![]() While it is true that it was meant to force developers to code with "limited rights mind", it is also true that UAC will redirect data written by 32-bit processes, that try to write to important system areas such as Program Files and HKLM, so that the applications work fine under limited rights (applications developed with the "administrator at all times mind"). If nothing else, figthing malware was a side effect, and one that never worked that well, at all.īut, you actually haven't mentioned a word about what I mentioned, and regarding UAC's purpose. If you search for my nickname and UAC on this same forum, you may find a few threads where I have discussed that UAC was never meant to fight malware (I think most disagreed with me, even when Microsoft itself mentioned its purpose a few times.). Thank you!Ĭlick to expand.While I don't use VS, I'll agree that it will help keep users safer than UAC does. However, we want to make everyone happy, and we appreciate everyone's input, so the next version of VS will prompt the user during the installation to notifying them that we are disabling UAC. Developers have had 6 years to write code that was UAC friendly, and nothing has changed. ![]() We have to get users away from automatically clicking "Yes" to every prompt they see. This is the very reason we created VS, because UAC does not work. It is one of the top 3 "features" that users immediately disable when getting a new computer or reinstalling windows. The fewer the prompts, the more likely users are to consider them carefully before allowing them." In the process, ideally we end up in a situation where most people do not run as administrators and, hopefully, they start questioning some of the elevation prompts they do get. As developers write more UAC-compliant apps, the number of prompts the user gets goes down and the user experience gets better. ![]() "The primary purpose (of UAC) was to start us on a path where more users run as standard user, which in turn would force developers to write more programs that work as a standard user, reducing the number of situations where users need to elevate. Any modern virus will just smile at UAC and keep going. VoodooShield works better without UAC, and it is infinitely more effective at stopping viruses than UAC, which was not designed to stop viruses. ![]() The next version will include a prompt to notify the user that in order for VS to run properly, it must disable UAC. FYI, VS also only creates one other registry key for startup, and simply copies the files to the program files directory, so it is a very clean install. So, you should be careful about disabling UAC, and mostly not without alerting your users and letting them know about the implications of disabling due to certain applications that may not work properly due to disabling UAC.Ĭlick to expand.All VS does it change one registry key during the install to turn UAC off, it is temporary, and no different than the user turning it on and off again. ![]() Granted, if UAC is disabled, then those applications will have all the access they need, but if VoodooShield is installed afterwards, and there's a pretty great chance it may get installed after installing other applications, then when disabling UAC, those applications I talked about may stop functioning properly because the configuration data, etc is placed at some other place (previously virtualized by UAC). I'm asking, because there are applications developed by lazy developers that require access to protected system areas, such as Program Files or HKLM, without really requiring, but that won't work otherwise, and UAC redirects those changes to VirtualStore folder and registry keys. Anyway, why is UAC redundant when running VoodooShield? Does VS provide virtualization of application that weren't developed with Vista+ in mind or still being developed with XP mind (with the idea everyone runs with an administrator account)? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |