Microsoft reveals audacious plans to tighten security with Windows 10

ZDNet ^ | 10/22/2014 | Ed Bott

[Jeff Chandler]

if Microsoft quits automatically giving superuser privilege to ALL user accounts by default

Is there a way to configure a W7 or W8 account like that?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Some folks set their sights pretty low I guess.

Not all of us are gamers, use their computers as music stations, or worship the Apple God.

I use my desktop for basic computer functions and applications, and XP fitted the bill. IMO, it was the best OS Microsoft has ever developed.

That's fine that Microsoft is developing new OSs, but XP should have been sold as a second-tier or budget OS.

[TexasRepublic]

Is Window 10 being marketed for home use as well? All that security mumbo-jumbo sounds too complicated for the average person to use, much less to configure. Will an on-site IT person be included with every purchase?

[haywoodwebb]

"Furthermore, my experience with those piles of security band-aids is that malware finds a way around them every time, and then those “security” band-aids turn into major impediments for removing the malware. In other words, the security measures don’t block the malware, but does block the sys admin efforts."

Yup!

[Resettozero]

Many applications contain code to check the version number of Windows, and assume Windows 95 or 98 if the version number starts with 9.

Rather than break all that old code they went to 10.

That so? Thanks for this explanation, Ken.

[discostu]

Looks like they’re going at it from the wrong side. Windows doesn’t need more front end security with more fancy ways to log in. It needs to separate administrator from root.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Has it been tested by a gaggle of hackurz?

[ken in texas]

At least I think that’s the explanation... have run across it in several other places. I understand the desire to not break something that works — spent many years of my life digging through old code to fix problems introduced by other software changes.

[catnipman]

“Is there a way to configure a W7 or W8 account like that? ‘

Indeed there is via control panel User Accounts -> manage other accounts -> create new account

for existing computers best bet is to create a new account called Admin, and after logging on to Admin, convert your old account to a limited user account, again via manage other account -> change account type.

put a password on Admin (say “password”) to neutralize accidentally clicking yes to any UAC popups on the limited account without first wondering why you got a UAC popup (usually a virus trying to install)

[zeugma]

I use my desktop for basic computer functions and applications, and XP fitted the bill. IMO, it was the best OS Microsoft has ever developed.

True enough, but the big problem with XP was always that it was a single-user mostly non-networtked OS with a decade's worth of bolt-ons and duct tape that would hold the whole mess together for a while, but ultimately was undermined by the fundamental weakness of the structure underneath it all.

I'm not a gamer either, nor do I personally own any apple products with the exception of a hand-me-down iphone 4, twice removed from its original owner.

I use computers to get jobs done, and occasionally to learn with. I want something designed to be multi-user from the ground up because we have more folks here than just me. I also want the OS to not get in the way or self destuct on me over time. For me, the answer has been Linux.  Some folks are apparently willing to accept the headaches and hassles of running windows, (i.e., registry cleanters, virus scanners, malware scanners, having to reload every year to keep any kind of appreciable performance), I'm not.

I've used many different kind of computers, and have supported everything from IBM mainframes, to HP and DEC minicomputers, to small LANs of workstations.  I have a lot of experience with different types of compters, and how they work and manage information. My rather lengthy experince with XP is that it's "OK", but a kludge. Using a "registry" the way that Microsoft does is pretty much broken as far as I'm concerned, for many reasons. People forget how utterly bad it was when it first came out. Most folks don't remember that it was pretty unusable until SP2.

However, because it was around long enough, and eventually became stable enough for most people who didn't know any better, it became familiar. It is the familiarity that people are so attached to IMO.

Personally, I'll never own a microsoft operating system untll two things happen.

1) a file should not be executable based on it's name.

2) the registry really has to go.

My 2 cents. YMMV

 

[Boogieman]

I think you’ve misunderstood me. I’m talking about the user accounts, not the users themselves. Of course the owner of the computer has to have admin privileges by default, every operating system in existence is set up the same way.

[catnipman]

“I think you’ve misunderstood me. I’m talking about the user accounts”

I did misunderstand you. But in response, almost ALL modern software from all but the one-off, rinky-dink software companies works just fine in limited-user accounts when installed system-wide. Very old software can be problematic too, but the big boys, like intuit, adobe, etc. have long since fixed those issues in newer versions.

For 99.99% of home users, limited-user accounts pose little, if any, problems. I’ve set up hundreds of computers this way for business and home and it works just fine, and their instance of malware attack has dropped to nil. Even if malware gets into a limited account, it can’t infect the system, so it’s easy to logoff the limited account, go the the Admin account and delete the malware files by hand or have a program like antimalwarebyes do it for you.

[stevestras]

This adds outrage to the already pathetic state of affairs. They can’t secure our passwords, or our personal machines in our homes and offices, but now they will insist on our biometric data and make it insecure as well.

A simple fact that remains is that it would be quite easy for MS to secure our machines. They choose not to.