Using Vista with UAC disabled

Assuming normal security precautions are taken on both systems is Vista with
UAC disabled any less secure that XP?

Malcolm H wrote:
> Assuming normal security precautions are taken on both systems is Vista with
> UAC disabled any less secure that XP?
>
>


No, not significantly, I don't think.

Routinely using a computer with administrative privileges is not
without some risk. You will be more susceptible to some types of
malware, particularly adware and spyware. While using a computer with
limited privileges isn't the cure-all, silver bullet that some claim it
to be, any experienced IT professional will verify that doing so
definitely reduces that amount of damage and depth of penetration by the
malware. If you get infected/infested while running as an
administrator, the odds are much greater that any malware will be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to remove with formating the
hard drive and starting anew. The intruding malware will have the same
privileges to all of the files on your hard drive that you do.

Vista's UAC adds an additional layer of protection, even if you
don't enter a password each time it warns you; the important thing is
that you're being warned, and can then make your own decision. A
technically competent user who is aware of the risks and knows how to
take proper precautions can usually safely operate with administrative
privileges; I do so myself. But I certainly don't recommend it for the
average computer user.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:eLAv66unHHA.3952@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Malcolm H wrote:
>> Assuming normal security precautions are taken on both systems is Vista
>> with UAC disabled any less secure that XP?
>
>
> No, not significantly, I don't think.
>
> Routinely using a computer with administrative privileges is not
> without some risk. You will be more susceptible to some types of malware,
> particularly adware and spyware. While using a computer with limited
> privileges isn't the cure-all, silver bullet that some claim it to be, any
> experienced IT professional will verify that doing so definitely reduces
> that amount of damage and depth of penetration by the malware. If you get
> infected/infested while running as an administrator, the odds are much
> greater that any malware will be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
> to remove with formating the hard drive and starting anew. The intruding
> malware will have the same privileges to all of the files on your hard
> drive that you do.
>
> Vista's UAC adds an additional layer of protection, even if you don't
> enter a password each time it warns you; the important thing is that
> you're being warned, and can then make your own decision. A technically
> competent user who is aware of the risks and knows how to take proper
> precautions can usually safely operate with administrative privileges; I
> do so myself. But I certainly don't recommend it for the average computer
> user.
>
> Bruce Chambers

Thank you for that Bruce.

My problem is that several of my favorite legacy programs will not function
with UAC enabled but work perfectly with UAC disabled.
At present I am using XP in a dual boot machine and am hoping that Vista
compatible versions of the programs will eventually become available (I'm
not holding my breath!)

Malcolm H wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for that Bruce.
>


You're welcome.


> My problem is that several of my favorite legacy programs will not function
> with UAC enabled but work perfectly with UAC disabled.
> At present I am using XP in a dual boot machine and am hoping that Vista
> compatible versions of the programs will eventually become available (I'm
> not holding my breath!)
>
>


Not an uncommon situation. In lieu of disabling UAC, have you tried
using Vista's WinXP-compatibility mode? Right-click on the pertinent
application's Shortcut > Properties > Compatibility Tab. This may be
all that need be done.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:OU0zyTvnHHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Malcolm H wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thank you for that Bruce.
>>

> You're welcome.
>
>
>> My problem is that several of my favorite legacy programs will not
>> function with UAC enabled but work perfectly with UAC disabled.
>> At present I am using XP in a dual boot machine and am hoping that Vista
>> compatible versions of the programs will eventually become available (I'm
>> not holding my breath!)
>
>
> Not an uncommon situation. In lieu of disabling UAC, have you tried using
> Vista's WinXP-compatibility mode? Right-click on the pertinent
> application's Shortcut > Properties > Compatibility Tab. This may be all
> that need be done.
>
> Bruce Chambers
>

Yes I have tried that without success. In some cases disabling UAC is the
only thing which works!

"Malcolm H" <malcolmh@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uoGt0hvnHHA.1776@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>>> My problem is that several of my favorite legacy programs will not
>>> function with UAC enabled but work perfectly with UAC disabled.
>>> At present I am using XP in a dual boot machine and am hoping that Vista
>>> compatible versions of the programs will eventually become available
>>> (I'm not holding my breath!)
>>
>>
>> Not an uncommon situation. In lieu of disabling UAC, have you tried
>> using Vista's WinXP-compatibility mode? Right-click on the pertinent
>> application's Shortcut > Properties > Compatibility Tab. This may be all
>> that need be done.
>>
>> Bruce Chambers
>>
>
> Yes I have tried that without success. In some cases disabling UAC is the
> only thing which works!

Which programs are you talking about? It might be helpful to know what they
are.

BTW, in answer to your question ("Assuming normal security precautions are
taken on both systems is Vista with UAC disabled any less secure that XP?"),
the answer has to be a flat "no" -- after all, Vista has had several aspects
of itself shored up security-wise apart from UAC.

I agree with the others that even with UAC disabled Vista a more secure than
XP. There are other security improvements besides UAC. That said personally
I leave UAC enabled. I like the IE protected mode feature. So far with a
combination of compatibility mode and Run as administrator I've been able to
get several very ill behaved programs running.

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


"Malcolm H" <malcolmh@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23JnWzsunHHA.4592@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Assuming normal security precautions are taken on both systems is Vista
> with UAC disabled any less secure that XP?
>

"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:OxpQ%23SxnHHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Malcolm H" <malcolmh@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uoGt0hvnHHA.1776@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>> My problem is that several of my favorite legacy programs will not
>>>> function with UAC enabled but work perfectly with UAC disabled.
>>>> At present I am using XP in a dual boot machine and am hoping that
>>>> Vista compatible versions of the programs will eventually become
>>>> available (I'm not holding my breath!)
>>>
>>>
>>> Not an uncommon situation. In lieu of disabling UAC, have you tried
>>> using Vista's WinXP-compatibility mode? Right-click on the pertinent
>>> application's Shortcut > Properties > Compatibility Tab. This may be
>>> all that need be done.
>>>
>>> Bruce Chambers
>>>
>>
>> Yes I have tried that without success. In some cases disabling UAC is the
>> only thing which works!
>
> Which programs are you talking about? It might be helpful to know what
> they are.
>
> BTW, in answer to your question ("Assuming normal security precautions are
> taken on both systems is Vista with UAC disabled any less secure that
> XP?"), the answer has to be a flat "no" -- after all, Vista has had
> several aspects of itself shored up security-wise apart from UAC.

Thank you, that's good to know!

My programs which do not like Vista with UAC enabled include:

1. CoolEdit2000. This is an excellent audio wave editor originally published
by Syntrillium. Adobe acquired Syntrillium a few years ago and they have
turned CoolEdit200 into ghastly bloatware called Adobe Audition. I wish to
continue to use CoolEdit2000!
2. Dr.Tag. The best Tag Editor I have discovered published by Aspect-One
Media. http://www.drtag.de/en/
3. Slimserver published my Slimdevices Inc. now acquired by Logitec.
http://www.slimdevices.com/

Regrettably I think it will be some time before I am able to remove XP and
rely totally on Vista.

Malcolm H

"Malcolm H" <malcolmh@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23JnWzsunHHA.4592@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Assuming normal security precautions are taken on both systems is Vista
> with UAC disabled any less secure that XP?

Overall, no.

I would back up Kerry's reference to IE Protected Mode, and suggest that
losing things like this might not reduce your total security overall but
would make the protection thinner in the places where XP fell down the most,
and which UAC / IE Protected mode were designed to address.

Have you considered using Virtual PC to allow you to use your 'difficult'
apps without having to shut down Vista and reboot? That might make it easier
to use UAC in Vista without making it too annoying to use these apps as
well?

"Robert Moir" <robspamtrap@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8pacZ3nHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "Malcolm H" <malcolmh@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23JnWzsunHHA.4592@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Assuming normal security precautions are taken on both systems is Vista
>> with UAC disabled any less secure that XP?
>
> Overall, no.
>
> I would back up Kerry's reference to IE Protected Mode, and suggest that
> losing things like this might not reduce your total security overall but
> would make the protection thinner in the places where XP fell down the
> most, and which UAC / IE Protected mode were designed to address.
>
> Have you considered using Virtual PC to allow you to use your 'difficult'
> apps without having to shut down Vista and reboot? That might make it
> easier to use UAC in Vista without making it too annoying to use these
> apps as well?

I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean running virtual XP within Vista?
Please can you point me to some info on this?

Thank you

Malcolm H