Loading User Information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading User Information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
Just because some fat nerds at slashdot didn't like UAC, MS tones it down in Windows 7:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/10/30/arspdc-windows-7s-streamlined-uac
Just great job, MS. When Windows was finaly really secure, you make it backward again.
harumscarum
out of memory
I am not an idiot nor am I fat.
blowdart
Peek-a-boo
I dunno, the silent elevation for explorer actions is a good thing; you still have the protection everywhere else it seems
Minh
WOOH! WOOH!
Did you just call me fat?
I resemble that remark.
Here's my problems w/ Vista UAC:
1) Momentary pause before the black-background prompt. This introduces uncertainty to users' actions. From a UXP perspective, this is unforgivable.
2) Nag nag nag. Yes, I want to allow the deletion of that shortcut. That's why I
a) Select the shortcut
b) Hit the delete key
c) Hit "Yes" on the confirmation dialog
Yes, I'm really really sure I want to delete it.
It looks like Win7 UAC will take care of # 2, knowing that a human being initiate the action. #1 seems to be drivers related, so I don't know if it'll still be there.
But, if you thought Vista was a rushed product, than hellsyeah, UAC was a rushed product. UAC2 looks to be much much more user-friendly. Koodos!
I just hope that by removing the "screen flash", they still kept the Secure Desktop.
And how do you discern whether the action was initiated by the user or not? Couldn't you create keypress events to fool the UAC?
Going by what they've already said, the options don't deviate that far from what is available in Vista today (albeit exposed in a more friendly UI). The only really difference is the "Don't prompt for tasks signed by the Windows private key is user-initated" setting. Everything else remains as it is.spivonious said:I just hope that by removing the "screen flash", they still kept the Secure Desktop.
And how do you discern whether the action was initiated by the user or not? Couldn't you create keypress events to fool the UAC?
blowdart
Peek-a-boo
Yes, apparently it's still a secure desktop (of course how you check that ....)spivonious said:I just hope that by removing the "screen flash", they still kept the Secure Desktop.
And how do you discern whether the action was initiated by the user or not? Couldn't you create keypress events to fool the UAC?
stevo_
Human after all
But thats what secure desktop is.. no processes exist apart from uac prompts, so no other applications can push keypress events to it.. I'm sure they kept the secure desktop.. but it sounds like they've probably streamlined the transfer from the users desktop to the secure desktop.. Hopefully they've managed to work a way to have two desktops layered on top of each other so you can still see your desktop behind it.. perhaps then they could set the uac desktop background to a 'difuse' shader.. so it looks like your desktop is behind that privacy glass (fits in with aeros glass theme thenspivonious said:I just hope that by removing the "screen flash", they still kept the Secure Desktop.
And how do you discern whether the action was initiated by the user or not? Couldn't you create keypress events to fool the UAC?
).
Sampy
And I come back to you now - at the turn of the tide
spivonious said:I just hope that by removing the "screen flash", they still kept the Secure Desktop.
And how do you discern whether the action was initiated by the user or not? Couldn't you create keypress events to fool the UAC?
I reccomend that all of you send your feedback in using the tools in the build. While I've never personally seen how Windows deals with feedback, it is and was a huge driver of VS features.
While we can't do everything people ask for, the only way we'll know is if you tell us.
Bas
It finds lightbulbs.
Can anyone with the M3 build try playing a video in the background when they summon a UAC prompt? I wonder if it'll keep playing, or if it'll just be a screenshot, although this time not dimmed. Which would mean the video would pause.Minh said:Did you just call me fat?
I resemble that remark.
Here's my problems w/ Vista UAC:
1) Momentary pause before the black-background prompt. This introduces uncertainty to users' actions. From a UXP perspective, this is unforgivable.
2) Nag nag nag. Yes, I want to allow the deletion of that shortcut. That's why I
a) Select the shortcut
b) Hit the delete key
c) Hit "Yes" on the confirmation dialog
Yes, I'm really really sure I want to delete it.
It looks like Win7 UAC will take care of # 2, knowing that a human being initiate the action. #1 seems to be drivers related, so I don't know if it'll still be there.
But, if you thought Vista was a rushed product, than hellsyeah, UAC was a rushed product. UAC2 looks to be much much more user-friendly. Koodos!
It looks like Win7 UAC will take care of # 2, knowing that a human being initiate the action. #1 seems to be drivers related, so I don't know if it'll still be there.
Sven Groot
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favourite store on the Citadel.
Horst0815
"Das Internet ist ein großer Misthaufen"
The fun thing for me is that there are still people out there that say "UAC = security". It isn't and it never was.
People mix up UserAccounts and UAC. The only thing UAC does is: reminding people that they use software that wasn't programmed with "userland" in mind. I think that was introduced in operation system 30 years ago and is used by Microsoft since 1993 (NT 3.5).
Minh
WOOH! WOOH!
How can it know if it was a human being?Bas said:Minh said:*snip*
How can it know if it was a human being?
Bas
It finds lightbulbs.
Wouldn't malicious applications be able to manipulate the mouse and keyboard drivers, though?Minh said:How can it know if it was a human being?Bas said:*snip*
I'm not sure. It would have to be initiated by the mouse, keyboard drivers maybe. But I doubt that's what's happening.
Minh
WOOH! WOOH!
Let's say that the driver is signed & trusted...Bas said:Wouldn't malicious applications be able to manipulate the mouse and keyboard drivers, though?Minh said:*snip*
The Ars article isn't quite correct.Minh said:Let's say that the driver is signed & trusted...Bas said:*snip*
The driver feeds SetMouse with a "trusted" flag...
If an app calls SetMouse, it doesn't have the above flag...
So, maybe then the OS can differentiate between a user-initiated action, and a program-initiated action.
I know I know... remote desktop will be problematic... But I can only save the world, one problem at a time.
My thought: Perhaps you'll see virus writers start writing .cpl things later... maybe making it's title like "DirectX Acceleration Settings" would work... that'll execute malicious code then runs dxdiag.exe...
I'll leave it to you to figure out other possibilities...
Sven Groot
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favourite store on the Citadel.
Checking if a call comes from a trusted source is pretty much impossible.Minh said:Let's say that the driver is signed & trusted...Bas said:*snip*
The driver feeds SetMouse with a "trusted" flag...
If an app calls SetMouse, it doesn't have the above flag...
So, maybe then the OS can differentiate between a user-initiated action, and a program-initiated action.
I know I know... remote desktop will be problematic... But I can only save the world, one problem at a time.
© 2012 Microsoft. Except where designated as licensed by
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License,
Microsoft reserves all rights associated with the materials on this site.
Thread Closed
This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.