Coffeehouse Thread

184 posts

UAC controversy - the last episode!

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    WithinRafael

    wastingtimewithforums said:
    vesuvius said:
    *snip*

    "XP sold in droves"

    -------------

    Not that much.

    Google stats from 2003:


    http://web.archive.org/web/20030401082712/http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html">http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20030401082712/http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

    Windows 98 - 36%
    Windows XP - 28%
    Windows 2000 - 21%

    XP became dominant only in 2004 or so.  Three years after release. What made XP such a success is the fact that it had more than five years to spread. No other windows had that long no successor.

    Vista has now 24.35% market share:

    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

    After around two and half years of market availability (since january 2007) that's not that bad, considering how entrenched XP is, and the negative image that Vista has. The reason Microsoft destroyed UAC is because of the whiney blogosphere, and the statistics show me, that the blogosphere has much less influence on the market than they think they have.

    The reason Microsoft destroyed UAC is because of the whiney blogosphere, and the statistics show me, that the blogosphere has much less influence on the market than they think they have.

    Ignoring the fact your statement contradicts itself, I just wanted to make note that Microsoft made changes to UAC -- whether you view them as good or bad -- based on user feedback from various channels, including their Customer Experience Improvement Program. To blame UAC's changes, and their perception, on us bloggers is just wrong.

     

  • User profile image
    wastingtime​withforums

    Uxtheme Rafael said:
    wastingtimewithforums said:
    *snip*

    Ignoring the fact your statement contradicts itself, I just wanted to make note that Microsoft made changes to UAC -- whether you view them as good or bad -- based on user feedback from various channels, including their Customer Experience Improvement Program. To blame UAC's changes, and their perception, on us bloggers is just wrong.

     

    "Ignoring the fact your statement contradicts itself"

    ----

    How so? Okay: the blogosphere has much less influence on the market than they (and Microsoft!) think they have

    Now it makes more sense.

    "including their Customer Experience Improvement Program"

    How so? That thing is automatic:

    http://www.microsoft.com/products/ceip/EN-US/default.mspx

    ---

    Can I review the information before it is sent to Microsoft?
    Unfortunately the information can't be reviewed for a couple of reasons:

    The Customer Experience Improvement Program was designed to enable millions of customers to participate. To support such a large number of customers sending data, the collected information is recorded so that the Microsoft servers can efficiently process all the data. The nature of this encoding makes it difficult for most customers to review the information.

    Applications which use CEIP typically send data to Microsoft servers after the application is closed. Rather than displaying a dialog prompting you to review the information when the application is trying to close, the data is sent automatically, without interrupting your work.

    ----------------

     

    How does it measure how much the user is annoyed by UAC?

     

  • User profile image
    Charles

    intelman said:
    Charles said:
    *snip*

    I say again, from the UAC Blog.

    http://blogs.msdn.com/uac/

    User Account Control (UAC) is a core security feature..

    Well, as you can see that is a defunct blog... Is this debate about how Microsoft misrepresented UAC in the Vista timeframe or is it about UAC and the distinction between running as a standard user by default and core security boundaries of the underlying system? This is an argument about the past, right? Sure, OK, the UAC blog, Windows blogs, media outlets, even Channel 9, misrepresented UAC as a security feature during the Vista daze. Can we move along? Can we focus on the here and now? DeVaan's post is from 2009. The context is Windows 7. I've lost track of the problem, exactly. What's the issue again?

    C

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Charles said:
    intelman said:
    *snip*

    Well, as you can see that is a defunct blog... Is this debate about how Microsoft misrepresented UAC in the Vista timeframe or is it about UAC and the distinction between running as a standard user by default and core security boundaries of the underlying system? This is an argument about the past, right? Sure, OK, the UAC blog, Windows blogs, media outlets, even Channel 9, misrepresented UAC as a security feature during the Vista daze. Can we move along? Can we focus on the here and now? DeVaan's post is from 2009. The context is Windows 7. I've lost track of the problem, exactly. What's the issue again?

    C

    Charles said:
    Sure, OK, the UAC blog, Windows blogs, media outlets, even Channel 9, misrepresented UAC as a security feature during the Vista daze. Can we move along?

    Not really. Either UAC is a security feature and the default setting is wrong or this dialog is broken:

    UAC, not a security feature. Or is it?

  • User profile image
    Charles

    AndyC said:
    Charles said:
    *snip*

    Not really. Either UAC is a security feature and the default setting is wrong or this dialog is broken:

    UAC, not a security feature. Or is it?

    UAC is not a security boundary. I'm sorry I used the term "feature". UAC is not a security boundary.

    C

  • User profile image
    CKurt

    Charles said:
    intelman said:
    *snip*

    Well, as you can see that is a defunct blog... Is this debate about how Microsoft misrepresented UAC in the Vista timeframe or is it about UAC and the distinction between running as a standard user by default and core security boundaries of the underlying system? This is an argument about the past, right? Sure, OK, the UAC blog, Windows blogs, media outlets, even Channel 9, misrepresented UAC as a security feature during the Vista daze. Can we move along? Can we focus on the here and now? DeVaan's post is from 2009. The context is Windows 7. I've lost track of the problem, exactly. What's the issue again?

    C

    If the application that does the code injection needs to pass a UAC prompt before it can be installed, the users agrees the application is trust wordy so it does not need to prompt when it is doing admin stuff?

    Am I right? Or doens't the applcation doing the injection need a UAC prompt to install? It doens't need one to boot in any UAC mode i guess because otherwise we would not have this discussion.

     

  • User profile image
    Ubuntu

    Charles said:
    intelman said:
    *snip*

    Well, as you can see that is a defunct blog... Is this debate about how Microsoft misrepresented UAC in the Vista timeframe or is it about UAC and the distinction between running as a standard user by default and core security boundaries of the underlying system? This is an argument about the past, right? Sure, OK, the UAC blog, Windows blogs, media outlets, even Channel 9, misrepresented UAC as a security feature during the Vista daze. Can we move along? Can we focus on the here and now? DeVaan's post is from 2009. The context is Windows 7. I've lost track of the problem, exactly. What's the issue again?

    C

    So you mean that it's now a "convenience feature" - in what way is it more CONVENIANT to have an extra 1 - 4 clicks along the way? You can argue that it helps to limit admin functionality access which makes the machine more secure (which is not true as users ignore the dialogs and just click through) but it certainly doesn't make your use of the machine more convenient.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Charles said:
    AndyC said:
    *snip*

    UAC is not a security boundary. I'm sorry I used the term "feature". UAC is not a security boundary.

    C

    Agreed. UAC is not a security boundary. It is a security feature. The whole Trustworthy Computing/SDL thing is supposed to mean you ship security features in the most secure setting - Secure by Design, Secure by Default, Secure by Deployment+Communication. That appears to have been forgotten.

  • User profile image
    wastingtime​withforums

    Charles said:
    intelman said:
    *snip*

    Well, as you can see that is a defunct blog... Is this debate about how Microsoft misrepresented UAC in the Vista timeframe or is it about UAC and the distinction between running as a standard user by default and core security boundaries of the underlying system? This is an argument about the past, right? Sure, OK, the UAC blog, Windows blogs, media outlets, even Channel 9, misrepresented UAC as a security feature during the Vista daze. Can we move along? Can we focus on the here and now? DeVaan's post is from 2009. The context is Windows 7. I've lost track of the problem, exactly. What's the issue again?

    C

    "Sure, OK, the UAC blog, Windows blogs, media outlets, even Channel 9, misrepresented UAC as a security feature during the Vista daze. Can we move along? Can we focus on the here and now? DeVaan's post is from 2009. The context is Windows 7."

    ------------------

    So you had it wrong all these years and now you guys saw the light? Just when the UAC issues with Win7 appeared?

    fortunate coincidence! Seriously, I am disappointed. I've read all the anti-MS hate posts on slashdot and various other internet holes and was never impressed by their stupid arguments, but, reading this inane responses from you guys... I've lost a substantial amount of respect for MS. This move could be the biggest negative advertising in the tech community for Microsoft EVER.

    Look how much noise it generates:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22windows+7%22%2Buac&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

    This could turn into something huge.

    Of course I understand you guys. You wanted to please the blogger and slashdot crowds with that move, but the approach was obviously shortsighted. You know it now of course - but what do to? It's too late in the product cycle to over-engineer UAC to such extend that it will detect code injections and such (if it is even possible), and setting the UAC default behaviour back to Vista levels.. well, I still think it would be the right choice, but you guys advertised so much with the claim that Windows 7 is "less annoying than Vista" so that that move will generate negative press. But seriously, isn't it better to fix it now, get some bad press for one month, than not fixing it, and getting bad press about it for the next several years?

    I  can imagine that the guy who came up with the bright idea to make UAC "less annoying" got, when the flaws started to come up, an facial expression found on infants who have just crapped into their pants. He propably sat stupidly in an oozing euphoria, grinning from ear to ear, subcounsciously knowing he made a serious error, but not really understanding it.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    wastingtimewithforums said:
    Charles said:
    *snip*

    "Sure, OK, the UAC blog, Windows blogs, media outlets, even Channel 9, misrepresented UAC as a security feature during the Vista daze. Can we move along? Can we focus on the here and now? DeVaan's post is from 2009. The context is Windows 7."

    ------------------

    So you had it wrong all these years and now you guys saw the light? Just when the UAC issues with Win7 appeared?

    fortunate coincidence! Seriously, I am disappointed. I've read all the anti-MS hate posts on slashdot and various other internet holes and was never impressed by their stupid arguments, but, reading this inane responses from you guys... I've lost a substantial amount of respect for MS. This move could be the biggest negative advertising in the tech community for Microsoft EVER.

    Look how much noise it generates:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22windows+7%22%2Buac&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

    This could turn into something huge.

    Of course I understand you guys. You wanted to please the blogger and slashdot crowds with that move, but the approach was obviously shortsighted. You know it now of course - but what do to? It's too late in the product cycle to over-engineer UAC to such extend that it will detect code injections and such (if it is even possible), and setting the UAC default behaviour back to Vista levels.. well, I still think it would be the right choice, but you guys advertised so much with the claim that Windows 7 is "less annoying than Vista" so that that move will generate negative press. But seriously, isn't it better to fix it now, get some bad press for one month, than not fixing it, and getting bad press about it for the next several years?

    I  can imagine that the guy who came up with the bright idea to make UAC "less annoying" got, when the flaws started to come up, an facial expression found on infants who have just crapped into their pants. He propably sat stupidly in an oozing euphoria, grinning from ear to ear, subcounsciously knowing he made a serious error, but not really understanding it.

    What the hell is with all the whining in this thread? They made a decision to sacrifice some security for usability. If you want to do it differently make your own damn OS.

  • User profile image
    wastingtime​withforums

    Bass said:
    wastingtimewithforums said:
    *snip*

    What the hell is with all the whining in this thread? They made a decision to sacrifice some security for usability. If you want to do it differently make your own damn OS.

    "They made a decision to sacrifice some security for usability"

    ---------------------------------

    The problem is, that in the long term this decision is pretty negative for the windows plattform as a whole. The implications of this decision could haunt the plattform for years and years to come.

    To quote myself:

    -----------
    What now? What is the future of Windows security? Will it be now "forever" that users will work as administrators with a broken UAC? Or will you force in Windows 8 that the default user will be a standard account user? But if you do that, people will be extremely annoyed! After  Windows 7, with its reduced UAC dialogs, people WON'T ACCEPT a standard user account in Windows 8 - because on a standard account there will be much more UAC prompts than on the default administrator account on win7 with its broken UAC.

    UAC was a good tool to prepare people for the "standard account future", but now.. it's less likely that normal users will accept that future, after they use win7.

    It seems that you guys maneuvered yourselves into a pretty naster corner, just to please the blogosphere

    -----------

    http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/473037-UAC-controversy-the-last-episode/?CommentID=473105

    I repeat myself: What now? What is the future of Windows security wise? This shows me that MS doesn't has the balls to enforce security. If they are freaked out so easily by the negativity towards UAC (which is pretty mild - it just wants a click, not password [if you're an administrator]) - Just how in hell do they want to make the standard account as the default account in the future?

  • User profile image
    Royal​Schrubber

    Bass said:
    wastingtimewithforums said:
    *snip*

    What the hell is with all the whining in this thread? They made a decision to sacrifice some security for usability. If you want to do it differently make your own damn OS.

    That's actually a good idea, I was wondering what I should do with those spare 40 bil. dollars lying around in my pocket...

  • User profile image
    Charles

    wastingtimewithforums said:
    Charles said:
    *snip*

    "Sure, OK, the UAC blog, Windows blogs, media outlets, even Channel 9, misrepresented UAC as a security feature during the Vista daze. Can we move along? Can we focus on the here and now? DeVaan's post is from 2009. The context is Windows 7."

    ------------------

    So you had it wrong all these years and now you guys saw the light? Just when the UAC issues with Win7 appeared?

    fortunate coincidence! Seriously, I am disappointed. I've read all the anti-MS hate posts on slashdot and various other internet holes and was never impressed by their stupid arguments, but, reading this inane responses from you guys... I've lost a substantial amount of respect for MS. This move could be the biggest negative advertising in the tech community for Microsoft EVER.

    Look how much noise it generates:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22windows+7%22%2Buac&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

    This could turn into something huge.

    Of course I understand you guys. You wanted to please the blogger and slashdot crowds with that move, but the approach was obviously shortsighted. You know it now of course - but what do to? It's too late in the product cycle to over-engineer UAC to such extend that it will detect code injections and such (if it is even possible), and setting the UAC default behaviour back to Vista levels.. well, I still think it would be the right choice, but you guys advertised so much with the claim that Windows 7 is "less annoying than Vista" so that that move will generate negative press. But seriously, isn't it better to fix it now, get some bad press for one month, than not fixing it, and getting bad press about it for the next several years?

    I  can imagine that the guy who came up with the bright idea to make UAC "less annoying" got, when the flaws started to come up, an facial expression found on infants who have just crapped into their pants. He propably sat stupidly in an oozing euphoria, grinning from ear to ear, subcounsciously knowing he made a serious error, but not really understanding it.

    I provided a link to Jon's post on E7. Why don't ask these questions/provide this feedback there? What are you trying to accomplish here? We are not the Windows team. The Windows team doesn't spend time here going through threads. They want this conversation to happen on E7. So, make it happen there.

    C

  • User profile image
    Bass

    RoyalSchrubber said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    That's actually a good idea, I was wondering what I should do with those spare 40 bil. dollars lying around in my pocket...

    You don't need 40 billion to make an OS. Even Microsoft doesn't spend that much on Windows.

  • User profile image
    wastingtime​withforums

    Charles said:
    wastingtimewithforums said:
    *snip*

    I provided a link to Jon's post on E7. Why don't ask these questions/provide this feedback there? What are you trying to accomplish here? We are not the Windows team. The Windows team doesn't spend time here going through threads. They want this conversation to happen on E7. So, make it happen there.

    C

    "The Windows team doesn't spend time here going through threads."

    Why not? No, seriously. What's the point of channel9?

    http://channel9.msdn.com/About/

    "Channel 9 is all about the conversation. Channel 9 should inspire Microsoft and our customers to talk in an honest and human voice."

    I thought this place is a central hub to "talk" to Microsoft. If it's not, make it! There is a need for such a hub. Or is the prefered way for communication for MS really all those scattered msdn blogs?

    And by the way - we both know the UAC behaviour won't be changed. The guy who discovered it never got an answer from the windows team, despite contacting Microsoft several times:

    http://www.pretentiousname.com/misc/win7_uac_whitelist2.html

    So what's the point in posting on that blog? Well, of course you could ask the question why I am posting here, since it's pointless to post here about that too. I am posting here because it seems to make some noise, (externally) much more people read this forum than the e7 blog. I noticed some people who posted about that issue there and their comments were quickly buried by other comments and no one noticed it.

    At the end of the day, it's you who is working at Microsoft, and if the Windows plattform will be in trouble, you guys will have trouble too. So, since it's in your interest, why don't you send a link to this thread to the windows 7 team, and ask them to comment on this issue again? The chances are better if a fellow Softie asks them than some faceless commenter. I think the posters here made good points, why not counter them one by one by the windows team?

    Especially:

    1. All the talk about UAC not a security feature/boundary/whatever EVEN THOUGH Microsoft touted the complete opposite just 6-8 months ago! There are plenty of links in this thread that prove this. How do they explain that? Either Microsoft didn't know what UAC was when it developed and advertised it, or they knew it back then and don't know it now.

    2. What about the future of Windows plattform? How does it fare with the decision to cripple UAC? I wrote about it here:http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/473037-UAC-controversy-the-last-episode/?CommentID=473261

     

  • User profile image
    Charles

    wastingtimewithforums said:
    Charles said:
    *snip*

    "The Windows team doesn't spend time here going through threads."

    Why not? No, seriously. What's the point of channel9?

    http://channel9.msdn.com/About/

    "Channel 9 is all about the conversation. Channel 9 should inspire Microsoft and our customers to talk in an honest and human voice."

    I thought this place is a central hub to "talk" to Microsoft. If it's not, make it! There is a need for such a hub. Or is the prefered way for communication for MS really all those scattered msdn blogs?

    And by the way - we both know the UAC behaviour won't be changed. The guy who discovered it never got an answer from the windows team, despite contacting Microsoft several times:

    http://www.pretentiousname.com/misc/win7_uac_whitelist2.html

    So what's the point in posting on that blog? Well, of course you could ask the question why I am posting here, since it's pointless to post here about that too. I am posting here because it seems to make some noise, (externally) much more people read this forum than the e7 blog. I noticed some people who posted about that issue there and their comments were quickly buried by other comments and no one noticed it.

    At the end of the day, it's you who is working at Microsoft, and if the Windows plattform will be in trouble, you guys will have trouble too. So, since it's in your interest, why don't you send a link to this thread to the windows 7 team, and ask them to comment on this issue again? The chances are better if a fellow Softie asks them than some faceless commenter. I think the posters here made good points, why not counter them one by one by the windows team?

    Especially:

    1. All the talk about UAC not a security feature/boundary/whatever EVEN THOUGH Microsoft touted the complete opposite just 6-8 months ago! There are plenty of links in this thread that prove this. How do they explain that? Either Microsoft didn't know what UAC was when it developed and advertised it, or they knew it back then and don't know it now.

    2. What about the future of Windows plattform? How does it fare with the decision to cripple UAC? I wrote about it here:http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/473037-UAC-controversy-the-last-episode/?CommentID=473261

     

    I didn't say don't talk here.... I was trying to make the point that if you post these concerns on a blog that is frequented by the Windows team, well, maybe you'd get some answers that will help you understand. In the meantime, again, please take the time to watch this:

    http://www.microsoft.com/emea/spotlight/sessionh.aspx?videoid=993

    C

  • User profile image
    longzheng

    CKurt said:
    Charles said:
    *snip*

    If the application that does the code injection needs to pass a UAC prompt before it can be installed, the users agrees the application is trust wordy so it does not need to prompt when it is doing admin stuff?

    Am I right? Or doens't the applcation doing the injection need a UAC prompt to install? It doens't need one to boot in any UAC mode i guess because otherwise we would not have this discussion.

     

    The application that does the code injection does not ever need to show a UAC prompt. It does not need to be installed, nor does it need to be elevated to run the code injection.

    Furthermore, this risk is increased even more if you take into account remote code vulnerabilities in other unelevated applications. (Not low-privileged applications like IE though)

  • User profile image
    longzheng

    Charles said:
    wastingtimewithforums said:
    *snip*

    I didn't say don't talk here.... I was trying to make the point that if you post these concerns on a blog that is frequented by the Windows team, well, maybe you'd get some answers that will help you understand. In the meantime, again, please take the time to watch this:

    http://www.microsoft.com/emea/spotlight/sessionh.aspx?videoid=993

    C

    Charles, security boundaries and security features aside, do you agree with this definition of a vulnerabillity from Wikipedia?

    "vulnerability is applied to a weakness in a system which allows an attacker to violate the integrity of that system"

    If so, would you consider this application of code-injection scenario in Windows 7 a vulnerability?

    If not, how would you define vulnerabilities?

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.