-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
How I can dissable windows XP loggon passwords
- Thread starter xMax
- Start date
Nocturnal
Lifer
What version of Windows are you using? For Home, from what I understand, that screen cannot be removed unless you have one account and one account only. I THINK! Otherwise, make sure your little brother has a non-administrator account. This will keep him from changing your password.
I am assuming the computer has two users you and your brother.
Your account type should be set up as "Computer administrator"
Your brothers's account type should be set up as "Limited"
That way only you and the real "Administrator" user can change passwords.
There is also a hidden user called "Administrator". To get to it:
When the graphic user login selection is shown hit the three keys CTRL+ALT+DELETE at the same time.
You can enter Administrator for user name there.
It is possible your brother is accessing your computer this way and changing all the other passwords. In case he has changed the Administrator passord to something you do not know you can still change it if you're account type is also "Computer administrator". To change the "Administrator" user passord:
Select: Start->Run
Type: control userpasswords2
When the dialog comes up:
Select user: Administrator
select: Reset Password button
Enter and confirm new password
There is no reason why a user can't have an "Admininistror type account". Otherwise you have to jump back and forth between user account and Admininistror account just to install a lot of software.
I have to make a correction for Windows XP Home users. With XP Home hitting CTRL+ALT+DELETE does bring up the login dialog but the real Admininistror is not allowed to log in this way. For XP Home the Admininistror must log in by booting,hitting F8 and selecting Safe Mode. The Admininistror will in the list of users.
Do you really thing users should be required to go into safe mode to install software that requires the Admininistror to be the installer?
The Windows XP installaton requires at least one user. This user is by default is a "System Administrator". All other user can be set to whatever type the "System Administrator" chooses.
BTW, your comment only shows that you must either be a newbie or have a "limited" mind. These types need to have limited accounts since they can't be trusted with real administrator duties or they might break something.
Using an admin account for day to day tasks is one of the dumbest things you can do.
No, they should use "Run as..."
Yeah, I'm a newbie. I'm new to this whole com-pu-tar thang. I've never read a security best practices document, and I've definitely never written one.
The thought that users control everything that goes on, and are generally smart enough to do so hints at a lack of experience in the real world.
Stuff happens, limit the exposure by using a limited account. Anything else is stupid.
You missed the point of this thread. This was for a home computer.
Computers for company and government use usually limit normal users privileges. Of course they have dedicated administrator users to handle things such as software installation.
Every home computer I know of has the resposible person for the computer as the administrator. This is how Windows XP set itself up when it is installed. Very few people know of the hidden real Administrator. Windows XP home block access from this user except in Safe mode. Windows XP Professional allows the user to log into this account using the CTRL-ALT-DELETE method.
Unfortunately when new users are added the default access is "administrator". These must manualy be changed to "limited".
You forget that active users of computers must perform many tasks such as software installation that requires administrator priveleges. Most experienced home users find it to their advantage to have administrator priveleges for their login.
BTW, I have 35 years experience with computers and a MS in Computer Science. I have experience in System Administration and Software Engineering. I have used computer from embedded controllers to Cray super computers. Before you start calling people names, belittling their views and acting like a know it all don't you think you need a little more experience.
lxskllr
No Lifer
What n0cmonkey's getting at is it's a security risk to run day to day activities under an administrater account. Running as such opens your computer up to outside attacks that otherwise wouldn't occur if you were using a limited account.
That said, I run under a administrater account for everyday use, but I'm on dialup so the threat to the rest of the internet is reduced, and the info on my computer isn't that important. Also I backup reguarly and enjoy the convenience of running as administrater. I'm not the best example to follow though, n0cmonkeys advice is better.
That said, I run under a administrater account for everyday use, but I'm on dialup so the threat to the rest of the internet is reduced, and the info on my computer isn't that important. Also I backup reguarly and enjoy the convenience of running as administrater. I'm not the best example to follow though, n0cmonkeys advice is better.
Panther505
Senior member
He didn't- you did. The point is that running on a system in a day to day roll as an Administrator user is not a good security model. Just because that is what Microsoft sets up by default, does not make it the best pratices.
True. They do that so that a normal user can't do bad things on their computers that can kill the network. Working at a Fortune 100 company and seeing the network die because of the fact that the policy is to make the default user account Admin, and then complain about virus propagation is kinda silly but our CIO/BIE do it all the time.
Again, just because this is the security model that MS uses, and that has proven time and again to be a problem, doe that make it right? Probably not. Maybe they need to look at the way that Open BSD does it?
Most virus writers find this to their advantage also. Even with the advances that MS has made in security, this is still the reason that viri propagate the way that they do and why the windows boxes run them like wildfire.
And my guess is that you have used Unix? Then this should make sense to you. Linux, Unix and the *BSDs all use privilege separation. Why would this be an acceptable idea on big iron and not on a home computer?
And the same advice that you give to n0cmonkey, you should take into account yourself. n0cmonkey's post count and expertise shows through out the forums. Next time look at the argument rationally instead of a knee-jerk reaction..
Panther505
I do not undestand everyone all the rambling about what is best in theory. I agree what you say is true but most home users do not feel that way. To them a computer is just a tool to be used for whatever they decide they need it for.
Every computer needs an administrator because some tasks require it. In theory Home users should have a seperate administrator and user account for the computer owner. Very few Home users will do this. Why should they when they can get done with they have with one account. My first post was gving practical advice to a home user. After that people have jumped in spouting theory about why that prcatical advice was stupid. This thread stated with someone asking for practical advice. Rants in theory belong in seperate threads. Also, flaming belongs in another more fitting forum.
True, but what's the point...
It does not make it right or wrong. BSD and UNIX were designed from the ground up as multiuser O/Ss where security was important. Windows does not have that heritage. Windows is flexible enough to have little or no security if the user wishes or a lot of security if that is needed. Even without Microsoft's monopoly Linux or BSD will never be accepted by home user's because of the difficulty of use and uneeded and unwanted security would not be accepted. Are you saying that for their own good home users should be forced to use something they do not want. Also, a lot of home computer with only one user have no login at all. Bad or not that is what they want.
Viruses run wild on Windows because it is by far the most wildly use O/S. If Linux or BSD was more widely used then they would be targeted by viruses. What does this have to do with the thread anyways?
I have used a number of O/S including UNIX and linux. Again what is true for them should not be forced on home users just because they have a superior security model for some users.
I respect n0cmonkey's post count as a user who probably has done much for this forum. I have always been respecfull to users who deserve it. I enjoy having civil discussion and do not mind when people disagree with me. I will not let it lie when someone treats me with disrespect by calling my opinions "retarded" and "stupid". If having a large post count entitles that user to put down others then maybe I am just naive. If you and others here think that way then I will have lost respect for people like that and this forum as a whole.
foodfightr
Golden Member
:thumbsup: