Security feature in Microsoft's new Windows (Vista) could drive users nuts

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Imhotep, May 17, 2006.

  1. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft test
    its new Windows Vista PC operating system.

    Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the much-hyped
    upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    broad consumer release, scheduled for January.

    Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature, called
    User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from performing
    harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods you to
    confirm that you really want to do certain functions.

    In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they interrupt
    routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts. And
    UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of Windows IT
    Pro magazine."

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34

    -- Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, May 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I have been using Beta 2 and have not noticed the severity to the point
    where I have had to reboot the computer. The feature is a security option
    that can be turned off in Local Security Policy if the user wishes to and
    would rather accept the risk of doing so though and there will probably be
    an adequate explanation for those who want to if they access built in help.

    It will be interesting to see where users and what percentage draw the line
    between convenience and security as my guess is that Vista will have UAC
    enabled in the final version and it should be. I don't know however if there
    will be an exception list to run certain tasks without the prompt that could
    include MD5 hashes of executable files that a local administrator specifies
    [similar to software firewall application rules] and possibly even exempt
    users that could only be designated by the built in administrator account.
    Typically all or nothing approaches are not received well even with the best
    of intentions. --- Steve


    "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    > enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft test
    > its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >
    > Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the much-hyped
    > upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    > broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >
    > Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature,
    > called
    > User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from performing
    > harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods you
    > to
    > confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >
    > In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they interrupt
    > routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts. And
    > UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    > curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of Windows IT
    > Pro magazine."
    >
    > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >
    > -- Imhotep
     
    Steven L Umbach, May 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Imhotep

    Alun Jones Guest

    Imhotep wrote:
    > "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    > enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft
    > test its new Windows Vista PC operating system.


    Beta software has bugs. Wow. In other news, rain falls downward and makes
    things wet.

    Alun.
    ~~~~
    --
    [Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
    --
    Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email
    23921 57th Ave SE | .
    Washington WA 98072-8661 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers.
    Fax/Voice +1(425)807-1787 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer.
     
    Alun Jones, May 17, 2006
    #3
  4. Re: Security feature in Microsoft's new Windows (Vista) could drive

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: RIPEMD160

    Alun Jones wrote:

    > Imhotep wrote:
    >> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    >> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft
    >> test its new Windows Vista PC operating system.

    >
    > Beta software has bugs. Wow. In other news, rain falls downward and
    > makes things wet.


    Beta bugs, especially second or third round beta bugs, don't generally
    cripple an operating system entirely with nested, looping dialog boxes. If
    that's actually true, and not a bit of "poetic license" or a definition of
    the author's patience level.

    And rain doesn't always fall downward. ;)
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iD8DBQFEap1Kno5iexlRIBERAysFAJ4voVl5HeyNNIXGK6qSjEyhnG6WBQCeJEIZ
    C281ejHGqAp+YhF4+SmgwzE=
    =SMAE
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Sheik Yurbhuti, May 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Re: Security feature in Microsoft's new Windows (Vista) could drive

    Sheik Yurbhuti wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: RIPEMD160
    >
    > Alun Jones wrote:
    >
    >> Imhotep wrote:
    >>> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    >>> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft
    >>> test its new Windows Vista PC operating system.

    >>
    >> Beta software has bugs. Wow. In other news, rain falls downward and
    >> makes things wet.

    >
    > Beta bugs, especially second or third round beta bugs, don't generally
    > cripple an operating system entirely with nested, looping dialog boxes. If
    > that's actually true, and not a bit of "poetic license" or a definition of
    > the author's patience level.


    ....absolutely, they *shouldn't*...Do you suppose I should, warn Alum Jones
    to close his mouth so he does not drown in the falling rain?

    -- Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, May 17, 2006
    #5
  6. My own feeling is that the jury is (not yet formed but effectively) still
    out
    on consumer acceptance of the final form of this feature. Once the
    behavior is refined for release, AIUI the intent is for people that use an
    admin account as their normal login to not imperil their machine by so
    doing, and yet when they do activate something that does require use
    of their admin privs they will be allowed to do so.
    Now, in the current and prior builds many testers do find the feature
    to be obnoxious. But then those testers are characteristically doing all
    sorts of things that use their admin privs (exploring all the config
    settings,
    installing components, etc.) so perhaps the current test sample is not
    characteristic of the consumer base that will only occassionally be
    doing something requiring the elevated privs.

    "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    > enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft test
    > its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >
    > Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the much-hyped
    > upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    > broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >
    > Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature,
    > called
    > User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from performing
    > harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods you
    > to
    > confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >
    > In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they interrupt
    > routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts. And
    > UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    > curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of Windows IT
    > Pro magazine."
    >
    > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >
    > -- Imhotep
     
    Roger Abell [MVP], May 17, 2006
    #6
  7. I am not real hopeful. Consider that a lot if not the majority of drivers
    will not wear their seat belts which is an action that can save their life
    or prevent great bodily harm. Hence we now have air bags that added cost to
    the purchase of a car. Consumers are waiting for MS to implement an air bag
    in the operating system. --- Steve


    "Roger Abell [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My own feeling is that the jury is (not yet formed but effectively) still
    > out
    > on consumer acceptance of the final form of this feature. Once the
    > behavior is refined for release, AIUI the intent is for people that use an
    > admin account as their normal login to not imperil their machine by so
    > doing, and yet when they do activate something that does require use
    > of their admin privs they will be allowed to do so.
    > Now, in the current and prior builds many testers do find the feature
    > to be obnoxious. But then those testers are characteristically doing all
    > sorts of things that use their admin privs (exploring all the config
    > settings,
    > installing components, etc.) so perhaps the current test sample is not
    > characteristic of the consumer base that will only occassionally be
    > doing something requiring the elevated privs.
    >
    > "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    >> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft
    >> test
    >> its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >>
    >> Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the much-hyped
    >> upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    >> broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >>
    >> Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature,
    >> called
    >> User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from performing
    >> harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods you
    >> to
    >> confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >>
    >> In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they interrupt
    >> routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts. And
    >> UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    >> curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of Windows
    >> IT
    >> Pro magazine."
    >>
    >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >>
    >> -- Imhotep

    >
    >
     
    Steven L Umbach, May 17, 2006
    #7
  8. Imhotep

    Todd H. Guest

    "Steven L Umbach" <> writes:

    > I am not real hopeful. Consider that a lot if not the majority of drivers
    > will not wear their seat belts which is an action that can save their life
    > or prevent great bodily harm. Hence we now have air bags that added cost to
    > the purchase of a car. Consumers are waiting for MS to implement an air bag
    > in the operating system. --- Steve


    What was especially ironic and stupid about the original air bag
    mandate is the paradox that
    a) in the US, manufacturers were forced to design to a spect
    that would restrain an unbelted passenger
    but
    b) as we learned through decapitations, blindings, and
    maimings, first generation airbags especially those in the
    US of the full deployment variety were totally unsafe to an
    unbelted occupant too close the steering wheel.

    Good times, eh?

    That paradox has been corrected with low deployment force bags, and
    additions of seat occupancy sensors and defeatable deployment for
    passenger side bags, etc. But still, dont' think for a minute that
    the airbag mandate doesn't have the grubby paws of the airbag
    manufacturer's lobby all over it, and don't think for a moment that
    for the same incremental increase in cost of an auto, there aren't
    design improvements that would yield more overall safety than an
    airbag in every steering column.

    At least new cars aren't shipping with bombs in the steering columns
    that'd snap grandma in half or pop infants' heads off.

    Best Regards,
    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/
     
    Todd H., May 17, 2006
    #8
  9. Imhotep

    Unruh Guest

    "Steven L Umbach" <> writes:

    >I am not real hopeful. Consider that a lot if not the majority of drivers
    >will not wear their seat belts which is an action that can save their life
    >or prevent great bodily harm. Hence we now have air bags that added cost to
    >the purchase of a car. Consumers are waiting for MS to implement an air bag
    >in the operating system. --- Steve


    And if those airbags caused you to have to restart your car four or five
    times a day....


    >"Roger Abell [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> My own feeling is that the jury is (not yet formed but effectively) still
    >> out
    >> on consumer acceptance of the final form of this feature. Once the
    >> behavior is refined for release, AIUI the intent is for people that use an
    >> admin account as their normal login to not imperil their machine by so
    >> doing, and yet when they do activate something that does require use
    >> of their admin privs they will be allowed to do so.
    >> Now, in the current and prior builds many testers do find the feature
    >> to be obnoxious. But then those testers are characteristically doing all
    >> sorts of things that use their admin privs (exploring all the config
    >> settings,
    >> installing components, etc.) so perhaps the current test sample is not
    >> characteristic of the consumer base that will only occassionally be
    >> doing something requiring the elevated privs.
    >>
    >> "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    >>> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft
    >>> test
    >>> its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >>>
    >>> Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the much-hyped
    >>> upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    >>> broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >>>
    >>> Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature,
    >>> called
    >>> User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from performing
    >>> harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods you
    >>> to
    >>> confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >>>
    >>> In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they interrupt
    >>> routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts. And
    >>> UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    >>> curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of Windows
    >>> IT
    >>> Pro magazine."
    >>>
    >>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >>>
    >>> -- Imhotep

    >>
    >>
     
    Unruh, May 17, 2006
    #9
  10. Re: Security feature in Microsoft's new Windows (Vista) could driveusers nuts

    I agree, it is annoying but the folks using it right now are doing all sorts of
    things they may not be doing after they have it running for a month or two and
    are "stable". I noticed that the UAC was pissing me right off until all of a
    sudden I didn't reload the machine for a week or so and I realized I went a day
    or two without seeing it at all because I was just using the machine after I had
    stabilized.... Getting through that few days though is going to be trying for
    some folks.

    And honestly, I almost got to the point when reloading a lot where I wasn't even
    looking at the prompts anymore and I was just clicking. At that point, it has
    completely lost its effectiveness as a security feature.


    --
    Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    www.joeware.net


    ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---

    http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm



    Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    > My own feeling is that the jury is (not yet formed but effectively) still
    > out
    > on consumer acceptance of the final form of this feature. Once the
    > behavior is refined for release, AIUI the intent is for people that use an
    > admin account as their normal login to not imperil their machine by so
    > doing, and yet when they do activate something that does require use
    > of their admin privs they will be allowed to do so.
    > Now, in the current and prior builds many testers do find the feature
    > to be obnoxious. But then those testers are characteristically doing all
    > sorts of things that use their admin privs (exploring all the config
    > settings,
    > installing components, etc.) so perhaps the current test sample is not
    > characteristic of the consumer base that will only occassionally be
    > doing something requiring the elevated privs.
    >
    > "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    >> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft test
    >> its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >>
    >> Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the much-hyped
    >> upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    >> broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >>
    >> Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature,
    >> called
    >> User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from performing
    >> harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods you
    >> to
    >> confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >>
    >> In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they interrupt
    >> routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts. And
    >> UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    >> curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of Windows IT
    >> Pro magazine."
    >>
    >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >>
    >> -- Imhotep

    >
    >
     
    Joe Richards [MVP], May 18, 2006
    #10
  11. Wow you know a lot about air bags and that is all very interesting. I chalk
    up such to the law of unintended consequences in our government's never
    ending pursuit to protect us from ourselves. I don't have all the details
    but I understand that the government forced the gasoline produces to include
    an additive that is supposed to reduce air pollution a while back but a few
    years later they found that it was polluting water and the ground big time
    and they wanted the oil companies to spend gazillions of dollars to clean
    that up. My favorite is the banning of handguns in the city of Chicago to
    make it safer. Well what happened is that Chicago is more violent then ever
    since only criminals have handguns now and have no fear of the law abiding
    citizen. Will they ever learn?? --- Steve



    "Todd H." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Steven L Umbach" <> writes:
    >
    >> I am not real hopeful. Consider that a lot if not the majority of drivers
    >> will not wear their seat belts which is an action that can save their
    >> life
    >> or prevent great bodily harm. Hence we now have air bags that added cost
    >> to
    >> the purchase of a car. Consumers are waiting for MS to implement an air
    >> bag
    >> in the operating system. --- Steve

    >
    > What was especially ironic and stupid about the original air bag
    > mandate is the paradox that
    > a) in the US, manufacturers were forced to design to a spect
    > that would restrain an unbelted passenger
    > but
    > b) as we learned through decapitations, blindings, and
    > maimings, first generation airbags especially those in the
    > US of the full deployment variety were totally unsafe to an
    > unbelted occupant too close the steering wheel.
    >
    > Good times, eh?
    >
    > That paradox has been corrected with low deployment force bags, and
    > additions of seat occupancy sensors and defeatable deployment for
    > passenger side bags, etc. But still, dont' think for a minute that
    > the airbag mandate doesn't have the grubby paws of the airbag
    > manufacturer's lobby all over it, and don't think for a moment that
    > for the same incremental increase in cost of an auto, there aren't
    > design improvements that would yield more overall safety than an
    > airbag in every steering column.
    >
    > At least new cars aren't shipping with bombs in the steering columns
    > that'd snap grandma in half or pop infants' heads off.
    >
    > Best Regards,
    > --
    > Todd H.
    > http://www.toddh.net/
     
    Steven L Umbach, May 18, 2006
    #11
  12. "Steven L Umbach" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    <snip>
    > Will they ever learn?? --- Steve
    >

    not so long as they have self-believe in self-superiority of judgement
    and a low opinion of others' sensibilities
    --
    ra
     
    Roger Abell [MVP], May 18, 2006
    #12
  13. Perhaps we have hit on something to suggest Joe.
    A temporary UAC suspend - say for 24 hours at a wack.
    People are going to find the trick to shut if off, at least the
    more power users are, and then it is off until reenabled.
    So, what if during inital config, times of extensive admin use,
    etc., there was a suspend UAC for x hours ??

    I have noticed that with 5381.1 it is less annoying than when I
    first started experiencing it, at 5308 or whatever build that was.
    Perhaps it is less invasive, but I tend to believe it is that I am
    becoming more accustomed to it and also that I have to do less
    hunting to find where things have been hidden (or omitted).

    I still believe that if people who do run as an admin just get over
    the hump of inital config, then they will not that often see the
    prompting. At that point UAC is only a good thing, as they are
    running as a limited user.


    "Joe Richards [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >I agree, it is annoying but the folks using it right now are doing all
    >sorts of things they may not be doing after they have it running for a
    >month or two and are "stable". I noticed that the UAC was pissing me right
    >off until all of a sudden I didn't reload the machine for a week or so and
    >I realized I went a day or two without seeing it at all because I was just
    >using the machine after I had stabilized.... Getting through that few days
    >though is going to be trying for some folks.
    >
    > And honestly, I almost got to the point when reloading a lot where I
    > wasn't even looking at the prompts anymore and I was just clicking. At
    > that point, it has completely lost its effectiveness as a security
    > feature.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    > Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    > www.joeware.net
    >
    >
    > ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
    >
    > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
    >
    >
    >
    > Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    >> My own feeling is that the jury is (not yet formed but effectively) still
    >> out
    >> on consumer acceptance of the final form of this feature. Once the
    >> behavior is refined for release, AIUI the intent is for people that use
    >> an
    >> admin account as their normal login to not imperil their machine by so
    >> doing, and yet when they do activate something that does require use
    >> of their admin privs they will be allowed to do so.
    >> Now, in the current and prior builds many testers do find the feature
    >> to be obnoxious. But then those testers are characteristically doing all
    >> sorts of things that use their admin privs (exploring all the config
    >> settings,
    >> installing components, etc.) so perhaps the current test sample is not
    >> characteristic of the consumer base that will only occassionally be
    >> doing something requiring the elevated privs.
    >>
    >> "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    >>> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft
    >>> test
    >>> its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >>>
    >>> Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the
    >>> much-hyped
    >>> upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    >>> broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >>>
    >>> Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature,
    >>> called
    >>> User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from
    >>> performing
    >>> harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods you
    >>> to
    >>> confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >>>
    >>> In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they interrupt
    >>> routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts.
    >>> And
    >>> UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    >>> curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of Windows
    >>> IT
    >>> Pro magazine."
    >>>
    >>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >>>
    >>> -- Imhotep

    >>
     
    Roger Abell [MVP], May 18, 2006
    #13
  14. Imhotep

    Kevin Guest

    "Steven L Umbach" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >I am not real hopeful. Consider that a lot if not the majority of drivers
    >will not wear their seat belts which is an action that can save their life
    >or prevent great bodily harm. Hence we now have air bags that added cost to
    >the purchase of a car. Consumers are waiting for MS to implement an air bag
    >in the operating system. --- Steve


    Because people are idiots and will not wear a seat belt is not the reason
    there are also air bags in cars these days. Air bags provide additional
    driver and passenger protection. They require the use of the seat belt as
    an integrated safety system. An air bag will not provide the required
    protection if the driver and/or passenger is flying around the cabin of the
    vehicle because they did not wear their seat belt.

    Yes, the addition of air bags does incur added cost to the vehicle. So does
    the inclusion of a heater, air conditioner, radio and storage compartments.

    As to the level of annoyance that consumers will feel if they purchase
    Windows Vista, if and when it is made available, it will be no greater than
    the level of annoyance felt when Windows 98 was released. The problem will
    be that the operating system in its full-featured form will be so taxing on
    a middle tier system that people will feel ripped off. It will be, of
    course, their own fault for not reading the system specifications that will
    ship with each version of Vista.

    If you want to run the top version of the Vista OS, get the biggest,
    baddest, fastest computer your money can buy. Personally, I'm happy with XP
    the way it is. I don't need to be able to see through desktop icons or
    windows.
    >
    >
    > "Roger Abell [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> My own feeling is that the jury is (not yet formed but effectively) still
    >> out
    >> on consumer acceptance of the final form of this feature. Once the
    >> behavior is refined for release, AIUI the intent is for people that use
    >> an
    >> admin account as their normal login to not imperil their machine by so
    >> doing, and yet when they do activate something that does require use
    >> of their admin privs they will be allowed to do so.
    >> Now, in the current and prior builds many testers do find the feature
    >> to be obnoxious. But then those testers are characteristically doing all
    >> sorts of things that use their admin privs (exploring all the config
    >> settings,
    >> installing components, etc.) so perhaps the current test sample is not
    >> characteristic of the consumer base that will only occassionally be
    >> doing something requiring the elevated privs.
    >>
    >> "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    >>> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft
    >>> test
    >>> its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >>>
    >>> Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the
    >>> much-hyped
    >>> upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    >>> broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >>>
    >>> Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature,
    >>> called
    >>> User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from
    >>> performing
    >>> harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods you
    >>> to
    >>> confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >>>
    >>> In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they interrupt
    >>> routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts.
    >>> And
    >>> UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    >>> curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of Windows
    >>> IT
    >>> Pro magazine."
    >>>
    >>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >>>
    >>> -- Imhotep

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Kevin, May 19, 2006
    #14
  15. Imhotep

    PA Bear Guest

    Could y'all do us a favor and please eliminate the excessive/needless
    crossposting, especially to IE.Security? Thank you.
    --
    ~PA Bear

    <snip>
     
    PA Bear, May 19, 2006
    #15
  16. Re: Security feature in Microsoft's new Windows (Vista) could driveusers nuts

    Yeah that sounds like a good suggestion, maybe when it first pops up after an
    install it asks if you want to suspend for a day or two for the initial build
    up. Course bad things could still get through, but that is the same as if they
    turned it off permanently and maybe doing it this way the benefit comes back
    instead of being always off.

    I haven't tried it (note to self for the weekend testing), if I use runas or my
    cpau if the newly spawned window is also impacted by UAC. If it wasn't, that
    would be handy because then I just spawn a new command prompt with those rights
    and the UAC doesn't pop up for anything I do from there...



    --
    Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    www.joeware.net


    ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---

    http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm



    Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    > Perhaps we have hit on something to suggest Joe.
    > A temporary UAC suspend - say for 24 hours at a wack.
    > People are going to find the trick to shut if off, at least the
    > more power users are, and then it is off until reenabled.
    > So, what if during inital config, times of extensive admin use,
    > etc., there was a suspend UAC for x hours ??
    >
    > I have noticed that with 5381.1 it is less annoying than when I
    > first started experiencing it, at 5308 or whatever build that was.
    > Perhaps it is less invasive, but I tend to believe it is that I am
    > becoming more accustomed to it and also that I have to do less
    > hunting to find where things have been hidden (or omitted).
    >
    > I still believe that if people who do run as an admin just get over
    > the hump of inital config, then they will not that often see the
    > prompting. At that point UAC is only a good thing, as they are
    > running as a limited user.
    >
    >
    > "Joe Richards [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> I agree, it is annoying but the folks using it right now are doing all
    >> sorts of things they may not be doing after they have it running for a
    >> month or two and are "stable". I noticed that the UAC was pissing me right
    >> off until all of a sudden I didn't reload the machine for a week or so and
    >> I realized I went a day or two without seeing it at all because I was just
    >> using the machine after I had stabilized.... Getting through that few days
    >> though is going to be trying for some folks.
    >>
    >> And honestly, I almost got to the point when reloading a lot where I
    >> wasn't even looking at the prompts anymore and I was just clicking. At
    >> that point, it has completely lost its effectiveness as a security
    >> feature.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    >> Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    >> www.joeware.net
    >>
    >>
    >> ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
    >>
    >> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    >>> My own feeling is that the jury is (not yet formed but effectively) still
    >>> out
    >>> on consumer acceptance of the final form of this feature. Once the
    >>> behavior is refined for release, AIUI the intent is for people that use
    >>> an
    >>> admin account as their normal login to not imperil their machine by so
    >>> doing, and yet when they do activate something that does require use
    >>> of their admin privs they will be allowed to do so.
    >>> Now, in the current and prior builds many testers do find the feature
    >>> to be obnoxious. But then those testers are characteristically doing all
    >>> sorts of things that use their admin privs (exploring all the config
    >>> settings,
    >>> installing components, etc.) so perhaps the current test sample is not
    >>> characteristic of the consumer base that will only occassionally be
    >>> doing something requiring the elevated privs.
    >>>
    >>> "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    >>>> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft
    >>>> test
    >>>> its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >>>>
    >>>> Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the
    >>>> much-hyped
    >>>> upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    >>>> broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >>>>
    >>>> Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature,
    >>>> called
    >>>> User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from
    >>>> performing
    >>>> harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods you
    >>>> to
    >>>> confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >>>>
    >>>> In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they interrupt
    >>>> routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts.
    >>>> And
    >>>> UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    >>>> curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of Windows
    >>>> IT
    >>>> Pro magazine."
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >>>>
    >>>> -- Imhotep

    >
     
    Joe Richards [MVP], May 19, 2006
    #16
  17. It would be interesting if you could control in your cpau so that the
    token did not get restricted, and I find it dumb if it does restrict when
    someone has conciously used runas to get an admin session . . .

    After thinking some I believe the suggestion should be to provide a
    "suspend for remainder of this login" button and have a time limiter
    of say a day for those like myself that customarily hibernate a client.

    Roger

    "Joe Richards [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Yeah that sounds like a good suggestion, maybe when it first pops up after
    > an install it asks if you want to suspend for a day or two for the initial
    > build up. Course bad things could still get through, but that is the same
    > as if they turned it off permanently and maybe doing it this way the
    > benefit comes back instead of being always off.
    >
    > I haven't tried it (note to self for the weekend testing), if I use runas
    > or my cpau if the newly spawned window is also impacted by UAC. If it
    > wasn't, that would be handy because then I just spawn a new command prompt
    > with those rights and the UAC doesn't pop up for anything I do from
    > there...
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    > Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    > www.joeware.net
    >
    >
    > ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
    >
    > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
    >
    >
    >
    > Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    >> Perhaps we have hit on something to suggest Joe.
    >> A temporary UAC suspend - say for 24 hours at a wack.
    >> People are going to find the trick to shut if off, at least the
    >> more power users are, and then it is off until reenabled.
    >> So, what if during inital config, times of extensive admin use,
    >> etc., there was a suspend UAC for x hours ??
    >>
    >> I have noticed that with 5381.1 it is less annoying than when I
    >> first started experiencing it, at 5308 or whatever build that was.
    >> Perhaps it is less invasive, but I tend to believe it is that I am
    >> becoming more accustomed to it and also that I have to do less
    >> hunting to find where things have been hidden (or omitted).
    >>
    >> I still believe that if people who do run as an admin just get over
    >> the hump of inital config, then they will not that often see the
    >> prompting. At that point UAC is only a good thing, as they are
    >> running as a limited user.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Joe Richards [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>> I agree, it is annoying but the folks using it right now are doing all
    >>> sorts of things they may not be doing after they have it running for a
    >>> month or two and are "stable". I noticed that the UAC was pissing me
    >>> right off until all of a sudden I didn't reload the machine for a week
    >>> or so and I realized I went a day or two without seeing it at all
    >>> because I was just using the machine after I had stabilized.... Getting
    >>> through that few days though is going to be trying for some folks.
    >>>
    >>> And honestly, I almost got to the point when reloading a lot where I
    >>> wasn't even looking at the prompts anymore and I was just clicking. At
    >>> that point, it has completely lost its effectiveness as a security
    >>> feature.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    >>> Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    >>> www.joeware.net
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
    >>>
    >>> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    >>>> My own feeling is that the jury is (not yet formed but effectively)
    >>>> still out
    >>>> on consumer acceptance of the final form of this feature. Once the
    >>>> behavior is refined for release, AIUI the intent is for people that use
    >>>> an
    >>>> admin account as their normal login to not imperil their machine by so
    >>>> doing, and yet when they do activate something that does require use
    >>>> of their admin privs they will be allowed to do so.
    >>>> Now, in the current and prior builds many testers do find the feature
    >>>> to be obnoxious. But then those testers are characteristically doing
    >>>> all
    >>>> sorts of things that use their admin privs (exploring all the config
    >>>> settings,
    >>>> installing components, etc.) so perhaps the current test sample is not
    >>>> characteristic of the consumer base that will only occassionally be
    >>>> doing something requiring the elevated privs.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    >>>>> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft
    >>>>> test
    >>>>> its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the
    >>>>> much-hyped
    >>>>> upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    >>>>> broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature,
    >>>>> called
    >>>>> User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from
    >>>>> performing
    >>>>> harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods
    >>>>> you to
    >>>>> confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they
    >>>>> interrupt
    >>>>> routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts.
    >>>>> And
    >>>>> UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    >>>>> curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of
    >>>>> Windows IT
    >>>>> Pro magazine."
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >>>>>
    >>>>> -- Imhotep

    >>
     
    Roger Abell [MVP], May 21, 2006
    #17
  18. Re: Security feature in Microsoft's new Windows (Vista) could driveusers nuts

    Or even once it starts to hibernate it shuts off on the spot, same with suspend,
    come back from locked session, etc. That way when you fire back up, you are at
    a known "safe" spot.

    --
    Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    www.joeware.net


    ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---

    http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm



    Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    > It would be interesting if you could control in your cpau so that the
    > token did not get restricted, and I find it dumb if it does restrict when
    > someone has conciously used runas to get an admin session . . .
    >
    > After thinking some I believe the suggestion should be to provide a
    > "suspend for remainder of this login" button and have a time limiter
    > of say a day for those like myself that customarily hibernate a client.
    >
    > Roger
    >
    > "Joe Richards [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Yeah that sounds like a good suggestion, maybe when it first pops up after
    >> an install it asks if you want to suspend for a day or two for the initial
    >> build up. Course bad things could still get through, but that is the same
    >> as if they turned it off permanently and maybe doing it this way the
    >> benefit comes back instead of being always off.
    >>
    >> I haven't tried it (note to self for the weekend testing), if I use runas
    >> or my cpau if the newly spawned window is also impacted by UAC. If it
    >> wasn't, that would be handy because then I just spawn a new command prompt
    >> with those rights and the UAC doesn't pop up for anything I do from
    >> there...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    >> Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    >> www.joeware.net
    >>
    >>
    >> ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
    >>
    >> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    >>> Perhaps we have hit on something to suggest Joe.
    >>> A temporary UAC suspend - say for 24 hours at a wack.
    >>> People are going to find the trick to shut if off, at least the
    >>> more power users are, and then it is off until reenabled.
    >>> So, what if during inital config, times of extensive admin use,
    >>> etc., there was a suspend UAC for x hours ??
    >>>
    >>> I have noticed that with 5381.1 it is less annoying than when I
    >>> first started experiencing it, at 5308 or whatever build that was.
    >>> Perhaps it is less invasive, but I tend to believe it is that I am
    >>> becoming more accustomed to it and also that I have to do less
    >>> hunting to find where things have been hidden (or omitted).
    >>>
    >>> I still believe that if people who do run as an admin just get over
    >>> the hump of inital config, then they will not that often see the
    >>> prompting. At that point UAC is only a good thing, as they are
    >>> running as a limited user.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Joe Richards [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%...
    >>>> I agree, it is annoying but the folks using it right now are doing all
    >>>> sorts of things they may not be doing after they have it running for a
    >>>> month or two and are "stable". I noticed that the UAC was pissing me
    >>>> right off until all of a sudden I didn't reload the machine for a week
    >>>> or so and I realized I went a day or two without seeing it at all
    >>>> because I was just using the machine after I had stabilized.... Getting
    >>>> through that few days though is going to be trying for some folks.
    >>>>
    >>>> And honestly, I almost got to the point when reloading a lot where I
    >>>> wasn't even looking at the prompts anymore and I was just clicking. At
    >>>> that point, it has completely lost its effectiveness as a security
    >>>> feature.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    >>>> Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    >>>> www.joeware.net
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    >>>>> My own feeling is that the jury is (not yet formed but effectively)
    >>>>> still out
    >>>>> on consumer acceptance of the final form of this feature. Once the
    >>>>> behavior is refined for release, AIUI the intent is for people that use
    >>>>> an
    >>>>> admin account as their normal login to not imperil their machine by so
    >>>>> doing, and yet when they do activate something that does require use
    >>>>> of their admin privs they will be allowed to do so.
    >>>>> Now, in the current and prior builds many testers do find the feature
    >>>>> to be obnoxious. But then those testers are characteristically doing
    >>>>> all
    >>>>> sorts of things that use their admin privs (exploring all the config
    >>>>> settings,
    >>>>> installing components, etc.) so perhaps the current test sample is not
    >>>>> characteristic of the consumer base that will only occassionally be
    >>>>> doing something requiring the elevated privs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected to
    >>>>>> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help Microsoft
    >>>>>> test
    >>>>>> its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the
    >>>>>> much-hyped
    >>>>>> upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to Vista's
    >>>>>> broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security feature,
    >>>>>> called
    >>>>>> User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from
    >>>>>> performing
    >>>>>> harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods
    >>>>>> you to
    >>>>>> confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they
    >>>>>> interrupt
    >>>>>> routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting shortcuts.
    >>>>>> And
    >>>>>> UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    >>>>>> curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of
    >>>>>> Windows IT
    >>>>>> Pro magazine."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> -- Imhotep

    >
    >
     
    Joe Richards [MVP], May 21, 2006
    #18
  19. "Joe Richards [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Or even once it starts to hibernate it shuts off on the spot, same with
    > suspend, come back from locked session, etc. That way when you fire back
    > up, you are at a known "safe" spot.
    >


    Yep, I agree. That is better.

    >
    > ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
    >
    > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
    >
    >
    >
    > Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    >> It would be interesting if you could control in your cpau so that the
    >> token did not get restricted, and I find it dumb if it does restrict when
    >> someone has conciously used runas to get an admin session . . .
    >>
    >> After thinking some I believe the suggestion should be to provide a
    >> "suspend for remainder of this login" button and have a time limiter
    >> of say a day for those like myself that customarily hibernate a client.
    >>
    >> Roger
    >>
    >> "Joe Richards [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Yeah that sounds like a good suggestion, maybe when it first pops up
    >>> after an install it asks if you want to suspend for a day or two for the
    >>> initial build up. Course bad things could still get through, but that is
    >>> the same as if they turned it off permanently and maybe doing it this
    >>> way the benefit comes back instead of being always off.
    >>>
    >>> I haven't tried it (note to self for the weekend testing), if I use
    >>> runas or my cpau if the newly spawned window is also impacted by UAC. If
    >>> it wasn't, that would be handy because then I just spawn a new command
    >>> prompt with those rights and the UAC doesn't pop up for anything I do
    >>> from there...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    >>> Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    >>> www.joeware.net
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
    >>>
    >>> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    >>>> Perhaps we have hit on something to suggest Joe.
    >>>> A temporary UAC suspend - say for 24 hours at a wack.
    >>>> People are going to find the trick to shut if off, at least the
    >>>> more power users are, and then it is off until reenabled.
    >>>> So, what if during inital config, times of extensive admin use,
    >>>> etc., there was a suspend UAC for x hours ??
    >>>>
    >>>> I have noticed that with 5381.1 it is less annoying than when I
    >>>> first started experiencing it, at 5308 or whatever build that was.
    >>>> Perhaps it is less invasive, but I tend to believe it is that I am
    >>>> becoming more accustomed to it and also that I have to do less
    >>>> hunting to find where things have been hidden (or omitted).
    >>>>
    >>>> I still believe that if people who do run as an admin just get over
    >>>> the hump of inital config, then they will not that often see the
    >>>> prompting. At that point UAC is only a good thing, as they are
    >>>> running as a limited user.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Joe Richards [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%...
    >>>>> I agree, it is annoying but the folks using it right now are doing all
    >>>>> sorts of things they may not be doing after they have it running for a
    >>>>> month or two and are "stable". I noticed that the UAC was pissing me
    >>>>> right off until all of a sudden I didn't reload the machine for a week
    >>>>> or so and I realized I went a day or two without seeing it at all
    >>>>> because I was just using the machine after I had stabilized....
    >>>>> Getting through that few days though is going to be trying for some
    >>>>> folks.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And honestly, I almost got to the point when reloading a lot where I
    >>>>> wasn't even looking at the prompts anymore and I was just clicking. At
    >>>>> that point, it has completely lost its effectiveness as a security
    >>>>> feature.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
    >>>>> Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
    >>>>> www.joeware.net
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:
    >>>>>> My own feeling is that the jury is (not yet formed but effectively)
    >>>>>> still out
    >>>>>> on consumer acceptance of the final form of this feature. Once the
    >>>>>> behavior is refined for release, AIUI the intent is for people that
    >>>>>> use an
    >>>>>> admin account as their normal login to not imperil their machine by
    >>>>>> so
    >>>>>> doing, and yet when they do activate something that does require use
    >>>>>> of their admin privs they will be allowed to do so.
    >>>>>> Now, in the current and prior builds many testers do find the feature
    >>>>>> to be obnoxious. But then those testers are characteristically doing
    >>>>>> all
    >>>>>> sorts of things that use their admin privs (exploring all the config
    >>>>>> settings,
    >>>>>> installing components, etc.) so perhaps the current test sample is
    >>>>>> not
    >>>>>> characteristic of the consumer base that will only occassionally be
    >>>>>> doing something requiring the elevated privs.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> "SEATTLE - An annoying surprise awaits 2 million consumers expected
    >>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>> enthusiastically step forward in the next few weeks to help
    >>>>>>> Microsoft test
    >>>>>>> its new Windows Vista PC operating system.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Volunteers will test Vista Beta 2, a near-final version of the
    >>>>>>> much-hyped
    >>>>>>> upgrade of Windows. The testing is the last step leading up to
    >>>>>>> Vista's
    >>>>>>> broad consumer release, scheduled for January.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Beta 2 testers can expect to encounter an obtrusive security
    >>>>>>> feature, called
    >>>>>>> User Account Control (UAC). Designed to prevent intruders from
    >>>>>>> performing
    >>>>>>> harmful tasks, the feature grays out the computer screen, then prods
    >>>>>>> you to
    >>>>>>> confirm that you really want to do certain functions.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> In early test versions, the queries crop up so often that they
    >>>>>>> interrupt
    >>>>>>> routine tasks, such as changing the time clock or deleting
    >>>>>>> shortcuts. And
    >>>>>>> UAC sometimes triggers an endless loop of dialogue boxes that can be
    >>>>>>> curtailed only by rebooting, says Paul Thurrott, news editor of
    >>>>>>> Windows IT
    >>>>>>> Pro magazine."
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-05-15-vista-security_x.htm?csp=34
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> -- Imhotep

    >>
     
    Roger Abell [MVP], May 21, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Another Anonymous

    IS MICROSOFT NUTS?

    Another Anonymous, Jan 22, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    6,188
    Tommy Halnet
    Jan 26, 2004
  2. Dutch Treat
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,885
    Boomer
    Jun 21, 2004
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    573
    Walter Mautner
    Jun 25, 2007
  4. Mutlley
    Replies:
    108
    Views:
    1,315
    jasen
    Sep 2, 2006
  5. sparc58
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    611
    sparc58
    May 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page