From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C66574.A3926590
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Bullshit!  I suspect you haven't used Vista or Vista with UAP so your =
comments are plucked from your ass.

   The prompts to which he is referring are in response to actions taken =
by a non-elevated user initiating an action that requires elevation to =
administrator rights.  As anyone with a brain would recognize, distinct =
actions should each be approved.  It has nothing to verifying security.  =
It's requesting confirmation from the user that he intends to initiate = an
administrative action.

   OS X prompting is very similarly.  I haven't played with OS X much =
but from what I did see it is identical in the model for when to prompt.

   As for linux, the BSDs, and maybe OS X too, this is not crude like =
sudo.  The elevated user is the same user and has the same identity.  As =
a corollary, the elevated action is not running with the root or super =
user account (Local System in Windows).  UAP in Vista uses functionally =
long present in Windows (e.g. restricted tokens).

   I've seen people talk about specialized versions of linux or the BSDs =
having some of the capabilities of Windows security model.  Do the =
popular releases have such functionality or are people still waiting for =
them to catch up?  if they do have this functionality, do apps use it.

   If a Vista user wants to perform a number of actions without being =
prompted he can.  For geeky users you can just open an elevated command =
prompt and run what you want from there.  Just be aware that you loose =
the extra protection of running non-elevated.  It's the user's choice.  =
Fine grained approval or not.

Rich

  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:j9ii42hn0okrlop3cn8115cj25e4cfji5t{at}4ax.com...
  On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:53:11 -0400, "Frank Haber" =

  wrote:

  >Wow.  This is Thurott, who in recent years has been pretty much a =
cheerleader.

  What that reminded me of was security being an afterthought with
  Microsoft.  All those prompts mentioned in the article are a result of
  each individual part of the OS having to verify security with the =
user,
  instead of the OS verifying the user and passing tha tinformation to =
the
  various parts of the OS.

  OS-X handles this "non-admin user doing admin things" very much better
  than Vista.  My forays into SuSe Linux also have shown that they =
handle
  it better as well.

  Once again, Microsoft is playing a poor game of catch-up with other =
OS's
  in the security arena.  And I think that is the gist of his commetns.

   /m
------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C66574.A3926590
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








  
Bullshit!  I suspect =
you haven't=20
used Vista or Vista with UAP so your comments are plucked from your=20
ass.
 
   The
prompts to which he is =
referring=20
are in response to actions taken by a non-elevated user initiating an = action=20
that requires elevation to administrator rights.  As anyone with a
= brain=20
would recognize, distinct actions should each be approved.  It has
= nothing=20
to verifying security.  It's requesting confirmation from the user
= that he=20
intends to initiate an administrative action.
 
   OS X
prompting is very=20
similarly.  I haven't played with OS X much but from what I did
see = it is=20
identical in the model for when to prompt.
 
   As for linux, the =
BSDs, and maybe=20
OS X too, this is not crude like sudo.  The elevated user is the =
same user=20
and has the same identity.  As a corollary, the elevated action is = not=20
running with the root or super user account (Local System in =
Windows).  UAP=20
in Vista uses functionally long present in Windows (e.g. restricted=20
tokens).
 
   I've seen
people talk =
about=20
specialized versions of linux or the BSDs having some of the =
capabilities=20
of Windows security model.  Do the popular releases have such =
functionality=20
or are people still waiting for them to catch up?  if they do have = this=20
functionality, do apps use it.

 
   If a =
Vista user wants=20
to perform a number of actions without being prompted he can.  For
= geeky=20
users you can just open an elevated command prompt and run what you want = from=20
there.  Just be aware that you loose the extra protection of = running=20
non-elevated.  It's the user's choice.  Fine grained
approval = or=20
not.
 
Rich
 

  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote in message news:j9ii42hn0ok=
rlop3cn8115cj25e4cfji5t{at}4ax.com...On=20
  Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:53:11 -0400, "Frank Haber" <frhaber{at}N0SPMrcn.com>wrot=">mailto:frhaber{at}N0SPMrcn.com">frhaber{at}N0SPMrcn.com>wrot=
e:>Wow. =20
  This is Thurott, who in recent years has been pretty much a=20
  cheerleader.What that reminded me of was security being an=20
  afterthought withMicrosoft.  All those prompts mentioned in =
the=20
  article are a result ofeach individual part of the OS having to =
verify=20
  security with the user,instead of the OS verifying the user and =
passing=20
  tha tinformation to thevarious parts of the OS.OS-X =
handles this=20
  "non-admin user doing admin things" very much betterthan =
Vista.  My=20
  forays into SuSe Linux also have shown that they handleit better =
as=20
  well.Once again, Microsoft is playing a poor game of catch-up =
with=20
  other OS'sin the security arena.  And I think that is the =
gist of his=20
 
commetns. /m

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C66574.A3926590--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5