Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletters
For more info on a specific newsletter, click the title. Details will be displayed in a new window.
Computerworld Daily News (First Look and Wrap-Up)
Computerworld Blogs Newsletter
The Weekly Top 10
More E-Mail Newsletters 
Preston Gralla's picture
Preston Gralla

Seeing Through Windows

Memo to Microsoft: Annoyance is not a security plan

Last week a Microsoft exec revealed that Vista's User Account Control (UAC) scheme was designed from the ground up to keep people safe by constantly annoying them. Microsoft needs to learn that security through annoyance isn't the way to keep users safe --- or to keep them as customers.

David Cross, a Microsoft product unit manager who helped develop UAC, told the RSA 2008 conference in San Francisco last week, "The reason we put UAC into the platform was to annoy users. I'm serious."

How does annoying users with endless prompts make them safer? Cross said that Microsoft hopes that annoying users will force software makers to create safer code. You'll have to bear with me as I explain this, because the thinking is rather convoluted.

Cross claimed that insecure code triggers UAC prompts. Software with too many UAC prompts, he said, would make it less likely that that users would want to run that software. Software makers (ISVs), seeing this, will write more secure code, so that they don't lose customers, he believes.

Here's how he explained it:

We needed to change the ecosystem. UAC is changing the ISV ecosystem; applications are getting more secure. This was our target--to change the ecosystem. The fact is that there are fewer applications causing prompts. Eighty percent of the prompts were caused by 10 apps, some from ISVs and some from Microsoft. Sixty-six percent of sessions now have no prompts.

The numbers sound impressive, but they don't actually say much. He notes, for example, that 66% of sessions now have no prompts, but doesn't say what percent of sessions had no prompts when Vista was launched. So we don't know whether the percent is going down, and whether UAC has in fact made applications safer.

Cross also cited figures showing that 88% of users are running UAC. That's not nearly as impressive as it sounds, though. UAC is turned on by default, and it'll take you a bit of digging to find out how to turn it off. Most users won't know that it even can be turned off, much less know how to do it.

I believe that there's a chance that UAC will make people less secure, not more secure. If you run Vista as an administrator, UAC is easier to deal with than if you run it as a normal user. So more people are likely to run it as an administrator, which by its very nature is less secure than running as a normal user.

Even if UAC does make people more secure, though, it's not the real answer to security woes. Microsoft needs to lock down the operating system better, not hope that by annoying users, the company will force software makers to write more secure code. The more it annoys people, the more they'll consider moving to an alternative operating system. At a time when Vista still hasn't gotten widespread acceptance, that's the last thing that Microsoft needs.

What People Are Saying

Outrageous

The fact that Microsoft would publicly buff its nails over the apparent fact that it purposely annoyed millions of people -- using its users' frustration with Vista's UAC as a means of bludgeoning ISVs into beefing up security -- is another breathtaking example of what's gone so wrong in Redmond this decade.

Like the minicomputer companies before it, Microsoft has grown complacent about its captive customer base. It's not just end users who have to put up with this. IT helpdesks have to deal with user frustration and confusion too.

What is Microsoft thinking?

XP ain't broke, don't fix it!

I bought an HP to upgrade speed and power, and this damned VISTA was pre-installed. How f****** annoying can it get! So I went on-line and ordered a new machine with XP (my business needs XP for compatibility with client systems). The Vista system was a waste of money -- can you say "planned obsolescence"? I use XP and it does the job. Iwill never buy another machine with Vista OS, or any other MS "work in Progress"???. Wise up, Ballmer, I know you're too rich to care, but Mr. Softee is melting because it doesn't care about its customers.

Tired of being ripped off for upgrades that don't improve anything. Vista goes in the closet -- what we need is a competitor for MS that will make it possible to keep XP.

UAC

so according to MS numbers, there have been about 100 million licenses sold (all of which are of course still on the computer .. yeah right) and 88% have UAC running, so 12% of 100 million (or 120,0000) have not.

Put 120,000 high powered PCs together and you'd have a really nice botnet! I'm sure the bad guys would love to get their hands on those.

However, back to the point. Like a previous poster pointed out, people will just hit the allow button after a while.

Designing something to annoy people is nuts, and assuming people learn to avoid specific sites, how exactly are those site managers going to learn about this new wave of boycotts?

Does MS track these things by some form of spyware, and then pass the message along?

Did they build in a reporting mechanism to let those sites know that a specific PC has refused to connect?

I hope neither, but with MS you just never know.

If not, just how does this work? Or perhaps MS didn't take the thought process that far, they just stopped at annoying people.

Preston Gralla Opinions! Click HERE!!

Preston, you haven't fingered it out yet, have you? No one cares what you have to say. No one wants your opinion anymore. You have revealed your ignorance with at least two of your recent posts. I would rather read a technical document about **ENTER DEADLY-BORING SUBJECT MATTER HERE** than stomach your hideous, ill-processed thought patterns.

Please quit ComputerWorld.

Please.

Ignore Joe Mamma

he just likes to complain; most of what you have to say is interesting...

- David

Yet another reason to switch

Yet another reason to switch to Linux or a MAC it is easier to switch than put up with Stuck on Stupid security by annoyance.

Move to a different OS that doesn't annoy you

My sister just bought a new iMac rather than go to Vista, and she is loving it. All the annoyances from her previous XP, from all the anti-virus/anti-spyware protection crud is gone and she is discovering all kinds of things.

Of course she bought Parallels so she could install XP if she needs it. She bought Mac Office 2008 because she is used to Office or actually that is what everyone has told her she needs. She has installed the basic games she likes to play on Windows, and I guesstimate it will be a few months before she starts buying Mac specific software when she needs/wants something.

It takes a bit of time, but I've seen several people switch and they tell me they don't want to go back to Windows EVER! Annoying your customers and treating them like they are thieves and making a less than stellar product is driving people away from Windows in droves. I'm sure the people at Apple appreciate all the help that Microsoft is giving Apple in increasing the Mac market share.

UAC is a good thing, it is a

UAC is a good thing, it is a plan. We need more developers like Google (talk.google.com) that code their installers to work in a non admin environment. The whole notion that you need admin rights to run or even install an app is completely bogus. Try installing google talk with UAC on, I bet you will not get a prompt. http://talk.google.com

This is to push users and developers into non admin environments. Makes one more secure, and that is how it should be.

Useless feature

Most people turn this feature off and is one of the most useless features in the history of Windows.

Agreed...Most that know how turn it off...

Will, and the others will always answer yes. It is very very similar to ZoneAlarm and it's endless prompts which users just got used to saying "Allow" to so that they could function.