Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Mar 2009 13:27 UTC
For Windows 7, Microsoft has made some changes to User Account Control to counter the criticism that UAC was too intrusive. It didn't take long before several holes were poked in Windows 7's default UAC settings, and now one is left to wonder: is it wise to sacrifice security for (perceived?) usability? Ars has an editorial that deals with this question.
Thread beginning with comment 351921
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-03-20
it is a failure from both the users(mostly),apps devs,and userland dev.
), so app dev went on and developped decades of application that relied on the same security features ( none ) of pre NT kernel ( DOS based shell ). User didn't complained about it.
Microsoft decided to keep userland compatibility with win32 layer ( that was introduced with NT 3.1 ), but was introduced in a windows 3.x (which is well know for it's stability and security
And Microsoft decided to keep compatibility as it is why business still largely use Windows ( hell even some DOS application can still run in my vista ).
Plus XP/Vista/7 are marketed as a Desktop OS were in term of security, user can happily accept any dialog that the application show to them ( EULA anyone ? ).
Today user do not face the same security problem as yesterday, old virus/trojan/malware were just written by prick whereas today they are written by business peoples. Business people dont care about kernel security, they do care about compromising your personnal data and a kernel access is a nice plus but not mandatory.
I still do think that most of the security problem still come from the user ( password on a post it anyone ? ). But security is by definition obstrusive, guards, fences, watchdogs are "real life" security feature and they can be some time annoying and most of it obstrusive, so should be a secure os (obstrusive and annoying).
I don't think that a super prompt is a way to secure things ( hell you can download a package than you think you trust and happily answer to the prompt on install ). Running as admin/root login should be annoying at best, like getting a key in a vault before opening another vault, performing an admin task should be painfull.
But I do see the need for user to have their own applications, and use common apps for the sake of saving disk space, keeping their own data. But you are asking normal people ( average joe, your grand mother ) to act as system admin for their own computer when it's totally not their primary job (and not even an hobby).
How to fix it ? You might have you solution right now.
Web applications and light client, storage (back to thin, incapable client, and big fat mainframe ), leave security to people that are paid to do so. and run a client that is only capable of connecting to your more secure source, and if they fail they get fired ( into the sun ).
But still people will complain....