Enable blocked startups in Vista without disabling UAC

[Navid]

Many complain that Vista asks for permission to start a program every time at startup.
One example is Everest.

Microsoft tells you to check with the publisher of the program.
http://windowshelp.microsoft.c...-086fb50f1afa1033.mspx
If a program that you want to run at startup is being blocked, check the publisher's website to see if there is an updated version of the program available that doesn't require permission or an administrator password to run.


This link explains how to avoid that without disabling UAC.
http://forums.slickdeals.net/s....php?sduid=0&p=6509411



Any reason why Microsoft does not suggest this as an option?

 

[jonmcc33]

Thanks for the find!

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Navid
Any reason why Microsoft does not suggest this as an option?

This might be relevant to your question: http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsv...ss-the-uac-prompt.aspx

If you read that, you can see they basically want software vendors to finally grow up and stop expecting to get root access to your Windows system all the time without evar being questioned about it.

Random point in case: QuickBooks. The versions I've dealt with insist on having at least Power User privileges (basically Admin) or they won't run. WTH does an accounting program need that kind of Windows privileges for? 😕 And oh yes, there was a QuickBooks exploit fairly recently which would then get those privileges too. If Microsoft succeeds in weaning these guys from their Admin addictions, then the potential impact of such threats is significantly lower.

 

[Navid]

There are programs that need access to the sensors to show the temperature of the CPU.
Such programs often get blocked at startup.


That was not really my question.
If you read the link I provided, you can see that there is an easy way to fix this using scheduled tasks.

My question is if this (using the scheduled tasks to start such programs) is an unacceptable practice, which would jeopardize the security of a machine.

If yes, why is it allowed?

If no, why is Microsoft not suggesting it instead of "If a program ......, check the publisher's ... an updated version ..... that doesn't require permission ..."?

 

[SynthDude2001]

I've been doing this for months for A64Info (monitors temps and changes RAM timings, etc.). Works well...

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Navid
why is Microsoft not suggesting it instead of "If a program ......, check the publisher's ... an updated version ..... that doesn't require permission ..."?

If the manufacturer does make a version which can work without requiring Admin-level permissions, then that's certainly preferable from an exploit-containment viewpoint, so that would probably be the answer to the question I bolded above.

Why they don't suggest any possible workarounds. might simply be that they don't want to encourage software vendors to keep deluding themselves that they'll always be able to get root access somehow. But that's just my educated guess.