View Single Post
Old 04-30-2009, 04:30 PM   #30
ilovejedd
hopeless n00b
ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ilovejedd ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
ilovejedd's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,110
Karma: 19597086
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: in the middle of nowhere
Device: PW4, PW3, Libra H2O, iPad 10.5, iPad 11, iPad 12.9
Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe View Post
My point was that if you try to get better security by introducing a system that people then do not respect and work around then you have failed in getting better security. And the fault is yours.

Letting users approve running programs is also an extremely bad system. All people I know that are not experts in Vista just answer yes to all questions if a program should be allowed to run.
Exactly what HarryT was trying to point out. The current problem is a number of regular Windows apps currently require elevated permissions just to run because programmers were taking the easy way out by writing to system/application directories. Once that bad habit is beaten out of them, though, users won't need to run apps in administrator mode and UAC would actually become a practical approach to security. Similar systems already exist in both Linux (sudo) and MacOS. Users need elevated permissions in order to make critical system changes.

Microsoft needed to introduce this system to improve security. Now, it's just up to the programmers to catch up.
ilovejedd is offline   Reply With Quote