You can still manage and allow locked-down end-users to run apps using a 
Privilege Mgmt system.

Scriptlogic has a free one:  
http://www.scriptlogic.com/products/privilegeauthority/ 

Viewfinity has a more comprehensive one:  
http://www.viewfinity.com/Products/PrivilegeManagement/Default.aspx 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:47 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV

The model is fine.

I'll agree the transition from the default needed to happen. But quite frankly 
it would have broken a boatload of apps... should they have forced app 
developers hand sooner? Perhaps so, and that's is indeed a debate.

But the platform model is fine. 

Incidentally, I've been creating users as non-admins for years now. Long before 
OS X even had the concept.

-sc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:35 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV
> 
> Steven,
> I understand where you're coming from, however, I must respectfully 
> disagree. I think it's a security model problem, which makes it a 
> *PLATFORM* problem. In the "Windows World" up until recently, everyone 
> was a local admin by default. In the *nix world (of which Macs are a 
> member since OS/X came out) you are a non-privileged user by default 
> and had to manually escalate your privileges.
> Under the "old" Windows security model, anyone could install anything 
> they wanted. Under the *nix security model, only an "admin" (or 
> someone who had manually escalated their privileges temporarily) can install 
> something.
> Now, Microsoft has *finally* seen the error of making it so easy on 
> the end user and made it harder to run as a local admin by default.
> From what little I've seen of Windows 7, even if you are a member of 
> the "local admin" group, you may still have to manually use "run as an 
> administrator" to install software.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:26 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV
> 
> I'd suggest that's a people problem, not a platform problem.
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:23 AM
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV
> >
> > It wouldn't be as bad because ALL of those Mac users are non-admins.
> >
> > Compared with today's Windows population where probably 60% or more
> of
> > Windows users are admins for everyday usage.
> >
> > Carl
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:20 AM
> > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV
> >
> > I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that it probably wouldn't 
> > be as bad.
> >
> > I'd also suggest that there's a significant anti-MS sentiment that 
> > makes it a specific target. Along with the fact that I suspect that 
> > gunning for the #1 platform makes extrapolating OS share to virus 
> > infection target rate a non- linear exercise.
> >
> > -sc
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:13 AM
> > > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV
> > >
> > > I started to reply to that remark too, then I had a little debate 
> > > with myself whether I could make a good point... given that Macs 
> > > have had a non-admin user default for some time, while Microsoft 
> > > did nothing to encourage users to not be admins until Vista.
> > >
> > > Certainly if the tables were turned and Macs had 92% of the 
> > > worldwide market share, the infection rate of Macs would be much 
> > > higher than we see today.  But it probably wouldn't be nearly as 
> > > bad as Windows overall is
> > today.
> > >
> > > Carl
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:00 AM
> > > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV
> > >
> > > > While I am not a huge fan of MACS, their security model is 
> > > > obviously much better than Windows
> > >
> > > I'd suggest that's an ill-drawn conclusion.
> > >
> > > -sc
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email protected] 
> > > > [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:19 AM
> > > > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV
> > > >
> > > > Are there any reports out there that show Windows 7 running with 
> > > > UAC that its minimizes the infections of spyware.
> > > > While I am not a huge fan of MACS, their security model is 
> > > > obviously much better than Windows.  I am hoping that with Win 7 
> > > > and their requirement to run as admin similar to the Unix model 
> > > > that it will help minimize this.  Even with users not in admin 
> > > > group in Windows XP, Vista I have seen malware get right on and 
> > > > hose a
> machine.
> > > > Of course with Windows 7 if you make someone a local admin and 
> > > > disable the UAC you are back to the XP model of security.
> > > >
> > > > Of all our support requests I would say 40% at least are malware 
> > > > related probably higher..
> > > >
> > > > I see this as an OS security issue not a 3rd party program issue.
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Tammy [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:11 AM
> > > > To: NT System Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV
> > > >
> > > > Everyone seems to be having these issues of the rogues slipping
> through.
> > > > Not just any one AV.
> > > > 70 thousand or so new ones released daily so it is difficult for 
> > > > anyone to keep up.
> > > > More explained here by Eric Howes
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sunbeltsecuritynews.com/
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Tammy Stewart
> > > > Malware Removal Specialist
> > > > Sunbelt Software
> > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! 
> > > > ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  
> > > > ~
> > > >
> > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! 
> > > > ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  
> > > > ~
> > >
> > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ 
> > > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> > >
> > >
> > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ 
> > > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> >
> >
> > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
> > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> >
> >
> > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
> > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> 
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> 
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
<http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~




~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Reply via email to