Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Jul 2005 17:32 UTC
Windows Mike Nash, Microsoft's security business and technology unit corporate vice president, has said Longhorn would accord end-users certain rights and privileges apparently ending the concept that everyone using their PC is also the PC's administrator. Update: More on new Longhorn features here.
Order by: Score:
Wow
by orestes on Mon 11th Jul 2005 17:45 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

Here I was thinking Windows had a privileges system in place since the advent of NT. The problem was always that the users were too lazy/ignorant to use it properly.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wow
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 11th Jul 2005 17:48 UTC in reply to "Wow"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The news is not that this system will be implemented, but rather that it will be implemeneted *properly* now. Windows has some seriously advanced user management tools already, it's just that no one ever uses or implements them, *including* Microsoft.That will apparently change with Longhorn.

About time.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Wow
by orestes on Mon 11th Jul 2005 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

But will it be implemented properly? What's to stop Joe User from going back to the same bad habits Microsoft has helped to create over the past 20 years? Will it refuse to take bad passwords or disallow administrator login completely? Will it stop the user from simply disabling it because the logins annoy them?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wow
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The problem, as I didn't describe so well with my haleluya post is that on your standerd windows you have just two default options for users Administrator or Guest. There is no normall user type. This suckes shit. You can't do anything under guest mode so most user use administor (this is also the default). On Windows 2003 there is a normall user, and it's posible to have one based on how windows dose its user privileges, but not having a normall user on the default install of you desktop OS is one of the dumbest things they have done to date. I hope they don't top it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow
by MrEcho on Mon 11th Jul 2005 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
MrEcho Member since:
2005-07-07

Yes there is a "norm" user account
groups: users

but the only way to do it is though mmc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow
by CPUGuy on Mon 11th Jul 2005 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

There is also the power user level.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wow
by crystalattice on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
crystalattice Member since:
2005-07-06

Some people will be upset because they have to change their ways. They have come to expect that things will work all the time (within reason) but now they will be expected to contact the admin when they want changes. Granted, I'm all for that and use it already on my Linux and Mac systems, but I never think about it when using my XP system.

I hope that some things will be allowed by default, such as personal settings like screen resolution and wallpaper. Oh, and important things like defrag and disk check. Some of the places I've worked have blocked users from all useful features; one system I used hadn't been defragged for nearly 5 years.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 21:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Some people will be upset because they have to change their ways."

Yep. I would probably say "most" if not all of them are going to be pissed. Oh well. This should have been started decades ago.

Guess this hard-core Linux user will be repairing and rebuilding more M$ boxes into the near furture.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Wow
by mini-me on Mon 11th Jul 2005 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
mini-me Member since:
2005-07-06

If it was started decades ago, people would still be pissed :-)
People will biatch and moan no matter what because it is not "the way that they have always done things". Sometimes users require a gentle push (or a hard shove depending on the user) to get onboard and get with the times.

I remember when OS X 10.0 came out I did not like it, I did not switch. It took me two years to get onboard (with 10.2). Eventually applications were no longer made for OS9 and you need to switch and get used to things.


As for admins asking for it because they did not secure ports -
I am not a major league admin but I can imagine that there are two camps - leave most things open and configure what you need when you need it that way - or leave most things closed an REALLY have to configure it completely before you can even start using it. Since windows has such a great degree of penetration it would be hard for the average joe smoe computer use who just checks his mail, surfs the web and types a few letters to his friends to do this - unless they had proper procedures in place - so the all open paradigm works for someone in M$'s shoes.


On the other hand it is NOT microsofts duty to notify you that virii, malware, spyware, adware exist and what you should do to prevent them. When you go into a car dealership the car dealer is not obligated to tell you to stop at the red light, observe the speed limit and avoid pot-holes like the plague. I would like to see someone take the car back to the dealership and say "oh, yea I drove through a bunch of potholes and really screwed yp my struts - can I get another car?" :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wow
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

It was started 1 decade ago. Our company of thousands of users doesn't let business users run with admin rights.

The IT dept approves what software can be run and we push it out automatically. If a piece of software requires admin rights we don't approve it. The end result is our PCs rarely crash, our usrs can't install too much crap and the PCs just do what we want them too. The users have no choice and can grumble all they want.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Wow
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

changing those personal settings are already possible for non-administrators in Windows.... If you used a system where you were unable to do it, it's because further restrictions were placed on your account.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Wow
by ma_d on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

They're going to copy Mac and Sudo; it's blatantly obvious to me. But they'll call it innovation, and everyone but their users will laugh.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wow
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:08 UTC in reply to "Wow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The problem wasn't that users were too lazy/ignorant, but that developers wouldn't (and some still don't) allow users to run their programs in a limited user account.

And part of the reason for this, when you get down to it, was that Microsoft encouraged users to run under administrative accounts.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wow
by orestes on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem wasn't that users were too lazy/ignorant, but that developers wouldn't (and some still don't) allow users to run their programs in a limited user account.

A valid point, but I still don't believe the vast majority of Windows users would have bothered to set up and use limited accounts.

Reply Score: 1

Haleluya
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 17:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Somebody at microsoft finaly evolved a brain! This feature sucked, sucked, sucked! Do you know how mutch pain I had to endure fixing peoples systems after thei sucsesfuly managed to acumulate so mutch malware that the PC was not realy usable anymore? Then I'm suposed to save their data.

Man I hope this is true.

Reply Score: 1

Good work
by Tom K on Mon 11th Jul 2005 17:52 UTC
Tom K
Member since:
2005-07-06

Good work on Microsoft's part -- step one was to implement a pretty complex and powerful system. Step two is to make people use it.

Never underestimate people's stupidity when it comes to computers. Yes, that virus-infected attachment you have repeatedly told them not to open -- they will open it again, perhaps thinking that magically this time it *is* a nude picture of Britney Spears.

Then again, people will find a way to f*ck up their machines regardless of whether or not a proper default priviledge system is designed. I've worked on some pretty messed up OS X and Linux machines.

Reply Score: 1

This is great news
by Adamal on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:14 UTC
Adamal
Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem I have is that I have no choice but to run as an Administrator on my system since some of the apps that I run require admin permissions. If Microsoft stops the practice of making users admins by default maybe the app developers will fix their problems so I can be a regular user like on my linux boxes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow
by Adamal on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:17 UTC
Adamal
Member since:
2005-07-06

Joe user doesn't know how to become a regular user. He/She just uses the computer. Since Admin is the default they will run the computer as admin. If you ask the Joe users out there if they are running XP as an admin I'm sure you'll get a funny look.

Reply Score: 1

It's Microsoft's fault
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Many windows peripheral utilities (like modems, fax/phone switches) require that a session be started to come online. If the computer crashes and restarts, the answer phone can sit there for days without recording calls. And it has to be started in a session with administrative privileges. Whose fault is this?
* The user: too dumb to worry about these issues.
* The device manufacturer: too lazy to code a proper interface.
* The OS provider: too careless to enforce the right privilege levels.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It's Microsoft's fault
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 00:03 UTC in reply to "It's Microsoft's fault"
Anonymous Member since:
---

How is this the fault of the "OS provider"? The software could have been written as a service. If you have a program that should be always running in the background in Unix, it runs as a service and is started on startup.

The same is possible in Windows and is done by most well-written software.

Reply Score: 0

A day late and dollar short.
by DittoBox on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:20 UTC
DittoBox
Member since:
2005-07-08

It's about bloody time if you ask me!

I'd say it's "A day late and dollar short," but I'm going to look on this with great optimism. Hopfully they'll keep the system clean and efficient and this will hopefully curb the effect that some virii have (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd like a little input on this, just to make sure I understand UNIX security properly: If Joe User is only a "user" and he gets a virus that takes advantange of buffer overflow in Joe User's App-Foo the system as a whole isn't under threat, just Joe User's files? So long as no other user touches Joe User's infected files the system doesn't go SNAFU, just Joe User?).

To quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

And there was much rejoicing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: A day late and dollar short.
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 00:58 UTC in reply to "A day late and dollar short."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I'd like a little input on this, just to make sure I understand UNIX security properly: If Joe User is only a "user" and he gets a virus that takes advantange of buffer overflow in Joe User's App-Foo the system as a whole isn't under threat, just Joe User's files? So long as no other user touches Joe User's infected files the system doesn't go SNAFU, just Joe User?).

That's the main idea.

On Mac OS X, for example, the root user account (the ultimate administrator) is disabled by default whereas on most *nix systems the root account is usually always on by default.

As in most *nix systems, all real users of the system, including those listed as administrator(s), run in non-administrative mode by default and are prompted for an administrators password should they attempt to do something that requires higher privileges.

As an example: A basic overview of the "domains" on Mac OS X.
1. /Network/Library/ --> network available software.
2. /System/Library/ --> reserved for Apple supplied system software.
3. /Library/ --> admin/3rd party software
4. /Users/someuser/Library --> available only to someuser

1, 2, & 3 covers software that is shared by all users (by default). These can be further limited by setting the user/group privileges. 4 is available to that user alone.

As an example, a user's preferences are stored in their Library folder under their /Users/account.

There's also:
1. /Network/Applications
2. /Applications/
3. /Users/someuser/Applications

These contain applications that are available either network-wide, system-wide, or for a specific user. Again privileges can be adjusted for network and system-wide files/folders...

All in all - the directory structure is clean and shows the search path the system uses to find plug-ins, for example, when needed. Importantly, with regards to malware, these will not be able to install themselves in privileged places *without* the administrator allowing it to do so (unless of course, there's a security risk in the system that is exploited) because all privileged operations require authentication; standard use of applications and utilities (that operates on files in your own directory) are the norm.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Further to my comments above about Mac OS X structure, the following link should be useful for Windows users seeking clarification on the types of security (and the default configurations) that ought to be provided with future Windows OSes.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/security/

It'd be a good starting point anyway...

Reply Score: 0

Legacy hell?
by orestes on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:23 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

OK, so from RTFDing I gather MS is now going to force the issue by implementing a system similar to what Ubuntu has in place. What does this do to legacy applications that require admin privileges? Are they going to sandbox them somehow or do they get free reign of the system?

Reply Score: 3

Re: It's Microsoft's fault
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Added to that, you could have said:
* The OS provider: too cheap to include decent documentation that would make new users aware of the dangers of malware.

Reply Score: 0

You've Got Mail
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Microsoft OS of the future

Computer: Are you sure you want to open the attachment?
User: Yes
Computer: It most probably is a virus, still wanna open it?
User: Yes
Computer: Chances are that it isn't Britney on top of Christina. Are you sure you want to still open it?
User: Yes
Computer: Preliminary scans on the executable confirm it is a virus. You still want me to open it?
User: Yes
Computer: Running code meant to destroy your system. Stop process now?
User: No

I think the vast majority of problems is nothing to do with Microsoft but with stupid users. People are just too dumb to use a computer.

Reply Score: 5

RE: You've Got Mail
by Adamal on Mon 11th Jul 2005 19:39 UTC in reply to "You've Got Mail"
Adamal Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think its a problem with stupid users. I think it has to do more with patience and fear. People just want the content now and they'll click whatever button gets them the content regardless of what it says. Or they are so scared of doing something wrong they just want it to go away.

Reply Score: 2

Reinvention?
by CloudNine on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:49 UTC
CloudNine
Member since:
2005-06-30

"Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly"

I think this and the development of the Monad shell just proves this really ;) Of course, this will be touted by Microsoft as innovation.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Reinvention?
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:59 UTC in reply to "Reinvention?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Not realy, NTs system is more sofisticated. You can mix and max privileges as you need. The problem ist that you can't do it on the desktop system. It's in the server versions though.

So it's not realy reinventing anything, but more a finaly giving users what you have.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Reinvention?
by Motz on Mon 11th Jul 2005 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Reinvention?"
Motz Member since:
2005-07-06

AFAIK, POSIX access control lists allow you to mix and match priveliges, so I don't think NT's system is more sophisticated, per se. Of course your don't see POSIX ACLs implemented on your average Linux/BSD desktop either ;-)

Regardless of who invented what first, this is definitely a step in the right direction - anything that stops Joe User from shooting himself in the foot without stepping on a power user's toes has got to be a good thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Reinvention?
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Reinvention?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

They let you "mix and match priviliges" on files... but they're not used on Linux/any Unix. They weren't even in OS X until recently.. This "mixing and matching" of priviliges can be done on many actions that normally require root, hardware devices, files, etc.

The Unix way is uid 0 = root, everyone else = loser. Windows can have multiple administrators, users with some permissions as administrators but not all, etc.

On Windows, ACLs are in the registry, and if the filesystem is NTFS, on the filesystem too. ACLs are actually used on those systems, too; certain user groups are allowed to modify certain files, Administrators and the owner can read home directories, etc. Certain user groups are allowed to edit the appropriate files/folders.

The only problem is that Windows's advanced permissions aren't really applied by Microsoft as much as they could be. If they were, spyware wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem as it is now.

Some of the defaults on the user side are bad (services enabled by default, admin by default, etc.), but on the lower level, Windows isn't bad at all.

Reply Score: 1

So
by ma_d on Mon 11th Jul 2005 18:52 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

"We're copying what they did on security, but we've always been more secure."

Reply Score: 2

Re: You've Got Mail
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 19:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"I think the vast majority of problems is nothing to do with Microsoft but with stupid users. People are just too dumb to use a computer."

Which doesn't begin to explain the Sasser variety of virus.

Reply Score: 2

Has always been a problem
by rm6990 on Mon 11th Jul 2005 19:33 UTC
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

Limited users, or even multiple admin users, has always been a problem for me on Windows. I will install a program under User A whom is admin, and it won't show up in User B's start menu. Sometimes the program won't even launch. (User B is admin mind you). So I reinstall under User B, and User A loses their menu entry. Or with some programs, I rename the desktop icon on User C's account, and it changes it on User A.

I think this is one area where *nix is much simpler.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Has always been a problem
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 00:25 UTC in reply to "Has always been a problem"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You could start with learning to how the operating system acutally works. Here is a quick primer since you're too lazy to learn and too eager to bitch about things you're not familiar with.

There is a root level directory called "Documents and Settings" this is where all user profiles are stored. Each user profile is named after the account that it corresponds too. By default there are a few accounts that are setup depending on your installation. Usual accounts include:

Administrator; All Users; Default User; "Name of Whatever Accounts You Create"; Guest; Local Service; Network Service

Each profile normally stores its own user data including a private (or public depending on how you set things up) My Documents; Favorites; Cookies; Application Data; Desktop; Start Menu; etc.

Exceptions to this include the All Users account where items in that profile are shared between all accounts; the Default User which defines the layout of any newly created account; and the headless Network and Local Service accounts which add a level of restriction to what permissions you want a system service to run with.

Have said that - you might have wanted how the developer of the applications you're installing setup their install scripts. Some install into that user's personal Start Menu - meaning it wont show in other accounts; while other programs install into the All Users Start Menu as a way of sharing the account between all users - meaning changing the name in one will change it for all.

None of this is obscure or arcane information; its in just about every Windows XP book published; located in the Windows Help System; on the Microsoft website; as well as easily found through a google search. If you'd bother to spend as much time learning to use the operating system as you do staring at your navel professing linux to be better you might get a clue and stop posting such trash.

Reply Score: 0

Re: You've Got Mail
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 19:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

""I think the vast majority of problems is nothing to do with Microsoft but with stupid users. People are just too dumb to use a computer."

Which doesn't begin to explain the Sasser variety of virus."

Actually I would say that Sasser infection is also the user/administrator's fault.
Exposing unused services to an insecure network, very bad.

Reply Score: 0

Let's keep a few things in mind ..
by Robert Escue on Mon 11th Jul 2005 20:24 UTC
Robert Escue
Member since:
2005-07-08

First Longhorn has not been released yet, so there is plenty of time for Microsoft to make changes including loosen the security of Longhorn (remember Windows 2000 and WINS/NetBIOS support). Nobody (including Microsoft) has truly explained how Longhorn is going to work with "legacy" applications that require Administrator access to work. I somehow see Microsoft backing off on that promise because that feature alone will break all kinds of stuff.

The concept of Least Privilege has been around for 20 years (Trusted Computer Security Evaluation Criteria, 1985) so why has it taken Microsoft 20+ years to "get it right"? Is Microsoft giving application developers specific details on how they are going to implement this "improved security"? Are they going to make it easy for Joe Sixpack, or is it going to be the typical "read a 1000 pages of documentation" to configure it?

Solaris has had Role Based Access Control (RBAC) since Solaris 8 (2000). So why is it taking so long for Microsoft to "catch up"?

Reply Score: 1

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Nobody (including Microsoft) has truly explained how Longhorn is going to work with "legacy" applications that require Administrator access to work.

Not true. They have explained it. If it applications tries to do something that requires admin privileges, Longhorn will at the lowest level ask the user for the admin password, and continue if correct. Nothing will break unless very poorly written.

Reply Score: 1

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

That "unless very poorly written" part is exactly what worries me.

Reply Score: 1

Oh yeah...
by joelito_pr on Mon 11th Jul 2005 20:29 UTC
joelito_pr
Member since:
2005-07-07

How old is unix? tirthy years?

And just now MS comes up with the Idea?

Reply Score: 1

Re: You've Got Mail
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 20:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Exposing unused services to an insecure network, very bad."

Making an insecure OS when there have been more secure OSes in existence for years and encouraging users to be careless about security ever since Windows existed, very, very bad.

This is B.S. Any other company in any other industry that puts out a faulty product, and the company is liable. But in the software industry there's a million excuses and a whole lot of finger pointing going on. Meanwhile people are spending hundred of dollars on machines that can be taken down in 12 minutes without clicking on anything. They get nothing with the computer explaining all this nonsense, and then if they're foolish enough to come into a geek forum for help, they'll be told they're stupid. And nobody sees anything wrong with this business model?

Reply Score: 0

v M$ serious about security
by growchie on Mon 11th Jul 2005 20:36 UTC
RE: M$ serious about security
by corrosive23 on Mon 11th Jul 2005 21:10 UTC in reply to "M$ serious about security"
corrosive23 Member since:
2005-07-11

Grow up already. Calling the company M$ makes you look like a 13 year old script kiddie.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: M$ serious about security
by ma_d on Mon 11th Jul 2005 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE: M$ serious about security"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Just to you. I think it's all in good humor; they are the wealthiest software company in the world, and the roots of software development are pretty ridden with hippies. So even if you like _everything_ they do, which seems impossible, you have to admit their success contrasts greatly with the origins of their trade.

What makes you look 13 is when you do it in a serious-toned published work; but this is an internet forum which has more to do with life than serious-publishing, and life shouldn't be so serious.

Now everyone go listen to "Every OS Sucks," have your favourite (favorite if you like) beverage and come back with a calm, preferably not intoxicated, mind and discuss this rationally: Not that this bit of news has much to discuss; it's pretty much just an interesting blurb that may turn out to be totally inaccurate!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: M$ serious about security
by growchie on Tue 12th Jul 2005 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE: M$ serious about security"
growchie Member since:
2005-07-07

Why can't I call Microsoft the way I want. I dont think that using $ instead of S should insult anybody. Or are they in the charity business or just making lots of $$.
Simply there is no S in apple or redhat, and SuSE is now part of novell ;)
On the serious side. It will be interesting to see what will pop-up from that effort. I wonder how they are going to protect the windows messaging system.
When you read almost all security publications, they focus on the fact, that if intruder gains any kind of privilege on the system, it is safe to assume that he could get admin rights. So most of the efforts usually described are focused mainly not to allow intrusion.
What's my point. M$ or (Microsoft read it as you like) have to focus on how malware must not get to the user PC on the first place. IE and Outlook should be the focus of the first line of defense, without hindering usability. Interesting how Indigo is going to fit into the whole picture.

Reply Score: 1

v Sneaky...
by JLF65 on Mon 11th Jul 2005 21:06 UTC
Microsoft and Sun.
by corrosive23 on Mon 11th Jul 2005 21:09 UTC
corrosive23
Member since:
2005-07-11

I just think Microsoft needs to stop playing around with Sun and just buy them out already. Use solaris as the basis for a new generation of windows including a win32 compatability layer similar to rosetta. This gets them a unix base, and the ability to not have to force consumers to buy all new software.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Microsoft and Sun.
by orestes on Mon 11th Jul 2005 21:16 UTC in reply to "Microsoft and Sun."
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

*imagines the typical Windows user trying to figure out how to get online with a Solaris box*

Yeah, I can see that one working real well.

Reply Score: 1

The 1970's called
by Milo_Hoffman on Mon 11th Jul 2005 21:35 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Hey Microsoft... the 1970's called, they want their security model back. Nice of you to discover what has been working since then on other OS's.

Reply Score: 1

Welcome TCPA
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 23:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Welcome TCPA!
I will give you away my bought hardware!
I won't control any more my own hardware, because the vendors say, in security terms as user I am the biggest risk.

What a beautiful new World!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Welcome TCPA
by corrosive23 on Tue 12th Jul 2005 00:11 UTC in reply to "Welcome TCPA"
corrosive23 Member since:
2005-07-11

you act like only microsoft would do this. Apple is part of the TCPA alliance that has said they would support it as have almost ALL of the hardware providers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Welcome TCPA
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Welcome TCPA"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, I forgot the ironic tags.
Beautiful new World was meant as an analogy to brave new World. ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Microsoft and Sun.
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 23:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Rosetta isn't a compatibility layer that does any type of API emulation or translation; it simply allows PPC OS X code to run on x86 OS X. Same libraries/APIs, different CPU.

Many people ignorantly assume that the Unix way is the only good way to do things. The ACL concepts & extensive usage of them is more advanced than anything in the Unix world.

There really isn't that much that's wrong with the Windows NT on the system itself; besides stability issues with some drivers, I don't have many complaints. (It's some of the user-level software and design, such as Administrator by default, etc. that really hurt Windows.)

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Microsoft and Sun.
by corrosive23 on Tue 12th Jul 2005 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft and Sun."
corrosive23 Member since:
2005-07-11

I never said rosetta was. I was saying they would have to include a layer that does something SIMILAR to rosetta.

And since everyone wanted to whine and claim unix was the only way to go, I threw out the sun possability.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Microsoft and Sun.
by abraxas on Tue 12th Jul 2005 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft and Sun."
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

The ACL concepts & extensive usage of them is more advanced than anything in the Unix world.

That's not true. Take a look these:

http://www.nsa.gov/selinux
http://www.grsecurity.net
http://www.rsbac.de

That's just linux. You'll find ACL's in Solaris and BSD too.

There really isn't that much that's wrong with the Windows NT on the system itself

Except for the fact that a program crash can take the entire system down.

Reply Score: 1

ancient history
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 01:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

how soon they forget. The idea of 'least priv' has been around since multics. you remember multics, right, the one that predated unix? actually the idea of a 'root' user = god in unix was a step *backward* from the the mix/match model that was in common usage at the time. A good step under the circumstances and for the reasons, but one that outlived its usefulness.

Reply Score: 0

Don't count on it
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 03:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Somebody at microsoft finaly evolved a brain!

Probably why they hired the founder of Gentoo - Microsoft doesn't hatch good ideas - they only purchase, smother or destroy them.

Reply Score: 0

What took them so long for so little?
by hraq on Tue 12th Jul 2005 04:10 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I am not going to enter in a discussion about how to secure an OS; but I am gonna tell you why MS wanted to leave the administrative account on always.
They want your computer to crash on you every period of time so that you will decide to fix it with a professional,i.e a technician; and of course the technician gets certified by Microsoft, therefore Microsoft will make money at the end; It's like the analogy of linux where you get it moslty for free but you pay for the service (Technicians,troubleshooters and others).
Now the question is why are they starting to give up on this nasty behavior? The answer is simple: "Linux is really catching up real well".

Reply Score: 1

Lindows/Software incompat
by Joseph on Tue 12th Jul 2005 04:23 UTC
Joseph
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ironic how even Microsoft understands the need for separation of user and administrator but the Lindows CEO doesn't? http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/05/1225249&tid=...

I've noticed the only software that tends to fail when ran as a user is always commercial educational software. Do they somehow all use the same base code? I'm talking about everything from off the shelf educational cds to even professional level medical/other field edu software. This is definitely the kind of software you'd want to run as user if you were administrating tons of school PCs!

A few sound device apps (those included with sound cards/motherboard sound chipsets) also seem to not understand user vs administrator.

*nix really has a leg up on windows in this domain so it should be interesting to see if anyone adheres to any multi-user standard MS tries to enforce. I think if they start to it will benefit nix by educating people to multi user environments and easing their (imo inevitable) switch to nix.

Reply Score: 1

RE: wow
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 06:19 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Here I was thinking Windows had a privileges system in place since the advent of NT. The problem was always that the users were too lazy/ignorant to use it properly.

No, the problem was and is that 80% of 3rd party userland stuff needs Administrator privileges.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: wow
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE: wow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Absolute rubbish. Have you run Windows or are you just reading the rants on sites like these. Most apps run fine as standard users. They have to be installed by a user with elevated priviledges but most business apps I've used run fine. Most games don't seem to though.

The problem was and is that 80% of people who post crap like your post don't have a clue.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: wow
by getaceres on Tue 12th Jul 2005 09:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wow"
getaceres Member since:
2005-07-06

Speak for yourself. Maybe 80% of your software works without administrative privileges, but I can assure you that 50% of my programs doesn't work if they are not run with administrative privileges. And 80% of games, doesn't run at all if you are not an administrator.

Microsoft has done a good job implementing security rights in their operating system, but developers tend to think that their software is the only thing that needs to be run, so it needs to be run on start and it needs to be run with administrative privileges.

Reply Score: 1

admin rights
by raver31 on Tue 12th Jul 2005 07:57 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

where do windows users get the idea that needing admin rights is somehow them not "owning" their pcs?

they all seem to think that this is a bad idea....

I do not use Windows personally, but one thing I admire Microsoft for, is that they removed the "whitecoats" from personal computing.
I myself am a whitecoat, but that is for work, not for my own PC.
Making computers easy for the masses is Microsofts greatest legacy, but it is what made the vast spread of virus/spyware/trojans possible.

btw - they do not all need dumb user to click OK !

Reply Score: 1

Re: Let's keep a few things in mind ..
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 08:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Nobody (including Microsoft) has truly explained how Longhorn is going to work with "legacy" applications that require Administrator access to work. "

That's probably why MS purchase virtualpc. The easiest way to keep legacy-brain-damaged-diehard-requires-admin applications running in a reduced privilege environment is to keep them in a chroot jail/container/vm, and allowing the applications to fuck themselves up within that virtual OS. No application rewrite is necessary and users will get enhanced security.

Sure performance will suffers in VM, but people who care about performance/efficiency will not use something like longhorn in the first place anyway.

Reply Score: 0

Longhorn's Secret Modder Surprises
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 09:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

but people who care about performance/efficiency will not use something like longhorn in the first place anyway.

Amazing so few people actually read and only place follow-ups.

Longhorn's Secret Modder Surprises:

http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20050711/index.html

Reply Score: 0

w1nd0wz
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 12:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

the 1337 n00b OS!

it makes about that much sence.

Reply Score: 0

v Longhorn Following Unix On Security
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 12:26 UTC
Hardly enough to be "following Unix"
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 13:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Phooey. Microsoft has a security architecture (including the NTFS file system) that has long been far more complex and capable than what Unix offered. Their users and groups as well allows an incredible level of flexibility that *nix has not offered. I've long been dissatisfied with *nix security.

Microsoft is NOT following Unix on security. They are adjusting a default setting -- happens to be towards a corresponding setting in Unix.

Reply Score: 0

Re: Hardly enough to be "following Unix"
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 14:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Phooey. Microsoft has a security architecture (including the NTFS file system) that has long been far more complex and capable than what Unix offered. Their users and groups as well allows an incredible level of flexibility that *nix has not offered. I've long been dissatisfied with *nix security.

Microsoft is NOT following Unix on security. They are adjusting a default setting -- happens to be towards a corresponding setting in Unix.


Ra. Ra. Ra. Yippie Microsoft!

Let's be clear: Microsoft is being dragged kicking and screaming toward a traditional unix security model and will have to spend additonal time reinventing features that have been standard over the recient past or are being added as we discuss this.

While in theory MS does offer a good security model for user access with NTFS, the implementation is both overly complex (viruses can in meta data that the user and admin can't investigate easily) and not well supported (point to tools included in the OS). In many cases it is flat out ignored by both vendors and users, leading to the necessity of adding layers of tools on to the OS that should not be necessary...even for NTFS.

Unfortunately, with NTFS that's just about where Microsoft Windows stops with security. With unix systems, they do not rely on the file system to be one ridgid format to enable security. This is part of the 'everything is a file' basis of unix.

As for advanced topics that will be handled by Windows some day, look at SELinux and other similar methods that are either supported already or are gaining wide spread support in the Linux, Solaris, and *BSD worlds. Unix isn't standing still while Microsoft figures these things themselves.

Reply Score: 0

many other problems plague Longhorn
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 14:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The Longhorn developers have to solve many other problems first before they can look further into security. Longhorn Beta is still extremely buggy and has many severe issues that include fundamental things like driver integration. As long as those problems are not solved Longhorn wouldn't be usable for anything but screwing up your system.

Reply Score: 0

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

1. I wasn't aware the Beta had been released yet. All I've seen are alphas.
2. You're expecting driver full driver support and bu free operation from an OS that hasn't even finished a round of beta testing?

Reply Score: 1

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

*bug

Reply Score: 1

Hopefully...
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 14:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

they will allow it work properly with other applications or allow or even enforce a way for developers to support this. I had MAJOR problems running CAD and CorelDraw10, had to hassle with odd service packs and updates. Eventually I was lucky enough to get it to run for Power users, but before it REQUIRED you to be an administrator, which is a tad rediculous. Still would like to get it working for regular plain old users. This is why everyone runs as administrators, its just easier({which is what we use windows for, ease of use)

Reply Score: 0

JT
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 14:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Microsoft has a security architecture (including the NTFS file system) that has long been far more complex and capable than what Unix offered. Their users and groups as well allows an incredible level of flexibility that *nix has not offered. I've long been dissatisfied with *nix security."

yea something along the lines of you are god or you are not god.... thats the two levels... not much else... yea you got backup guy and supposedly powere user and so forth but still if you are talking a home user then we arent talking about numerous account types....

as long as windows has a "system" account it will be possible to manipulate it...

Reply Score: 0

more vaporware
by test on Tue 12th Jul 2005 15:00 UTC
test
Member since:
2005-07-06

XP already promised that, but never delivered.

One key element to make such promise a reality is to get rid of FAT32. But such fundamental change is not mentionned. Mainly becasue it would break so many applications and confuse so many customers. So I am sure FAT32 will still be available under Longhorn whenever it appears on the shelves.

Reply Score: 1

RE: more vaporware
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 15:36 UTC in reply to "more vaporware"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"One key element to make such promise a reality is to get rid of FAT32. But such fundamental change is not mentionned. Mainly becasue it would break so many applications and confuse so many customers. So I am sure FAT32 will still be available under Longhorn whenever it appears on the shelves."

Hehe. Yep. Been there and done that. Forced migration from FAT32 to NTFS is not the answer.

I've had to roll back or convert back to FAT32 to support legacy applications that do not interact well with NTFS. On one server I had to go Linux with SMB to have it work right.

No matter what what the M$ "Flutter-Bye" flame boys and their marketing machine say - M$ still has a long way to go in creating a stable system.

It's up to us sys admins to pull solutions out of our minds and adapt them to work with the M$ systems.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: more vaporware
by orestes on Tue 12th Jul 2005 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE: more vaporware"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Forced migration from FAT32 to NTFS is not the answer.

True enough, but neither is keeping legacy apps on life support at the expense of system security and stability.

Reply Score: 1

so...
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 15:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

what advantages does ntfs offer the home user?

Reply Score: 0

Finally!!!!
by Dextor on Tue 12th Jul 2005 16:45 UTC
Dextor
Member since:
2005-07-12

We have MS-UNIX code name LONGHORN

Reply Score: 1

Given....
by Milo_Hoffman on Tue 12th Jul 2005 18:15 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Like I have been saying for about the last decade:

"Given enought time and money, Microsoft will eventually invent UNIX."

Reply Score: 1

I'd like to proclaime!!!!!!!!
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 19:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Good jobs MS. Keep on following Apples lead. They've done all the hard work, now all you have to do is Ctrl+C Ctrl+V


A few million times more should do it! :p ;)

Reply Score: 0

So many apologists for MS
by Anonymous on Tue 12th Jul 2005 19:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

What a touching scene. Alright all you meanies, stop picking on Microsoft. You're hurting their feelings.

Reply Score: 0