Vista - Giving UAC a second chance or why putting a silk dress on a sow its still a pig Part #2

This just keeps getting worse!

Example #3

I previously mentioned I burn a lot of DVD's. I've been using Easy
Creator 9. This application seems to be working fine since in just a
few days time I've successfully burned close to 100 fully filled 4.7
GB DVD's. All different content, not just copying. As usual when you
do a large project, you hit one or two problems. Out of this stack one
DVD kept hanging and wouldn't burn. So I tried a few tricks and
finally it did. Easy Creator 9 cleans up after itself, so for example
if you "copy" a DVD and only have one burner it copies to your hard
drive, then once the DVD is burned will delete the data you no longer
need. This didn't create any permission issues because I had UAC
turned off.

For this one problem disc I manually copied the files to a different
location on my E drive. I finally got to burn a good copy to a DVD,
now time to delete the folder where the files were on my hard drive.

Because I truly wanted to give UAC a second chance, this morning I
returned UAC to its default "on" condition.

Guess what, Vista won't let me delete. So it seems even if you have
UAC turned off to do some task as I did yesterday, under some
situtations at least if you turn it UAC back on it imposes
restrictions retroactively.

So looking again on the security tab this moronic crap call UAC
created no less then five users.

1. everyone
2 creator owner
3. system
4. administrators
5. users

Every 'owner' in the above list Vista has given "full control" except
for 'creator owner' which would imply I should be able to delete the
folder since I am a user running with full administrative rights.
Oops, that don't mean what it use to in XP. Even if I can't delete
this folder as just a 'user' for some goofy reason, surely the moronic
"everyone" user should be able to, Vista don't make it easy to switch
to one of those users though.

It seems Vista is trying to say this folder and the files in it were
created by a "user" it named 'creator owner'. It gave this user what
it calls "special" permission. Stop laughing! Well, not too special
since I can't delete the files or the folder until I again do the UAC
dance. Advance tab, select the owner that has limited permission, edit
and change to give it full permission which of course blows the whole
idea of having restricted permissions in the first place if you have
to keep elevating permissions to get anything done.

Could I now delete these files and folder? No, of course not. Now this
time the previous method that did work to change permission as I
detailed in Examples #1-2 won't work this time.

If I click on 'creator owner' under the advnced tab then click edit
then try to change permissions all the options are grayed out and stay
that way no matter what.

UAC now babbles that the permissions have been "inherited" from the
parent object. Well, that's nice Vista, but it doesn't say who the
parent object it, offering instead to make changes here in this dialog
box to create a new permission that overrides the inherited
permissions. I'm getting kind of sick to my stomach.

Ok, I would try that but UAC doesn't say how to do that anywhere in
the Dialog box, but does offer a link to read page after page of help
topics on their new "security" featues part of UAC. For now I'm
skipping that, I don't want to barf all over my keyboard.

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:8t29u2pmcl0tuqdin60ki5dik4acu204o7@4ax.com...

You have just proved that all of your claims about knowing more than most
MVPs about Windows are false. You don't even seem to understand how NTFS
permissions work or are propagated. The exact same situation could have
existed in all versions of Windows that use NTFS. The only difference is
that Vista has changed the default NTFS permissions for some folders. How
the permissions work, how they are propagated, and how you change them are
the same as they always have been. The UI is slightly different but if you
understand how things work the UI is very easy to figure out. If you don't
understand the basics of NTFS then no UI in the world will help.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:52:42 -0800, "Kerry Brown"
<kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>news:8t29u2pmcl0tuqdin60ki5dik4acu204o7@4ax.com...
>
>You have just proved that all of your claims about knowing more than most
>MVPs about Windows are false.

I have just proved UAC is useless to the typical user that isn't about
to waste valiable time fighting with it to try to undo the mess
Microsoft created that prevents users from getting any work done. NTFS
isn't the issue. I'm sorry you insist on remaing arrogant and as I
expected avoid addressing ANY of the issues I raised. Typical MVP. You
can talk the talk, but fall flat on your face when somebody points out
factually things that are broken.

Well, it is NTFS permissions that are your issue. Has nothing to do with
UAC. If you need to delete something, you need to set yourself as the owner
if you are not currently the owner.

Right click > properties > security tab > Advanced > owner tab > edit >
change owner to: select your account > apply

All those users you see (everyone, system, users, administrators...) and
folder property propigation are part of NTFS.

You seem to not understand what the "parent object" is. Image a folder that
has many subfolders. You can set the permissions on that folder and have it
propigate those permissions down to the subfolders. However, those
permissions can be overridden. This is nothing to be "sick to my [your]
stomach" about. It is useful if you don't want to set the permissions on
every single subfolder - which could take a long time.

"This just keeps getting worse!" for you. You keep comming up with examples
of Vista doing its job.

Additionally, if you need more help deleting files, visit this site:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2...deletable.aspx

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:si79u2lgkfgpbju0efsd87ojdsouiik3sj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:52:42 -0800, "Kerry Brown"
> <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:8t29u2pmcl0tuqdin60ki5dik4acu204o7@4ax.com...
>>
>>You have just proved that all of your claims about knowing more than most
>>MVPs about Windows are false.
>
> I have just proved UAC is useless to the typical user that isn't about
> to waste valiable time fighting with it to try to undo the mess
> Microsoft created that prevents users from getting any work done. NTFS
> isn't the issue. I'm sorry you insist on remaing arrogant and as I
> expected avoid addressing ANY of the issues I raised. Typical MVP. You
> can talk the talk, but fall flat on your face when somebody points out
> factually things that are broken.
>
>
>

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:50:47 -0600, "Robert Firth"
<webmaster@winvistainfo.org> wrote:

>Well, it is NTFS permissions that are your issue. Has nothing to do with
>UAC. If you need to delete something, you need to set yourself as the owner
>if you are not currently the owner.

Hint: Since I did a install in place I AM the owner of the files.
Obviously Vista isn't smart enough to be able to figure that out or
make appropriate changes on the fly during the transition from XP to
Vista which too funny, it says its doing. What does the word UPGRADE
mean to you? Vista didn't upgrade, it trashed my system messing around
with hundreds of thousands of files I never gave it permission to
change permissions on.

That, obviously presents HUGE problems or will, for millions of users
in similar situations like me. For Microsoft or any MVP to think a
typical user is going to stop and look at the permission of hundreds
of thousands of his files, one at a time, sometimes millions of files
to look at that are on a typical power user or business user's system
is quite frankly absurd. On the other hand to make permission changes
globally which I'm sure you'll suggest next, defeats the purpose UAC
is suppose to bring as a "security" feature, does it not?

The $64,000 dollar question is WHY get forced to elevate a file's
status to get it so Vista does what you tell it to do? All that does
it stop you from working. In effect it is just a fancy way of turning
UAC off if you have to constantly elevate a file's status. That's no
security at all.

>Right click > properties > security tab > Advanced > owner tab > edit >
>change owner to: select your account > apply

For hundreds of thousands of files? One at a time? You daft man? I'm
not trying to be a smart-ass, but it seems most of the MVP's here
likely have mickey mouse systems where you may have Windows and
perhaps a few applications and a handful of data files, but REAL users
have hundreds of thousands of such files spread over many thousands of
folders. Going forward to put up with UAC is one thing, to have to go
through the torture of making the files ALREADY on your system
digestable to UAC is totally insane. Actually what happens is you, the
user are getting forced to do what Vista should have been smart enough
on its own to do. If I get stopped constantly and have to fiddle with
permissions and end up elevating zillions of files, then these files
in order to work on them aren't a damn bit safer then they were under
XP!
>
>All those users you see (everyone, system, users, administrators...) and
>folder property propigation are part of NTFS.

Understood and it is controlled by UAC. Hint: Why its called User
Account Control. Again I doubt many users would mind putting up with
nag screens going forward. But to force users to change hundreds of
thousands of THEIR files that were created in a earlier version of
Windows simply doesn't make any sense. Nor does it when you do
something with UAC off, then if your turn it back on, work you did
with UAC off revents to you having to turn it off again or again mess
with permissions to change anything. Again, that's INSANE!
>
>You seem to not understand what the "parent object" is. Image a folder that
>has many subfolders. You can set the permissions on that folder and have it
>propigate those permissions down to the subfolders. However, those
>permissions can be overridden.

Exactly what I detailed. Vists the dumb pile of crap it is added a new
user then restricted it to read and execute only that prevented me
from changing it. That's a feature? Clicking on the advanced tab to
try to change it had no effect.

>This is nothing to be "sick to my [your]
>stomach" about. It is useful if you don't want to set the permissions on
>every single subfolder - which could take a long time.

How "useful" a feature is or isn't should be left up to the USER. Me!
That's what so many don't seem to get.

>
>"This just keeps getting worse!" for you. You keep comming up with examples
>of Vista doing its job.

Its job is to drive users crazy? That a "feature" too? Come on, get
real.

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:%23klx6ErWHHA.4964@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
> news:8t29u2pmcl0tuqdin60ki5dik4acu204o7@4ax.com...
>
> You have just proved that all of your claims about knowing more than most
> MVPs about Windows are false. You don't even seem to understand how NTFS
> permissions work or are propagated. The exact same situation could have
> existed in all versions of Windows that use NTFS. The only difference is
> that Vista has changed the default NTFS permissions for some folders. How
> the permissions work, how they are propagated, and how you change them are
> the same as they always have been. The UI is slightly different but if you
> understand how things work the UI is very easy to figure out. If you don't
> understand the basics of NTFS then no UI in the world will help.
>
Well I've never come across anything like that and I've worked on hundreds
of XP machines all using NTFS.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:05:46 -0000, "Grant"
<Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote:

>
>"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>news:%23klx6ErWHHA.4964@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>> news:8t29u2pmcl0tuqdin60ki5dik4acu204o7@4ax.com...
>>
>> You have just proved that all of your claims about knowing more than most
>> MVPs about Windows are false. You don't even seem to understand how NTFS
>> permissions work or are propagated. The exact same situation could have
>> existed in all versions of Windows that use NTFS. The only difference is
>> that Vista has changed the default NTFS permissions for some folders. How
>> the permissions work, how they are propagated, and how you change them are
>> the same as they always have been. The UI is slightly different but if you
>> understand how things work the UI is very easy to figure out. If you don't
>> understand the basics of NTFS then no UI in the world will help.
>>
>Well I've never come across anything like that and I've worked on hundreds
>of XP machines all using NTFS.

I think Microsoft is in panic mode. It knows UAC is a nightmare and
infested with all kinds of goofy issues and to prove that a couple
days ago I posted a link with Microsoft pleading with a group of more
technical users that apparenlty got their hands on a early release of
the final version to please, please don't disable UAC, we know its
buggy, but if you turn it off we won't get any feedback then how can
we fix it. That speaks volumes. Microsoft knowing dumped Vista on a
unsuspecting public KNOWING one of its main and most talked about
features, its new "security" isn't working right.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:42:16 -0600, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:50:47 -0600, "Robert Firth"
><webmaster@winvistainfo.org> wrote:
>
>>Well, it is NTFS permissions that are your issue. Has nothing to do with
>>UAC. If you need to delete something, you need to set yourself as the owner
>>if you are not currently the owner.
>
>Hint: Since I did a install in place I AM the owner of the files.
>Obviously Vista isn't smart enough to be able to figure that out or
>make appropriate changes on the fly during the transition from XP to
>Vista which too funny, it says its doing. What does the word UPGRADE
>mean to you? Vista didn't upgrade, it trashed my system messing around
>with hundreds of thousands of files I never gave it permission to
>change permissions on.
>
>That, obviously presents HUGE problems or will, for millions of users
>in similar situations like me. For Microsoft or any MVP to think a
>typical user is going to stop and look at the permission of hundreds
>of thousands of his files, one at a time, sometimes millions of files
>to look at that are on a typical power user or business user's system
>is quite frankly absurd. On the other hand to make permission changes
>globally which I'm sure you'll suggest next, defeats the purpose UAC
>is suppose to bring as a "security" feature, does it not?
>
>The $64,000 dollar question is WHY get forced to elevate a file's
>status to get it so Vista does what you tell it to do? All that does
>it stop you from working. In effect it is just a fancy way of turning
>UAC off if you have to constantly elevate a file's status. That's no
>security at all.
>
>>Right click > properties > security tab > Advanced > owner tab > edit >
>>change owner to: select your account > apply
>
>For hundreds of thousands of files? One at a time? You daft man? I'm
>not trying to be a smart-ass, but it seems most of the MVP's here
>likely have mickey mouse systems where you may have Windows and
>perhaps a few applications and a handful of data files, but REAL users
>have hundreds of thousands of such files spread over many thousands of
>folders. Going forward to put up with UAC is one thing, to have to go
>through the torture of making the files ALREADY on your system
>digestable to UAC is totally insane. Actually what happens is you, the
>user are getting forced to do what Vista should have been smart enough
>on its own to do. If I get stopped constantly and have to fiddle with
>permissions and end up elevating zillions of files, then these files
>in order to work on them aren't a damn bit safer then they were under
>XP!
>>
>>All those users you see (everyone, system, users, administrators...) and
>>folder property propigation are part of NTFS.
>
>Understood and it is controlled by UAC. Hint: Why its called User
>Account Control. Again I doubt many users would mind putting up with
>nag screens going forward. But to force users to change hundreds of
>thousands of THEIR files that were created in a earlier version of
>Windows simply doesn't make any sense. Nor does it when you do
>something with UAC off, then if your turn it back on, work you did
>with UAC off revents to you having to turn it off again or again mess
>with permissions to change anything. Again, that's INSANE!
>>
>>You seem to not understand what the "parent object" is. Image a folder that
>>has many subfolders. You can set the permissions on that folder and have it
>>propigate those permissions down to the subfolders. However, those
>>permissions can be overridden.
>
>Exactly what I detailed. Vists the dumb pile of crap it is added a new
>user then restricted it to read and execute only that prevented me
>from changing it. That's a feature? Clicking on the advanced tab to
>try to change it had no effect.
>
>>This is nothing to be "sick to my [your]
>>stomach" about. It is useful if you don't want to set the permissions on
>>every single subfolder - which could take a long time.
>
>How "useful" a feature is or isn't should be left up to the USER. Me!
>That's what so many don't seem to get.
>
>>
>>"This just keeps getting worse!" for you. You keep comming up with examples
>>of Vista doing its job.
>
>Its job is to drive users crazy? That a "feature" too? Come on, get
>real.
>

Microsoft tells us that "UAC is NOT a security feature" in its back pages.
In fact the very programmer who wrote UAC tells us that.

In reality, Microsoft has just made it harder to be the owner of files,
and slapped the "suggestion" that UAC is a "security feature" on top in
all their Vista advertisements.

Whether UAC "does its job" or not is still up in the air. Not enough of
the general public have reported on Vista security breaches yet.

Personally, I just gave myself Owner permissions, then changed permissions
to my ENTIRE Vista drive, and all subfolders and files. This makes it
MUCH simpler. However, even doing this leaves me with the inability to
take ownership of a few files, such as the page file, the hibernate file,
and some extremely-low-level system files. It also leaves me with an
inability to open my folders on the Vista drive from within XP, which is
completely inexcusable, and defeats the purpose of a dual-boot setup.

This may have been Microsoft's true intentions all along, for which they
should be put up against the nearest brick wall and shot through the head.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup
===========================================================

"Grant" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:uOB2SPsWHHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:%23klx6ErWHHA.4964@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>> news:8t29u2pmcl0tuqdin60ki5dik4acu204o7@4ax.com...
>>
>> You have just proved that all of your claims about knowing more than most
>> MVPs about Windows are false. You don't even seem to understand how NTFS
>> permissions work or are propagated. The exact same situation could have
>> existed in all versions of Windows that use NTFS. The only difference is
>> that Vista has changed the default NTFS permissions for some folders. How
>> the permissions work, how they are propagated, and how you change them
>> are the same as they always have been. The UI is slightly different but
>> if you understand how things work the UI is very easy to figure out. If
>> you don't understand the basics of NTFS then no UI in the world will
>> help.
>>
> Well I've never come across anything like that and I've worked on hundreds
> of XP machines all using NTFS.
>


The same situation could exist. It certainly wouldn't be common and probably
doesn't exist. Vista changes the ACLs to make the file system much more
secure than it used to be. The ACLs for some common folders are very
different from previous versions of Windows. Changing them to how you want
them is done the same as with previous versions of Windows and has nothing
to do with UAC. It's all very basic NTFS stuff. Nothing has changed there.
What has changed is the ACLs on some folders.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:si79u2lgkfgpbju0efsd87ojdsouiik3sj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:52:42 -0800, "Kerry Brown"
> <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:8t29u2pmcl0tuqdin60ki5dik4acu204o7@4ax.com...
>>
>>You have just proved that all of your claims about knowing more than most
>>MVPs about Windows are false.
>
> I have just proved UAC is useless to the typical user that isn't about
> to waste valiable time fighting with it to try to undo the mess
> Microsoft created that prevents users from getting any work done. NTFS
> isn't the issue. I'm sorry you insist on remaing arrogant and as I
> expected avoid addressing ANY of the issues I raised. Typical MVP. You
> can talk the talk, but fall flat on your face when somebody points out
> factually things that are broken.
>
>
>


You prove your ignorance again. The problem you describe is because the ACLs
are different in Vista from XP. It has nothing to do with UAC. UAC comes
into play when you try to change the ACLs but that is part of the UI. If you
understand NTFS the problem and the solution are obvious. You may have to OK
a couple of UAC prompts when implementing the solution.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca