I can no longer remember the details, and, as I tried to express, I'm sure there was a way to make it work. But, I am certain that it did not work in a default configuration. It is possible that it was an issue with Windows 2000, and not XP; too long ago to really remember. Bill Mayo
________________________________ From: Steve Ens [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:18 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: WTF? Fake AV No, I have all my users running Outlook (2003 and 2007 and 2010) without any special group membership...just regular users. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Mayo, Bill <[email protected]> wrote: I didn't mean to imply that you had to be an admin, but you can't run Outlook 2003 on Windows 2000/XP as a regular user out of the box (I assume the same would be true even if the OS was a higher version, but I don't know). When we were going to XP (many years ago), we wanted to change our staff to be just regular users (member of Users group only) on the computers at the same time and did testing. We found that you could not run Outlook 2003, unless you were at least a member of Power Users. As you know, being a Power User is not a whole lot different than being an administrator (many documented ways for a Power User to make themselves an Administrator if desired). These days, you can use tools like LUA Buglight to figure out how to tweak the permissions to account for such things. To this day, we still run into stuff from vendors that "require" administrator permissions to run. (Again, reference the LUA Buglight comment above.) Bill Mayo -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:07 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV " I mean, when you cannot even run Outlook without elevated permissions, it becomes kind of pointless (based on Outlook 2003 not working as a regular user)." What? We have 1000's of non-admin Outlook users. Going back a couple of versions. -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:03 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > That one sent me to Google. The quote is accurate, but I thought the stated > reason was interesting as well. As I interpet it, he says that in most any > browser it is easy to find bugs (in which he can place things into memory), > but that the actual exploit is easier in Mac OS because "I put the code into a > process and I know exactly where it's going to be". I have to assume that is a > browser issue, not an OS issue, because Mac OS X has been using "system > library randomization" > for a while now. (I understand that the OS needs to control/limit what the > application does.) As I have said before on this forum, you can say what you > will about the reasons why there is an extremely minimal amount of malware > on the Mac as compared to Windows (70,000 new per day!), but the fact > remains that you are much "safer" running Mac OS X today than you are > Windows. Mac OS X does have some issues that need to be addressed, and I > think you will see more of that real soon now, as they have recently had > some high profile hires in that area. > > That said, I still think the original statement that the "security model is > better" is something of a different animal. The security model to me is more > of a general philosophy of how the user relates to the operating system. > Mac OS X, which is based on BSD Unix, uses the multi-user, least-privilege > model and has since day 1. Whether designed for it or not, that has not been > the model in use in the Windows world until relatively recently. I mean, > when you cannot even run Outlook without elevated permissions, it > becomes kind of pointless (based on Outlook > 2003 not working as a regular user). > > Bill Mayo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:27 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: WTF? Fake AV > > On 28 Apr 2010 at 11:00, Steven M. Caesare wrote: > > > > 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. > > +1. Charlie Miller, the Pwn20wn champ three years running, hacks Macs > +by > choice over Windows because he says they're easier to hack. > > -- > Angus Scott-Fleming > GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona > 1-520-290-5038 > Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/ > > > > > > ~ 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/> ~
