this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
37 points (95.1% liked)
Cybersecurity
5918 readers
217 users here now
c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.
THE RULES
Instance Rules
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Community Rules
- Idk, keep it semi-professional?
- Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
- Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.
If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.
Learn about hacking
Other security-related communities [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Notable mention to [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To be honest, it actually does sound like a reasonable and security focused change. It basically looks to take a more zero trust kind of approach in regards to admin elevation.
UAC is a bandaid for a lack of proper local user account management. I never see it in Enterprise, nor on my home machines, as users have appropriate permissions, with admin being tightly controlled. (To be honest, I just turn it off on my home machines, run as a user, and if I need admin I switch accounts).
This really only affects home users who like to run as admin all the time (about 98% of us, I've been guilty of it most of my career).
I get it, I just don't see it really being a significant risk (this is related to a hack published perhaps a week ago where an attacker, could, potentially, maybe, gain admin by timing the attack perfectly during an install, but only on specific machines).
I'd take your word on it, OS level security is not my forte. The main thing I was calling out is that the change seems to be looking to actually fix an issue and not limit control, as the original commenter seemed to imply.