User Account Control, Security

I don't think UAC will help that, most programs will still run the same way
they always did, with the same privileges, except for some secure areas. I
think the real advantage (as well as the real pain) is how it prompts for
everything. With UAC on, it prompts before doing anything it considers
important. This can be a real pain when it prompts 4 times "are you really
sure?" just to delete a folder, but when you are on a website and it pops up
and prompts you if its ok to install a keylogger, I think you will be happy.

Of course its functionality is limited right now because it gives such
limited information, 95% of the time it just says "unknown program", even
many Microsoft apps pup up with "unknown program"

"Alun Harford" wrote:

> Jesper wrote:
> >> I am the only user of my computer - do I really need UAC enabled?
> >
> > Yes. It has nothing to do with protecting you from other users on your
> > computer. It is about ensuring that you do not have to be an administrator
> > all the time. When you run as an admin the slightest misclick can spell
> > disaster.
>
> Or no misclick.
> Your software might contain a vulnerability which can be attacked. If
> it's not running as an administrator, you don't have serious problems.
>
> Alun Harford
>

my first 2 trojans (when i was more of a newbie than i am now) came from
downloading from the ms portal called "marketplace," which listed cnet as the
sponsor. i learned later - www.spywarewarrior.com -- that cnet is a sewer of
rogue antispyware.

"Robert Moir" wrote:

>
> "LoneStar" <ewyatt_del_me.RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:461fee66$0$97253$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> > I may be committing a "mortal sin" according to many other users, but I
> > haven't used any antivirus product on my XP and Vista PCs since I got
> > them!
>
> To be honest, I have often run without antivirus and been problem-free
> myself, however that would be very poor advice to give out to others who
> from the fact they're asking about basic things are clearly not going to be
> in the same position of awareness to judge risks for themselves properly.
>
> > I don't click on email attachments, I only download files from known,
> > reputable web sites (CNet, MS, etc), and I don't go to web sites that
> > might be problematic.
>
> It's worth pointing out that the thing about trusted sites is that you trust
> them not to *intentionally* send you infected downloads. Same with email
> attatchments from friends (I assume you'll concede that while you don't have
> to open these apparently, you are not the entire world and some of us *do*
> have to open some sometimes).
>
> You can trust someone not to hurt you intentionally, and that trust might be
> very well placed, but even the best have accidents and bad days. Microsoft
> have offered virus infected documents for download before now, for example.
>
> --
> Robert Moir
> http://www.rhymeswithgeek.com
>
>
>