Uac

So after that discussion about UAC in the other thread i now used it for some days too and for me it kinda feels "annoying". Some people said that UAC when beeing at maximum protection, cant be disabled/bypassed by any malware/trojan/... is it true? I know that it is possible to bypass/disable UAC at the default protection.. but never tried it on the maximum protection. Also it looks more annoying than usefull/secure since its just a simple "yes" popup and not something like root pw on linux.



Anyway I used it for 1-2 days and found alot of programs asking for UAC access:

Teamviewer

Secunia PSI

Filezilla setup

AutoIt setup



When UAC is alerting, it doesnt rly give any info about what is going on? It just said that this file wants to make changes / needs admin access. But there is no information of what this program actually wants to do. So how do you know if you should allow a file/setup or not (besides trustfull stuff. which still could be binded with a malware when someone found an exploit on the site and modified the download file.. but ye.. nvm that )





thx

Reply 1 : Uac

UAC at the default Windows 7 can be disabled by malware. At max settings it can not be.



UAC is very helpful for preventing against malware because it essentially doesn't allow the malware to elevate to administrative level and therefor it doesn't allow it to mess with system files.



I found the linux popup more annoying because I couldn't hit "yes." lol I know I'll get for that.



Basically, UAC is asking "Is this program supposed to be running as admin?" and you look at the program and if you don't recognize it you can go ahead and say "No." Otherwise just let it run as admin. More and more programs are being coded to install to areas that don't require admin access because it's a security issue.



How are you supposed to know? Well as I said, if something is trying to get admin access randomly you probably don't want it to. If something is asking for UAC after you opened up a program it's probably that program but always check. When in doubt, google.

Reply 2 : Uac

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak Some people said that UAC when beeing at maximum protection, cant be disabled/bypassed by any malware/trojan/... is it true?

It can be bypassed. Have a look at [1], which has /some/ links to further information about this. Also, have a look at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...aspx#id0560012.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak Also it looks more annoying than usefull/secure since its just a simple "yes" popup and not something like root pw on linux.

Take out the password prompt, put in a graphical consent prompt on a separate, secure desktop - that's basically UAC (be aware that for various reasons this description is simplified, wrong, and does not correctly reflect what kind of security improvement you can get by using UAC [1]).

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak When UAC is alerting, it doesnt rly give any info about what is going on? [...] how do you know if you should allow a file/setup or not (besides trustfull stuff. which still could be binded with a malware when someone found an exploit on the site and modified the download file.. but ye.. nvm that :D)

It can't tell you what to do at all.



However, UAC dialogs will show you the "Verified publisher" of a file. This information is verified by looking at the digital signature of the file. So if the file gets modified, the UAC dialog normally doesn't show that original publisher anymore, but instead say that the publisher is "Unknown". Be aware that this technique is not foolproof either. For instance, there are various problems with it that are inherent to the design of a PKI (Public Key Infrastructure), which is being used to verify the signature of a file. For instance, if you (or a malicious software) succed(s) to install a malicious root certificate on your system, the "Verified publisher" of any file on your system can be faked. Furthermore, another big PKI problem is that the certificates which are already installed on your system must not necessarily have certificate chains following them that are absolutely trustworthy. The good news is that this is rather irrelevant given the fact that for various reasons, UAC is not really secure in the first place...





------

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak thx

Yeah, that's indeed a reproduction standard.



On an unrelated side note, why not give using proper English a try? ;)





------

[1] Security is not a solution, it' a concept

Reply 3 : Uac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christoph.krn It can be bypassed. Have a look at [1], which has /some/ links to further information about this. Also, have a look at User Account Control: Inside Windows 7 User Account Control.

Excellent source. If you look at the details, you'll see that the examples are not really ones of malware bypassing UAC in the strict sense of the word, but rather tricking the user into giving permission to execute stuff that should not be executed. Ultimately there is no protection against this kind of thing, independently of what technology you use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak So after that discussion about UAC in the other thread i now used it for some days too and for me it kinda feels "annoying".

That is really because you don't understand what it is you are doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak Some people said that UAC when beeing at maximum protection, cant be disabled/bypassed by any malware/trojan/... is it true?

Essentially yes, with some caveats as pointed out above. There is no such thing as absolute security.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak Also it looks more annoying than usefull/secure since its just a simple "yes" popup and not something like root pw on linux.

That's because you did not configure your user correctly: You are supposed to run your day-to-day work as a standard user, not as an admin. If you do that, you'll have to provide a password, just as in Linux, or Unix, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak Anyway I used it for 1-2 days and found alot of programs asking for UAC access: Teamviewer Secunia PSI Filezilla setup AutoIt setup

Obviously, all setup program require admin privileges. On the other hand, no standard user-mode application should require it, unless it was coded by incompetents. Or is really not what it pretends to be... TeamViewer is a cr@ppy program. It should not require admin access for its functionality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak When UAC is alerting, it doesnt rly give any info about what is going on? It just said that this file wants to make changes / needs admin access. But there is no information of what this program actually wants to do.

That would be asking a bit much. It's an operating system, not a mind reader. There is no realistic way the OS could tell you what some random executable will be about to do, not without completely sacrificing performance, and even then there's limits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak So how do you know if you should allow a file/setup or not

Bottom line: It is your responsibility to make sure the code you are about to give full access to your computer is trustworthy. There is no system in the world that could relieve you of that burden. Well, unless you want to consider whitelisting approaches, which are really not practical for an OS for the general public. This has been considered, but was dropped, for a whole host of reasons.

Reply 4 : Uac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pirx That's because you did not configure your user correctly: You are supposed to run your day-to-day work as a standard user, not as an admin. If you do that, you'll have to provide a password, just as in Linux, or Unix, etc.

.. true that :P in the end i guess it would be more disturbing when having to enter a pw all the time :S

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christoph.krn It can be bypassed. Have a look at [1], which has /some/ links to further information about this. Also, have a look at User Account Control: Inside Windows 7 User Account Control. However, UAC dialogs will show you the "Verified publisher" of a file. This information is verified by looking at the digital signature of the file. So if the file gets modified, the UAC dialog normally doesn't show that original publisher anymore, but instead say that the publisher is "Unknown". Be aware that this technique is not foolproof either. For instance, there are various problems with it that are inherent to the design of a PKI (Public Key Infrastructure), which is being used to verify the signature of a file. For instance, if you (or a malicious software) succed(s) to install a malicious root certificate on your system, the "Verified publisher" of any file on your system can be faked. Furthermore, another big PKI problem is that the certificates which are already installed on your system must not necessarily have certificate chains following them that are absolutely trustworthy. The good news is that this is rather irrelevant given the fact that for various reasons, UAC is not really secure in the first place...

Couldnt read that article yet (just woke up, had an espresso and now got to go :S) but if malware could disable/bypass UAC (without the user clicking on yes) or fake the publisher (is windows looking for its digital signature in the internet or just readon the publisher from the file itself.. second could be faked so easily :S), why should i even use it ? Propably some really bad written / old malware wont be able to bypass UAC but then there are still too many trojans out there which can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christoph.krn Yeah, that's indeed a reproduction standard. On an unrelated side note, why not give using proper English a try?

Sry but i was writing this from my HTC Desire HD while i should have cleaned weapons at army ;D + im not a native american so english is just a 2nd language for me :P

Reply 5 : Uac

Generic malware doesn't have to bypass it most of the time because most people don't realize how useful UAC is lol

Reply 6 : Uac

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak .. true that :P in the end i guess it would be more disturbing when having to enter a pw all the time :S

Just login as root is pretty much the same as running on admin with no uac.



An admin with UAC kind of like using sudoer with no password attribute on it.





Anyways UAC is pretty useless, when most people just hit OK anyways when they got no clue of what it does. Goes pretty much the same on all linux OS. Luckily, most linux user are classed as technically proficient after they figure out the installation process, graphic or terminal.



In the end, it's all really is if that do your trust them, their code, their compiler that made their binaries ... etc etc

Reply 7 : Uac

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak Couldnt read that article yet (just woke up, had an espresso and now got to go :S) but if malware could disable/bypass UAC (without the user clicking on yes) or fake the publisher...

It can't. You should have read the article...

Reply 8 : Uac

Anyway this link shows you how to enable Highest Security UAC on Windows 7 Home Editions.



Hope it helps Home Administrators to lock down systems from pesky "download and run anything" Users.



Irresponsible and silly home users NEED to have their rights taken away.



This also helps in preventing people who "borrows" your computer with Windows 7 Home Edition from messing with it when your account is created as Administrator.

Reply 9 : Uac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pirx Excellent source. If you look at the details, you'll see that the examples are not really ones of malware bypassing UAC in the strict sense of the word, but rather tricking the user into giving permission to execute stuff that should not be executed. Ultimately there is no protection against this kind of thing, independently of what technology you use.

You might already know that Microsoft has two basic terms when talking about security:

• Security feature:
  
  A "security feature" does enhance security but can't necessarily be relied upon. Taking W-LAN as an an example, security features would be using a MAC-filter, disabling SSID broadcast ("hiding" the wireless network) or using WEP - in some way, these do enhance security, but they are easy to bypass.
• Security boundary:
  
  A "security boundary" is a strict security feature with no obvious easy ways to crack it. Taking W-LAN as an example, using WPA2 encryption would be a security boundary - for now, WPA2 can be called reasonably secure.

The default of Windows Vista as well as Windows 7 with UAC on highest setting is that your user account is an "Administrator in Admin Approval Mode" (AAM). This means that you have have the rights of a standard user unless you allow some process to run with elevated privileges (through a UAC dialog), which will automatically give them administrative rights. These UAC consent prompts for AAMs are NOT a security boundary, they can "easily" be bypassed [1].





So yes, UAC /may/ sometimes lead to higer security, but basically it's insecure because it's not meant to be relied upon. In any case, this doesn't mean that it's a good idea to disable UAC because it's not absolutely secure anyway. First of all, there is no such thing as "absolutely secure", and second, disabling security features makes you a potentially more lucrative victim (see also: "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy").



zakazak, to somewhat increase the security of UAC (have a look at [1] for more information about what kind of security this would give you), you can create another password-protected user with administrative rights in the control panel of your system and make your own user account a standard account. Be aware that this will also cause UAC to ask for the password of the other account instead of asking you to click yes or no, which is another convenience tradeoff. I already linked to this information at Security is not a solution, it' a concept, where you can also find quite a lot more information on how to increase the security of your system.





------

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak Sry but i was writing this from my HTC Desire HD while i should have cleaned weapons at army ;D + im not a native american so english is just a 2nd language for me :P

Is there a need to rush?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakazak (is windows looking for its digital signature in the internet or just readon the publisher from the file itself.. second could be faked so easily :S)

Not really either of both. Digital signatures can be verified using specific cryptographic algorithms. Wikipedia: Digital signature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pirx You should have read the article... ;)

This.



Please read before asking. If you can't be bothered to look for information yourself before asking, people can't be bothered to answer you. (No offense intended, I'm not trying to imply that you don't care.)





------

[1] UAC: Desert Topping, or Floor Wax?