"Ringmaster" <bigtop@VistaGeneralCircus.net> wrote in message
news:pchp84hahc0bfgk5pslk35fo8jlo5u3p3l@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:22:18 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
> <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>> Go here and download this script, it will turn off the prompt, but will
>>> keep UAC on.
>>
>>No, don't. UAC without the prompt is almost (not completely) worthless.
>>All this script does - in effect - is automatically answer 'Yes' to every
>>UAC prompt. What is the point of that?
>>
>>SteveT
>
>
> The same point of clicking 'yes proceed' which is what everyone does
> 99.999% of the time every time UAC nags about something.
(snip)

If it is nagging about something we are knowingly doing ourselves, then
that's how we should respond - and if we have proper protection installed,
then yes, we'll be clicking 'yes' 99% of the time. It's the other 1% that we
need to worry about, and rightly so.
LesleyO

> A "remember my answer" option to check/uncheck will avoid so
> many pop ups of UAC

........and open a security hole a mile wide.

SteveT

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:28:35 -0600, "LesleyO "
<lesleyo@DELETETHIStelusplanet.net> wrote:

>
>"Ringmaster" <bigtop@VistaGeneralCircus.net> wrote in message
>news:pchp84hahc0bfgk5pslk35fo8jlo5u3p3l@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:22:18 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
>> <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Go here and download this script, it will turn off the prompt, but will
>>>> keep UAC on.
>>>
>>>No, don't. UAC without the prompt is almost (not completely) worthless.
>>>All this script does - in effect - is automatically answer 'Yes' to every
>>>UAC prompt. What is the point of that?
>>>
>>>SteveT
>>
>>
>> The same point of clicking 'yes proceed' which is what everyone does
>> 99.999% of the time every time UAC nags about something.
>(snip)
>
>If it is nagging about something we are knowingly doing ourselves, then
>that's how we should respond - and if we have proper protection installed,
>then yes, we'll be clicking 'yes' 99% of the time. It's the other 1% that we
>need to worry about, and rightly so.
>LesleyO

You need to worry about deleting some orphaned shortcut on your
desktop? Well duh, I've seen UAC nag about those and there is no way
under any condition that could ever be a security threat since a
shortcut can't be anything more that a pointer (link) to a file and if
the file no longer exists, (orphaned) what's the threat?

A better question would be what clowns at Microsoft programmed UAC to
bitch about such foolish things?

These clowns:

http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going...-What-How-Why/

Amazing how many here are totally clueless about how Windows works or
more accurately doesn't.

Ever more amazing how some are quick to overlook Microsoft's many
blunders that infest every version of Windows ever released.

Humans. Very strange creatures. Some seem to enjoy putting up with
mediocre software riddled with bugs. I don't.

What is so glaringly wrong with UAC is IT DOES NOT LEARN. Therefore it
repeats nags about the same **** thing over and over again instead of
learning from past experience like SMART software should. Yes, such
technology exists and has been around since there were computers. I
guess the boys of Redmond never head of decision lists

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:26:59 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> A "remember my answer" option to check/uncheck will avoid so
>> many pop ups of UAC
>
>.......and open a security hole a mile wide.

Rules based firewalls have been around and have WORKED for decades. If
UAC would have implemented that methodology, it could be tolerated.
Like with most things Microsoft does, the concept isn't bad, it's the
implementation that sucks.

Ringmaster wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:26:59 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
> <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>> A "remember my answer" option to check/uncheck will avoid so
>>> many pop ups of UAC
>> .......and open a security hole a mile wide.
>
> Rules based firewalls have been around and have WORKED for decades. If
> UAC would have implemented that methodology, it could be tolerated.
> Like with most things Microsoft does, the concept isn't bad, it's the
> implementation that sucks.

That's not FW technology. That's snake-oil crap in personal FW(s) trying
to protect *you* from *you*. If you went into a FW and security NG and
posted this nonsense about how that snake-oil works in PFW(s), they
would cut you to pieces.

The technology you speak of has one glaring problem, which is the person
pointing and clicking with the mouse. If he or she doesn't know what
they are pointing and clicking to, then they are going to click away on
the security blanket not knowing what they are doing, which 99.9% of the
time that's what they do is click away. One must be aware of the
situation and most don't even know what the situation is about.

UAC is there either turn it on and use it or turn it off and don't use.
It's as simple as that.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:13:47 -0400, Kicking Albright
<Albright@Kicking.com> wrote:


>The technology you speak of has one glaring problem, which is the person
>pointing and clicking with the mouse.

Well if some idiot like you is behind the mouse, you have a point.

Ringmaster wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:13:47 -0400, Kicking Albright
> <Albright@Kicking.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The technology you speak of has one glaring problem, which is the person
>> pointing and clicking with the mouse.
>
> Well if some idiot like you is behind the mouse, you have a point.

He's talking about you, the village idiot.

Ringmaster wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:13:47 -0400, Kicking Albright
> <Albright@Kicking.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The technology you speak of has one glaring problem, which is the person
>> pointing and clicking with the mouse.
>
> Well if some idiot like you is behind the mouse, you have a point.

You speak for yourself and take a look in the mirror at you. You're the
one with the gleam in your eye about the snake-oil, hiss.

In article <O4N0ceB8IHA.3480@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>No, don't. UAC without the prompt is almost (not completely) worthless.
>All this script does - in effect - is automatically answer 'Yes' to every
>UAC prompt. What is the point of that?
>

It saves the user the trouble of answering yes to every prompt.