Um....yes it is. I've done extensive research in the programming of Vista and here's the lowdown. FIRST of all, XP also has a UAC, yes, its not as active, but Vista FAR overdoes it. All the UAC does in Vista is ask you if you're sure if you want to install something etc... As long as you're not stupid/visiting infected websites (which forefox now catches before it lets you go there) and blatantly downloading viruses (which any active virus scanner would catch anyways before it infected your system) the UAC simply asks if you're sure you want to do an action. Other than that IT SERVES NO SECURITY PURPOSE...
Vista UAC is more than how you've described it, and in no way is such a security model present in Windows XP editions.
UAC is a security model that's comparable to the security model in Linux and Mac OS X, that is, by default, applications and system services run with standard user, non-administrative, non-superuser privilages. If and only when administrative privilages are required, will Vista prompt the user for permission to elevate user privilages in a secure desktop environment, and run with such privilages only for the duration which it is needed.
Paul Thurrot's SuperSite for Windows - Windows Vista Feature Focus: User Account Control
A Closer Look at Windows Vista, Part I: Security Changes- Developer Zone - National Instruments
By default in XP, users run with complete administrative privilages, which consequently mean that all software including malware, also run with administrator privileges as well, thereby giving full access to the operating system. This is a major weakness in security, and this is why many XP users (even without anti-malware software) experience problems with functionality of the OS because system files such as IE files and the registry has been significantly altered, due to malware running with complete admin privilages. UAC also offers File System and Registry Virtualization giving a sandbox for compatability of legacy applications.
You may argue that not all users run as administrator in XP and instead use limited user accounts. But it's very primitive compared to UAC. Limited users can right click a program and 'run as' administrator, but many applications do not work correctly with that configuration. It's also very restrictive. For most administrative tasks, the user must log out of a limited account and log into an admin account. This is why many users continue to use administrator accounts. UAC alleviates this.
UAC does serve as a security purpose. Applications and system services cannot perform administrative tasks without your approval, which include malware. This means system files are protected.
All I'm saying, is that Vista didn't really do anything that third party programs couldn't allready do better...
...I couldn't disagree more. Based on the design of the Windows security programs, third party programs are still much better than then. In fact, I looked at the algorithms used in the Windows software...third party antivirus software from the mid-1990's is still better than this (not really, but you get my point) It MAY be a good second line of defense, but lets not kid ourselves....
The design of what Windows security programs? Windows Vista UAC and antivirus software are not two of the same thing. UAC is not anti-virus software. You can't benchmark the two, because they both have different primary purposes. In addition, the more lines of defence present, the more secure your system will likely be.
Antivirus software is not perfect. Many users do not update virus definitions, and many times will new viruses be deployed before antivirus vendors realise they exist, find out what they do to the system, and push out definitions for them to user's PCs. In addition, a lot of viruses cause significant damage to the operating system that is often irreversible / difficult to reverse that they must repair the OS or reformat.
Vista UAC is not designed to prevent malware from getting onto the system, that is the primary job of antivirus software. It is designed to prevent the unauthorised execution of such malware (or any program for that matter) occuring without the user's consent, when malware is already on the system, by giving the right privilages at the right time.
Basically what I'm saying is that Microsoft is not known for its anti-virus/malware, etc...programs. Would you buy an car made by an airplanne company? Its the same sort of thing with Vista. Other companies focus all their time at anti-virus...and it shows
No, microsoft is widely known for operating system software. Alwil and Grisoft are known for their antivirus software. Like I said in my previous post,
vista security features cannot replace antivirus software. This is why I have Avast! Antivirus installed on my Vista OS. Vista UAC simply adds an extra layer of security, which is superior to the security of Windows XP administrator accounts, and superior to the usability of the 'run-as' option of Windows XP limited user accounts.
.
