Originally posted by: tigersty1e
Even if the virus were named rivatuner.exe, I would click yes to grant access because I would think it was the Rivatuner program and not an actual virus.
Does that make sense?
Defeats the purpose of asking me, IMO.
Would you be clicking UAC prompts out of the blue when they popped if they were named after a program you trust? I don't think so. If I try to run Rivatuner and UAC prompts me, I know it's because the real program needs the token (the file's icon will indicate me that the program requires an admin token) and I will be expecting it. If I'm doing whatever, on the other hand, and UAC prompts me telling me rivatuner.exe wants to run, well, then I know something's fishy.
The whole purpose of UAC is too prevent the user from having admin privileges all the time(which is probably the no.1 reason Windows has always been so vulnerable) giving him temporary admin tokens to run programs instead. It's a compromise MS had to make in order to stop users from being admins all the time, without breaking most programs which do require admin privileges to run (many, many pre-vista apps require said privileges)
If it were possible to grant permanent permission to a program, it'd be easier for malware to exploit. Hence UAC calls for your attention everytime an admin token is required.