UAC and IE Protected Mode?

I'm curious to know whether there is a diffence in IE security vulnerability
between running Vista with UAC enabled (hence IE is in protected mode,
versus, running Vista with UAC disabled, with the user NOT in the local
admins group.

Thanks

Hello,

Yes, there is a difference. When UAC is enabled, IE runs in protected mode.
This mode is much, much more restrictive than the mode IE runs in when
running under a standard user account.

When IE is running in protected mode, it cannot save/modify any files on
your computer (other than temporary internet files), save/modify any
registry keys (except for certain ones it needs to work), and it cannot talk
to any other programs on your computer (except for one that is used to ask
you for permission).

In protected mode, when IE wants out of this "protection box", it has to go
through the broker program, which asks you for permission before it
proceeds. In effect, YOU have to know about and approve IE to allow it to
touch any file, registry key, program, etc. on your computer.

In this scenario, if your IE is taken control of by some rogue program, that
rogue program will be unable to damage anything except a few IE settings,
because it will be unable to modify your files/settings/programs (unless it
asks you for permission and you give it the permission).

When protected mode disabled, IE gets the full power of your user account.
So in the same situation with protected mode off, a rogue IE will have as
much access to your computer that you do. If you are running as a standard
user, then it can access all of your documents and settings that affect your
user account. If you are an admin, then the rogue IE can do anything it
wants.


--
- JB

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Which all brings up an interesting point: is there any way to untie the two?
Now that the beta is over, I don't want to endure UAC any longer, but I was
shocked to find that IE's Protected Mode goes along with it, something I
never expected and which I think is very unfortunate, since many people are
going to disable UAC yet would never think of disabling Protected Mode.

Now, this is where someone comes along and says that it's simple to make
happen with a policy change or similar.

"Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C9C28F8-6138-468E-B858-1C4BAAD144A4@microsoft.com...
> Hello,
>
> Yes, there is a difference. When UAC is enabled, IE runs in protected
> mode. This mode is much, much more restrictive than the mode IE runs in
> when running under a standard user account.
>
> When IE is running in protected mode, it cannot save/modify any files on
> your computer (other than temporary internet files), save/modify any
> registry keys (except for certain ones it needs to work), and it cannot
> talk to any other programs on your computer (except for one that is used
> to ask you for permission).
>
> In protected mode, when IE wants out of this "protection box", it has to
> go through the broker program, which asks you for permission before it
> proceeds. In effect, YOU have to know about and approve IE to allow it to
> touch any file, registry key, program, etc. on your computer.
>
> In this scenario, if your IE is taken control of by some rogue program,
> that rogue program will be unable to damage anything except a few IE
> settings, because it will be unable to modify your files/settings/programs
> (unless it asks you for permission and you give it the permission).
>
> When protected mode disabled, IE gets the full power of your user account.
> So in the same situation with protected mode off, a rogue IE will have as
> much access to your computer that you do. If you are running as a standard
> user, then it can access all of your documents and settings that affect
> your user account. If you are an admin, then the rogue IE can do anything
> it wants.
>
>
> --
> - JB
>
> Windows Vista Support Faq
> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

Why on Earth would you disable UAC???? Especially for the typical end user.
This technology will be the "saving grace" of many enterprises, small
businesses, etc... I would debate your claim that "many people are going to
disable UAC." From my standpoint, UAC is the best benefits of Vista.

-Ben

______________
Ben Miller
CISSP
GSEC
Security+
"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:OFneHn3CHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Which all brings up an interesting point: is there any way to untie the
> two? Now that the beta is over, I don't want to endure UAC any longer, but
> I was shocked to find that IE's Protected Mode goes along with it,
> something I never expected and which I think is very unfortunate, since
> many people are going to disable UAC yet would never think of disabling
> Protected Mode.
>
> Now, this is where someone comes along and says that it's simple to make
> happen with a policy change or similar.
>
> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2C9C28F8-6138-468E-B858-1C4BAAD144A4@microsoft.com...
>> Hello,
>>
>> Yes, there is a difference. When UAC is enabled, IE runs in protected
>> mode. This mode is much, much more restrictive than the mode IE runs in
>> when running under a standard user account.
>>
>> When IE is running in protected mode, it cannot save/modify any files on
>> your computer (other than temporary internet files), save/modify any
>> registry keys (except for certain ones it needs to work), and it cannot
>> talk to any other programs on your computer (except for one that is used
>> to ask you for permission).
>>
>> In protected mode, when IE wants out of this "protection box", it has to
>> go through the broker program, which asks you for permission before it
>> proceeds. In effect, YOU have to know about and approve IE to allow it to
>> touch any file, registry key, program, etc. on your computer.
>>
>> In this scenario, if your IE is taken control of by some rogue program,
>> that rogue program will be unable to damage anything except a few IE
>> settings, because it will be unable to modify your
>> files/settings/programs (unless it asks you for permission and you give
>> it the permission).
>>
>> When protected mode disabled, IE gets the full power of your user
>> account. So in the same situation with protected mode off, a rogue IE
>> will have as much access to your computer that you do. If you are running
>> as a standard user, then it can access all of your documents and settings
>> that affect your user account. If you are an admin, then the rogue IE can
>> do anything it wants.
>>
>>
>> --
>> - JB
>>
>> Windows Vista Support Faq
>> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/
>

I can only think of two possible reasons for his post. 1) He is a bot
master and wants to keep people from implementing minimal security. 2)
Stupidity is the other.

Why can't people understand that UAC is just a technique that has been in
Unix for decades?

"Ben Miller" <ben@SPAMSUCKSthemillerexperience.com> wrote in message
news:599BC259-2665-4AC1-97B3-62C9A938E0CA@microsoft.com...
> Why on Earth would you disable UAC???? Especially for the typical end
> user. This technology will be the "saving grace" of many enterprises,
> small businesses, etc... I would debate your claim that "many people are
> going to disable UAC." From my standpoint, UAC is the best benefits of
> Vista.
>
> -Ben
>
> ______________
> Ben Miller
> CISSP
> GSEC
> Security+
> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:OFneHn3CHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Which all brings up an interesting point: is there any way to untie the
>> two? Now that the beta is over, I don't want to endure UAC any longer,
>> but I was shocked to find that IE's Protected Mode goes along with it,
>> something I never expected and which I think is very unfortunate, since
>> many people are going to disable UAC yet would never think of disabling
>> Protected Mode.
>>
>> Now, this is where someone comes along and says that it's simple to make
>> happen with a policy change or similar.
>>
>> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:2C9C28F8-6138-468E-B858-1C4BAAD144A4@microsoft.com...
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Yes, there is a difference. When UAC is enabled, IE runs in protected
>>> mode. This mode is much, much more restrictive than the mode IE runs in
>>> when running under a standard user account.
>>>
>>> When IE is running in protected mode, it cannot save/modify any files on
>>> your computer (other than temporary internet files), save/modify any
>>> registry keys (except for certain ones it needs to work), and it cannot
>>> talk to any other programs on your computer (except for one that is used
>>> to ask you for permission).
>>>
>>> In protected mode, when IE wants out of this "protection box", it has to
>>> go through the broker program, which asks you for permission before it
>>> proceeds. In effect, YOU have to know about and approve IE to allow it
>>> to touch any file, registry key, program, etc. on your computer.
>>>
>>> In this scenario, if your IE is taken control of by some rogue program,
>>> that rogue program will be unable to damage anything except a few IE
>>> settings, because it will be unable to modify your
>>> files/settings/programs (unless it asks you for permission and you give
>>> it the permission).
>>>
>>> When protected mode disabled, IE gets the full power of your user
>>> account. So in the same situation with protected mode off, a rogue IE
>>> will have as much access to your computer that you do. If you are
>>> running as a standard user, then it can access all of your documents and
>>> settings that affect your user account. If you are an admin, then the
>>> rogue IE can do anything it wants.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - JB
>>>
>>> Windows Vista Support Faq
>>> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/
>>
>

Come on people, face it, very experienced users are not going to fly with
it. They just aren't. Further, since they are experienced, they have much
less of a need for it, since rogue programs aren't running around on their
systems in the first place.

(Note that I'm not talking about IE's Protected Mode here, which I have no
problem with, but system prompts unrelated to IE.)

I fully agree that everyone else should leave it on.

As I said in another thread, what I would have preferred is a way for it to
work where you only see a prompt for elevation when it's a result of
something that you *didn't* just ask to do yourself. All the annoyances
would fall away then, and you'd only be alerted when there's some other
action occurring on the system other than you, say, clicking to go change
your page file.

"David J. Craig" <Dave@yoshimuni.com> wrote in message
news:O5CLo25CHHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I can only think of two possible reasons for his post. 1) He is a bot
>master and wants to keep people from implementing minimal security. 2)
>Stupidity is the other.
>
> Why can't people understand that UAC is just a technique that has been in
> Unix for decades?
>
> "Ben Miller" <ben@SPAMSUCKSthemillerexperience.com> wrote in message
> news:599BC259-2665-4AC1-97B3-62C9A938E0CA@microsoft.com...
>> Why on Earth would you disable UAC???? Especially for the typical end
>> user. This technology will be the "saving grace" of many enterprises,
>> small businesses, etc... I would debate your claim that "many people are
>> going to disable UAC." From my standpoint, UAC is the best benefits of
>> Vista.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>> ______________
>> Ben Miller
>> CISSP
>> GSEC
>> Security+
>> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> news:OFneHn3CHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Which all brings up an interesting point: is there any way to untie the
>>> two? Now that the beta is over, I don't want to endure UAC any longer,
>>> but I was shocked to find that IE's Protected Mode goes along with it,
>>> something I never expected and which I think is very unfortunate, since
>>> many people are going to disable UAC yet would never think of disabling
>>> Protected Mode.
>>>
>>> Now, this is where someone comes along and says that it's simple to make
>>> happen with a policy change or similar.
>>>
>>> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2C9C28F8-6138-468E-B858-1C4BAAD144A4@microsoft.com...
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there is a difference. When UAC is enabled, IE runs in protected
>>>> mode. This mode is much, much more restrictive than the mode IE runs in
>>>> when running under a standard user account.
>>>>
>>>> When IE is running in protected mode, it cannot save/modify any files
>>>> on your computer (other than temporary internet files), save/modify any
>>>> registry keys (except for certain ones it needs to work), and it cannot
>>>> talk to any other programs on your computer (except for one that is
>>>> used to ask you for permission).
>>>>
>>>> In protected mode, when IE wants out of this "protection box", it has
>>>> to go through the broker program, which asks you for permission before
>>>> it proceeds. In effect, YOU have to know about and approve IE to allow
>>>> it to touch any file, registry key, program, etc. on your computer.
>>>>
>>>> In this scenario, if your IE is taken control of by some rogue program,
>>>> that rogue program will be unable to damage anything except a few IE
>>>> settings, because it will be unable to modify your
>>>> files/settings/programs (unless it asks you for permission and you give
>>>> it the permission).
>>>>
>>>> When protected mode disabled, IE gets the full power of your user
>>>> account. So in the same situation with protected mode off, a rogue IE
>>>> will have as much access to your computer that you do. If you are
>>>> running as a standard user, then it can access all of your documents
>>>> and settings that affect your user account. If you are an admin, then
>>>> the rogue IE can do anything it wants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> - JB
>>>>
>>>> Windows Vista Support Faq
>>>> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/
>>>
>>
>
>

Oh... so you mean only enact UAC when something bad might happen? OK...
that makes sense. So, then you would also agree that viri cannot be spread
via email, right? I opened the app to collect the mail right? So, if I
initiated the the action, the it _has_ to be good.

Give me a break.

-Ben

______________
Ben Miller
CISSP
GSEC
Security+


"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:O73caF6CHHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Come on people, face it, very experienced users are not going to fly with
> it. They just aren't. Further, since they are experienced, they have much
> less of a need for it, since rogue programs aren't running around on their
> systems in the first place.
>
> (Note that I'm not talking about IE's Protected Mode here, which I have no
> problem with, but system prompts unrelated to IE.)
>
> I fully agree that everyone else should leave it on.
>
> As I said in another thread, what I would have preferred is a way for it
> to work where you only see a prompt for elevation when it's a result of
> something that you *didn't* just ask to do yourself. All the annoyances
> would fall away then, and you'd only be alerted when there's some other
> action occurring on the system other than you, say, clicking to go change
> your page file.
>
> "David J. Craig" <Dave@yoshimuni.com> wrote in message
> news:O5CLo25CHHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>I can only think of two possible reasons for his post. 1) He is a bot
>>master and wants to keep people from implementing minimal security. 2)
>>Stupidity is the other.
>>
>> Why can't people understand that UAC is just a technique that has been in
>> Unix for decades?
>>
>> "Ben Miller" <ben@SPAMSUCKSthemillerexperience.com> wrote in message
>> news:599BC259-2665-4AC1-97B3-62C9A938E0CA@microsoft.com...
>>> Why on Earth would you disable UAC???? Especially for the typical end
>>> user. This technology will be the "saving grace" of many enterprises,
>>> small businesses, etc... I would debate your claim that "many people
>>> are going to disable UAC." From my standpoint, UAC is the best benefits
>>> of Vista.
>>>
>>> -Ben
>>>
>>> ______________
>>> Ben Miller
>>> CISSP
>>> GSEC
>>> Security+
>>> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OFneHn3CHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Which all brings up an interesting point: is there any way to untie the
>>>> two? Now that the beta is over, I don't want to endure UAC any longer,
>>>> but I was shocked to find that IE's Protected Mode goes along with it,
>>>> something I never expected and which I think is very unfortunate, since
>>>> many people are going to disable UAC yet would never think of disabling
>>>> Protected Mode.
>>>>
>>>> Now, this is where someone comes along and says that it's simple to
>>>> make happen with a policy change or similar.
>>>>
>>>> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2C9C28F8-6138-468E-B858-1C4BAAD144A4@microsoft.com...
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there is a difference. When UAC is enabled, IE runs in protected
>>>>> mode. This mode is much, much more restrictive than the mode IE runs
>>>>> in when running under a standard user account.
>>>>>
>>>>> When IE is running in protected mode, it cannot save/modify any files
>>>>> on your computer (other than temporary internet files), save/modify
>>>>> any registry keys (except for certain ones it needs to work), and it
>>>>> cannot talk to any other programs on your computer (except for one
>>>>> that is used to ask you for permission).
>>>>>
>>>>> In protected mode, when IE wants out of this "protection box", it has
>>>>> to go through the broker program, which asks you for permission before
>>>>> it proceeds. In effect, YOU have to know about and approve IE to allow
>>>>> it to touch any file, registry key, program, etc. on your computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this scenario, if your IE is taken control of by some rogue
>>>>> program, that rogue program will be unable to damage anything except a
>>>>> few IE settings, because it will be unable to modify your
>>>>> files/settings/programs (unless it asks you for permission and you
>>>>> give it the permission).
>>>>>
>>>>> When protected mode disabled, IE gets the full power of your user
>>>>> account. So in the same situation with protected mode off, a rogue IE
>>>>> will have as much access to your computer that you do. If you are
>>>>> running as a standard user, then it can access all of your documents
>>>>> and settings that affect your user account. If you are an admin, then
>>>>> the rogue IE can do anything it wants.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - JB
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows Vista Support Faq
>>>>> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Experienced users don't run executable email attachments in the first place.
Of course. That's one of the fundamental ways they go for years (or forever)
without their systems ever being compromised. There's also a popular
application out these days called anti-virus, not to mention antispyware
(which even comes with Vista).

And of course I'm not talking about just running an email app. You know what
I'm talking about: Making a change to the system and being asked permisson
for something you just told the system to do yourself. UAC is not designed
for people who know what they doing, and I don't think MS ever claimed that
it was. Experts would leave it enabled, however, if it worked as I suggested
(though I've never tried it, I believe I've read that OS X tends to work
more that way--if not entirely that way--and you've never heard an uproar
over the feature there).

Next.

"Ben Miller" <ben@SPAMSUCKSthemillerexperience.com> wrote in message
news:B8EB9866-EAF5-4717-A0EE-D616A1D946D9@microsoft.com...
> Oh... so you mean only enact UAC when something bad might happen? OK...
> that makes sense. So, then you would also agree that viri cannot be
> spread via email, right? I opened the app to collect the mail right? So,
> if I initiated the the action, the it _has_ to be good.
>
> Give me a break.
>
> -Ben
>
> ______________
> Ben Miller
> CISSP
> GSEC
> Security+
>
>
> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:O73caF6CHHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Come on people, face it, very experienced users are not going to fly with
>> it. They just aren't. Further, since they are experienced, they have much
>> less of a need for it, since rogue programs aren't running around on
>> their systems in the first place.
>>
>> (Note that I'm not talking about IE's Protected Mode here, which I have
>> no problem with, but system prompts unrelated to IE.)
>>
>> I fully agree that everyone else should leave it on.
>>
>> As I said in another thread, what I would have preferred is a way for it
>> to work where you only see a prompt for elevation when it's a result of
>> something that you *didn't* just ask to do yourself. All the annoyances
>> would fall away then, and you'd only be alerted when there's some other
>> action occurring on the system other than you, say, clicking to go change
>> your page file.
>>
>> "David J. Craig" <Dave@yoshimuni.com> wrote in message
>> news:O5CLo25CHHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>I can only think of two possible reasons for his post. 1) He is a bot
>>>master and wants to keep people from implementing minimal security. 2)
>>>Stupidity is the other.
>>>
>>> Why can't people understand that UAC is just a technique that has been
>>> in Unix for decades?
>>>
>>> "Ben Miller" <ben@SPAMSUCKSthemillerexperience.com> wrote in message
>>> news:599BC259-2665-4AC1-97B3-62C9A938E0CA@microsoft.com...
>>>> Why on Earth would you disable UAC???? Especially for the typical end
>>>> user. This technology will be the "saving grace" of many enterprises,
>>>> small businesses, etc... I would debate your claim that "many people
>>>> are going to disable UAC." From my standpoint, UAC is the best
>>>> benefits of Vista.
>>>>
>>>> -Ben
>>>>
>>>> ______________
>>>> Ben Miller
>>>> CISSP
>>>> GSEC
>>>> Security+
>>>> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:OFneHn3CHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Which all brings up an interesting point: is there any way to untie
>>>>> the two? Now that the beta is over, I don't want to endure UAC any
>>>>> longer, but I was shocked to find that IE's Protected Mode goes along
>>>>> with it, something I never expected and which I think is very
>>>>> unfortunate, since many people are going to disable UAC yet would
>>>>> never think of disabling Protected Mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, this is where someone comes along and says that it's simple to
>>>>> make happen with a policy change or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2C9C28F8-6138-468E-B858-1C4BAAD144A4@microsoft.com...
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there is a difference. When UAC is enabled, IE runs in protected
>>>>>> mode. This mode is much, much more restrictive than the mode IE runs
>>>>>> in when running under a standard user account.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When IE is running in protected mode, it cannot save/modify any files
>>>>>> on your computer (other than temporary internet files), save/modify
>>>>>> any registry keys (except for certain ones it needs to work), and it
>>>>>> cannot talk to any other programs on your computer (except for one
>>>>>> that is used to ask you for permission).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In protected mode, when IE wants out of this "protection box", it has
>>>>>> to go through the broker program, which asks you for permission
>>>>>> before it proceeds. In effect, YOU have to know about and approve IE
>>>>>> to allow it to touch any file, registry key, program, etc. on your
>>>>>> computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this scenario, if your IE is taken control of by some rogue
>>>>>> program, that rogue program will be unable to damage anything except
>>>>>> a few IE settings, because it will be unable to modify your
>>>>>> files/settings/programs (unless it asks you for permission and you
>>>>>> give it the permission).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When protected mode disabled, IE gets the full power of your user
>>>>>> account. So in the same situation with protected mode off, a rogue IE
>>>>>> will have as much access to your computer that you do. If you are
>>>>>> running as a standard user, then it can access all of your documents
>>>>>> and settings that affect your user account. If you are an admin, then
>>>>>> the rogue IE can do anything it wants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> - JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows Vista Support Faq
>>>>>> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Corporates will make sure that UAC is running, as should home users where
multiple family units are accessing the computer.. for the rest, it is a
personal choice.. I have UAC turned off..


"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:uzWka76CHHA.3604@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Experienced users don't run executable email attachments in the first
> place. Of course. That's one of the fundamental ways they go for years (or
> forever) without their systems ever being compromised. There's also a
> popular application out these days called anti-virus, not to mention
> antispyware (which even comes with Vista).
>
> And of course I'm not talking about just running an email app. You know
> what I'm talking about: Making a change to the system and being asked
> permisson for something you just told the system to do yourself. UAC is
> not designed for people who know what they doing, and I don't think MS
> ever claimed that it was. Experts would leave it enabled, however, if it
> worked as I suggested (though I've never tried it, I believe I've read
> that OS X tends to work more that way--if not entirely that way--and
> you've never heard an uproar over the feature there).
>
> Next.
>
> "Ben Miller" <ben@SPAMSUCKSthemillerexperience.com> wrote in message
> news:B8EB9866-EAF5-4717-A0EE-D616A1D946D9@microsoft.com...
>> Oh... so you mean only enact UAC when something bad might happen? OK...
>> that makes sense. So, then you would also agree that viri cannot be
>> spread via email, right? I opened the app to collect the mail right?
>> So, if I initiated the the action, the it _has_ to be good.
>>
>> Give me a break.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>> ______________
>> Ben Miller
>> CISSP
>> GSEC
>> Security+
>>
>>
>> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> news:O73caF6CHHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Come on people, face it, very experienced users are not going to fly
>>> with it. They just aren't. Further, since they are experienced, they
>>> have much less of a need for it, since rogue programs aren't running
>>> around on their systems in the first place.
>>>
>>> (Note that I'm not talking about IE's Protected Mode here, which I have
>>> no problem with, but system prompts unrelated to IE.)
>>>
>>> I fully agree that everyone else should leave it on.
>>>
>>> As I said in another thread, what I would have preferred is a way for it
>>> to work where you only see a prompt for elevation when it's a result of
>>> something that you *didn't* just ask to do yourself. All the annoyances
>>> would fall away then, and you'd only be alerted when there's some other
>>> action occurring on the system other than you, say, clicking to go
>>> change your page file.
>>>
>>> "David J. Craig" <Dave@yoshimuni.com> wrote in message
>>> news:O5CLo25CHHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>I can only think of two possible reasons for his post. 1) He is a bot
>>>>master and wants to keep people from implementing minimal security. 2)
>>>>Stupidity is the other.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't people understand that UAC is just a technique that has been
>>>> in Unix for decades?
>>>>
>>>> "Ben Miller" <ben@SPAMSUCKSthemillerexperience.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:599BC259-2665-4AC1-97B3-62C9A938E0CA@microsoft.com...
>>>>> Why on Earth would you disable UAC???? Especially for the typical end
>>>>> user. This technology will be the "saving grace" of many enterprises,
>>>>> small businesses, etc... I would debate your claim that "many people
>>>>> are going to disable UAC." From my standpoint, UAC is the best
>>>>> benefits of Vista.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Ben
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________
>>>>> Ben Miller
>>>>> CISSP
>>>>> GSEC
>>>>> Security+
>>>>> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OFneHn3CHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Which all brings up an interesting point: is there any way to untie
>>>>>> the two? Now that the beta is over, I don't want to endure UAC any
>>>>>> longer, but I was shocked to find that IE's Protected Mode goes along
>>>>>> with it, something I never expected and which I think is very
>>>>>> unfortunate, since many people are going to disable UAC yet would
>>>>>> never think of disabling Protected Mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, this is where someone comes along and says that it's simple to
>>>>>> make happen with a policy change or similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:2C9C28F8-6138-468E-B858-1C4BAAD144A4@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there is a difference. When UAC is enabled, IE runs in
>>>>>>> protected mode. This mode is much, much more restrictive than the
>>>>>>> mode IE runs in when running under a standard user account.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When IE is running in protected mode, it cannot save/modify any
>>>>>>> files on your computer (other than temporary internet files),
>>>>>>> save/modify any registry keys (except for certain ones it needs to
>>>>>>> work), and it cannot talk to any other programs on your computer
>>>>>>> (except for one that is used to ask you for permission).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In protected mode, when IE wants out of this "protection box", it
>>>>>>> has to go through the broker program, which asks you for permission
>>>>>>> before it proceeds. In effect, YOU have to know about and approve IE
>>>>>>> to allow it to touch any file, registry key, program, etc. on your
>>>>>>> computer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this scenario, if your IE is taken control of by some rogue
>>>>>>> program, that rogue program will be unable to damage anything except
>>>>>>> a few IE settings, because it will be unable to modify your
>>>>>>> files/settings/programs (unless it asks you for permission and you
>>>>>>> give it the permission).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When protected mode disabled, IE gets the full power of your user
>>>>>>> account. So in the same situation with protected mode off, a rogue
>>>>>>> IE will have as much access to your computer that you do. If you are
>>>>>>> running as a standard user, then it can access all of your documents
>>>>>>> and settings that affect your user account. If you are an admin,
>>>>>>> then the rogue IE can do anything it wants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> - JB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Windows Vista Support Faq
>>>>>>> http://www.jimmah.com/vista/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

I keep it on to see what the normal experience is like. I'm afraid a lot of
users will get too used to clicking Continue and get infected anyway. Just
like they managed to delete user created OE folders by automatically
clicking Okay or Yes.

"Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uTynn98CHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Corporates will make sure that UAC is running, as should home users where
> multiple family units are accessing the computer.. for the rest, it is a
> personal choice.. I have UAC turned off..
>
> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:uzWka76CHHA.3604@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Experienced users don't run executable email attachments in the first
>> place. Of course. That's one of the fundamental ways they go for years
>> (or forever) without their systems ever being compromised. There's also a
>> popular application out these days called anti-virus, not to mention
>> antispyware (which even comes with Vista).
>>
>> And of course I'm not talking about just running an email app. You know
>> what I'm talking about: Making a change to the system and being asked
>> permisson for something you just told the system to do yourself. UAC is
>> not designed for people who know what they doing, and I don't think MS
>> ever claimed that it was. Experts would leave it enabled, however, if it
>> worked as I suggested (though I've never tried it, I believe I've read
>> that OS X tends to work more that way--if not entirely that way--and
>> you've never heard an uproar over the feature there).
>>
>> "Ben Miller" <ben@SPAMSUCKSthemillerexperience.com> wrote in message
>> news:B8EB9866-EAF5-4717-A0EE-D616A1D946D9@microsoft.com...
>>> Oh... so you mean only enact UAC when something bad might happen? OK...
>>> that makes sense. So, then you would also agree that viri cannot be
>>> spread via email, right? I opened the app to collect the mail right?
>>> So, if I initiated the the action, the it _has_ to be good.
>>>
>>> Give me a break.
>>>
>>> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>> news:O73caF6CHHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Come on people, face it, very experienced users are not going to fly
>>>> with it. They just aren't. Further, since they are experienced, they
>>>> have much less of a need for it, since rogue programs aren't running
>>>> around on their systems in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> (Note that I'm not talking about IE's Protected Mode here, which I have
>>>> no problem with, but system prompts unrelated to IE.)
>>>>
>>>> I fully agree that everyone else should leave it on.
>>>>
>>>> As I said in another thread, what I would have preferred is a way for
>>>> it to work where you only see a prompt for elevation when it's a result
>>>> of something that you *didn't* just ask to do yourself. All the
>>>> annoyances would fall away then, and you'd only be alerted when there's
>>>> some other action occurring on the system other than you, say, clicking
>>>> to go change your page file.
>>>>
>>>> "David J. Craig" <Dave@yoshimuni.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:O5CLo25CHHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I can only think of two possible reasons for his post. 1) He is a bot
>>>>>master and wants to keep people from implementing minimal security. 2)
>>>>>Stupidity is the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why can't people understand that UAC is just a technique that has been
>>>>> in Unix for decades?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ben Miller" <ben@SPAMSUCKSthemillerexperience.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:599BC259-2665-4AC1-97B3-62C9A938E0CA@microsoft.com...
>>>>>> Why on Earth would you disable UAC???? Especially for the typical
>>>>>> end user. This technology will be the "saving grace" of many
>>>>>> enterprises, small businesses, etc... I would debate your claim that
>>>>>> "many people are going to disable UAC." From my standpoint, UAC is
>>>>>> the best benefits of Vista.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:OFneHn3CHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Which all brings up an interesting point: is there any way to untie
>>>>>>> the two? Now that the beta is over, I don't want to endure UAC any
>>>>>>> longer, but I was shocked to find that IE's Protected Mode goes
>>>>>>> along with it, something I never expected and which I think is very
>>>>>>> unfortunate, since many people are going to disable UAC yet would
>>>>>>> never think of disabling Protected Mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, this is where someone comes along and says that it's simple to
>>>>>>> make happen with a policy change or similar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jimmy Brush" <JimmyBrush@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:2C9C28F8-6138-468E-B858-1C4BAAD144A4@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, there is a difference. When UAC is enabled, IE runs in
>>>>>>>> protected mode. This mode is much, much more restrictive than the
>>>>>>>> mode IE runs in when running under a standard user account.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When IE is running in protected mode, it cannot save/modify any
>>>>>>>> files on your computer (other than temporary internet files),
>>>>>>>> save/modify any registry keys (except for certain ones it needs to
>>>>>>>> work), and it cannot talk to any other programs on your computer
>>>>>>>> (except for one that is used to ask you for permission).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In protected mode, when IE wants out of this "protection box", it
>>>>>>>> has to go through the broker program, which asks you for permission
>>>>>>>> before it proceeds. In effect, YOU have to know about and approve
>>>>>>>> IE to allow it to touch any file, registry key, program, etc. on
>>>>>>>> your computer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this scenario, if your IE is taken control of by some rogue
>>>>>>>> program, that rogue program will be unable to damage anything
>>>>>>>> except a few IE settings, because it will be unable to modify your
>>>>>>>> files/settings/programs (unless it asks you for permission and you
>>>>>>>> give it the permission).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When protected mode disabled, IE gets the full power of your user
>>>>>>>> account. So in the same situation with protected mode off, a rogue
>>>>>>>> IE will have as much access to your computer that you do. If you
>>>>>>>> are running as a standard user, then it can access all of your
>>>>>>>> documents and settings that affect your user account. If you are an
>>>>>>>> admin, then the rogue IE can do anything it wants.