> The fix is a feature called Administrator Protection, which gives the user standard permissions by default.
On the one hand, IT'S ABOUT BLOODY TIME!!! (Speaking as an IT/Security professional, that is)
I've used Windows continuously since Windows 2.0, every release, every SP and update. It's been a long road, and while this latest improvement is welcome, it's way, way late.
On the other hand, this will make the user complaints from XP-SP2's enhanced security and Vista's UAC (User Account Control) look like a walk in the park.
Windows started life with ZERO security. None whatsoever. Because it was a single-user toy operating system bolted on top of MS-DOS.
Windows NT4 / 2000 / XP were good attempts to start over with a real operating system, but they were rapidly crippled by trying to make NT work like Windows 95/98.
25 years ago Microsoft started trying to bolt on various "fixes" to make the thing more secure (like the two I listed above).
Finally, 40 years after Unix (and then Linux) had actual security (including default non-privileged user accounts), Microsoft admits that maybe Windows should try to be secure by default?
On the one hand, IT'S ABOUT BLOODY TIME!!! (Speaking as an IT/Security professional, that is)
I've used Windows continuously since Windows 2.0, every release, every SP and update. It's been a long road, and while this latest improvement is welcome, it's way, way late.
On the other hand, this will make the user complaints from XP-SP2's enhanced security and Vista's UAC (User Account Control) look like a walk in the park. Which is why I intend to disallow it.
Finally, 40 years after Unix (and then Linux) had actual security (including default non-privileged user accounts),
I have to choose to install programs and click thru "you do not have permission" obstacles. Have not seen the need for more, thanks be God.