key.
I was about to respond with how UAC has been great at limiting damage to user profiles and not the system, but then I realized that was more thanks to employees being on standard user accounts. UAC only matters on administrator logins as far as I know.
Then everyone at your company are fucking retards, and your administrators are novices that don't understand how to setup permissions correctly.
Running with "least privilege" is a fundamental tenet of information security, and it is simply best practice to do so. By separating admins and users, you have role-based separation... but not least privilege. UAC forces you to run with elevated privileges only when you need to do so. The rest of your processes run at the lowest-privilege level possible. If you think that all UAC does is stop you from installing programs, you obviously don't understand it. A quick google search would solve the problem of finding the information, though laziness and ignornance will prevent you from reading and understading it:
How UAC works:
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd835561(v=ws.10).aspx
UAC does come installed at a higher level that may be feasible to some people. This can be turned down, while still keeping the critical token-separating function of UAC mostly intact. Simply disabling a security feature of an OS... whether it is UAC in Windows, or sudo in Linux, is what ignorant/lazy people do.
This. I have not heard of anyone who seems to be a sysadmin type actually chime in. All the negatives I'm hearing seem to be "users" who are annoyed by UAC, without understanding what it actually does (see above link).
Any good sysadmin will know what things were like in the WinXP days. Simply consider the number of viruses that affect WinXP vs Windows Vista/7/8.
A pavlovian is considered "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning]classical conditioning[/url]". ANY repeated activity can cause this. The difference between people and animals is our ability to reason. If you're not using your God-given abilities... well... I can't help you.
Again, you don't understand UAC. It prompts you to elevate WHEN NEEDED, and keeps you from running processes 24/7 in an elevated (exploitable) state.
This is no different than what other OSs do.
With Windows, you can:
1) Use UAC and be prompted when you need an elevated token (most-restrictive)
2) Disable UAC and run processes in an elevated state 100% of the time
With linux, you can:
1) Use sudo and elevate a command when needed
2) Not use sudo and su to a root account when needed (in which people usually leave those processes opened until they log off)
You can mitigate #2 in each instance by separating user and admin accounts, but this doesn't accomplish "least privilege".
Personally, I like UAC better. I cannot tell you how many times I've put together a command in linux, only to have it not work, or only partially work/not work as expected. Usually, it is the latter. With Windows, it is usually the former: you are told you cannot run the process. Also, with UAC, the elevated process goes away when you close the process/window/etc. If you simply su to a root account in linux, most people do not exit out. Sudo is better... but you have to remember to add "sudo" to the command. At least Windows will prompt you after the fact.
As for your browser security question, again... humans behaving as animals. If you click "yes", "ignore", or anything else... that is akin to putting your hand in hot water, even after you've been warned it might be hot.
thebufenator
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,384
Everyone poopooing UAC.....
Who works in the IT Security realm?
Who works in the IT Security realm?
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,703
Educating users doesn't do much because users are complex and some simply aren't going to ever learn even if they do the best they will still make mistakes. You can't seriously expect any computer let alone ones used by many employees to consider education a solution. Education is only somewhat effective against the most obvious attacks and Microsoft nor any company I am aware of has implemented a system that makes it easier for tech support to help guide educated users. I don't get why people keep saying this when decades of user failures have and the ubiquity of computers has proven we cant solve the problem through education, even people here at hard can get hit by viruses how is a soccer mom supposed to get that education? Attacks were even coming in from hard forum a couple years ago. This is my largest complaint with UAC, UAC should ALWAYS force you to know the admin password just like Linux, then if you have an uneducated user you don't give them the password, it won't stop everything but it will stop a lot. This is why UAC is such a failure because in its default state on a consumer machine it still relies on "user education" it still relies on the user to not click yes to everything they see and it does nothing at all to stop any idiot from sitting down at another persons computer and get it infected, even a 4 year old kid, because all you have to do is click yes. In my experience even when I try to educate people you get 2 major groups of people, click yes to everything group, and click yes to nothing group. Both groups are screwed because the click no to everything group quickly ends up with tons of out dated software full of vulnerabilities in stuff like flash and java that will get them a drive by malware. And after all that many users are still bothered and pissed off by the nagging UAC does, realize that much of the nagging UAC does is because the user has not or cannot update software (I am looking at you java on windows 7 that can NEVER update).
The simplest solution is for MS to always require an admin password for UAC, this stops several things. 1 it means that not any 4 year old that goes to some shady kids game website can infect you simply by clicking yes, or that idiot that comes over and wants to install something. Second for educated and uneducated users it heavily reduces the chance of an accidental yes click, third for uneducated users it forces them to pause and think even for just a split second and that may help.
We were doing nothing but listening to grooveshark on his computer, not clicking anything not even touching a mouse. I have done the same on grooveshark with UAC enabled for a long time and never been hit although my antivirus has blocked many attempted attacks from grooveshark ads. Maybe flash or something else "ran" a file but there was no user interaction. We were literally standing up trying to see if his subs were balanced. That said he was running MS AV which I suggested he not use after the reinstall. Luckily he did have backups and a reformat was done.