You make the same mistake as many does, separating UAC from the other Windows features. From where the software comes from? when you click on it, what say Smartscreen and Windows Defender? UAC isn't supposed to work alone.
The associated guide may contain user-generated or external content.
You make the same mistake as many does, separating UAC from the other Windows features. From where the software comes from? when you click on it, what say Smartscreen and Windows Defender? UAC isn't supposed to work alone.
- Aug 2, 2015
- 4,286
Yeah, this is the problem, only one link in the chain. UAC is too dependent on
other factors.
By the time it gets to UAC the other two will most likely have failed.
Smart Screen and VS that's the way to go for me.
And your right UAC "can't" work alone, VS can
- May 14, 2016
- 1,597
Best UAC protection :Thanks for sharing your knowledge
And don't you suggest to use standard account ? I always use it ( and max UAC)
Unfortunately I saw some videos where , even if you click " no" in UAC popup, the ransomware( and maybe other malwares ) start encrypting : why ?
Thank you
From : hfiref0x
- UAC turned on maximum level and full awareness about every window it will show;
- Account without administrative privileges.
- Hybrid method, abusing Microsoft Management Console and incorrect dll loading scheme, works from Windows 7 up to 10rs2 14955;
- Hybrid method, abusing SxS DotLocal and targeting sysprep, works from Windows 7 up to 10rs2 14955;
- Hybrid method, abusing SxS DotLocal and targeting consent to gain system privileges, works from Windows 7 up to 10rs2 14955;
- Hybrid method, abusing Package Manager and DISM, works from Windows 7 up to 10rs2 14955.
Last edited:
- Aug 23, 2016
- 193
UAC enabled to the default level.
I don' think so, UAC pop up appears , he clicks no, but starts encrypting
- May 14, 2016
- 1,597
click here => Why UAC should be taken seriously
=> the both conditions were used ?
If not, methods described can be used, and a lot of more under windows 7
Last edited:
Because Misha doesn't require elevation. Petya, however, does.
If you click yes on UAC then Petya will execute, if you click no then Misha will instead. So no, that isn't a bypass.
I'm not sure if Microsoft exclusively only told me this secret but I will make it blow on the world-wide internet by sharing it for everyone (sorry Microsoft, please don't sue me!): UAC is and never will be an Anti-Ransomware replacement.
I'm not sure if Microsoft exclusively only told me this secret but I will make it blow on the world-wide internet by sharing it for everyone (sorry Microsoft, please don't sue me!): UAC is and never will be an Anti-Ransomware replacement.
But it should not allow the execution , or not ?
- Aug 23, 2016
- 193
Depends on the situation. For example, a malware launcher to the payload may attempt to run the program as administrator, and if this fails then it might move on to another method which may be able to work without triggering UAC or actually directly "bypassing" it (circumvention without "bypass").
E.g. encryption of personal documents which won't be a "protected" directory...
People , read go to Microsofoft section of the forum , i made some pinned thread a while ago : Microsoft
Read them all.
lol ^^
UAC is not an anti-executable , it is an anti-elevator:
- if malware need elevation, boom ! UAC pop up.
- if malware don't need elevation : malware is free to do what it wants; no UAC popup will appears. but before that point the malware must pass Smartscreen and Windows Defender check.
my Windows setup:
- Standard User Account with a tweak to deny elevation requests from unsigned executables.
- Smartscreen to Max.
- UAC to Max.
- UAC ask my admin password everytime.
Just with that 95% of malware are blocked at the source. All my 3rd party security softs are here to fill the 5% left.
Read them all.
I'm not sure if Microsoft exclusively only told me this secret but I will make it blow on the world-wide internet by sharing it for everyone (sorry Microsoft, please don't sue me!): UAC is and never will be an Anti-Ransomware replacement.
lol ^^
UAC is not an anti-executable , it is an anti-elevator:
- if malware need elevation, boom ! UAC pop up.
- if malware don't need elevation : malware is free to do what it wants; no UAC popup will appears. but before that point the malware must pass Smartscreen and Windows Defender check.
my Windows setup:
- Standard User Account with a tweak to deny elevation requests from unsigned executables.
- Smartscreen to Max.
- UAC to Max.
- UAC ask my admin password everytime.
Just with that 95% of malware are blocked at the source. All my 3rd party security softs are here to fill the 5% left.
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
UAC is just equivalent as a gate or door on your home; and if someone attempt to access in such shortcut then its a vulnerability.
Maximum settings can be equivalent on burglar alarms in case of untoward incident.
People should take it seriously to verify the information like we do on daily lives.
Maximum settings can be equivalent on burglar alarms in case of untoward incident.
People should take it seriously to verify the information like we do on daily lives.
- Aug 23, 2016
- 193
I disabled again the UAC it is way too annoying for me and I can say I can do without it.
- Aug 2, 2015
- 4,286
If your going to do that, even I admit you need something in it's placeI disabled again the UAC it is way too annoying for me and I can say I can do without it.
VoodooShield is a good surrogate so install it or turn back on UAC
And Password Protect VS
I will leave UAC on high alert,thanks for sharing
Last edited by a moderator:
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
@Wave GREAT post dude.
@Umbra yes the UAC story is like any software story, since self proclaimed experts focus on a tiny part rather then the program itself.
So the firewall sucks? then the whole program is bad. Where in-fact many of today's commercially available software have weaker modules build in, but as a whole program with every function working in tandem it often beat standalone applications.
@All others.
Like UAC or not but it does work and is needed, anyone not understanding that has failed their machine config before you actually did install windows, and you have sort of backstabbed ANY security application you might install after that. Since UAC, Smartscreen and many of these features work as trigger points for additional security to kick in.
Finally if malware requires actions from you, clicking for example then : IT DOES NOT CAUSE YOUR PROTECTION TO FAIL. Your happy click finger does tho... Because malware that is user action based can ALWAYS overcome security programs since your click finger decided so when you clicked the file. its like handing over the keys to your house to a strange person and then wondering why your HIFI, Dolby, 3D quantum television got stolen.
Malware is no different.
But if you would not have clicked that file, then in 9 out of 10 times your security would have given you LOADS of info why you should or should not click a file.
I am so done with "ohh my security failed it sucks" when YOUR finger did click the file.
or did your security program told you: Yes do click that file, we got it covered... lol really?
@Umbra yes the UAC story is like any software story, since self proclaimed experts focus on a tiny part rather then the program itself.
So the firewall sucks? then the whole program is bad. Where in-fact many of today's commercially available software have weaker modules build in, but as a whole program with every function working in tandem it often beat standalone applications.
@All others.
Like UAC or not but it does work and is needed, anyone not understanding that has failed their machine config before you actually did install windows, and you have sort of backstabbed ANY security application you might install after that. Since UAC, Smartscreen and many of these features work as trigger points for additional security to kick in.
Finally if malware requires actions from you, clicking for example then : IT DOES NOT CAUSE YOUR PROTECTION TO FAIL. Your happy click finger does tho... Because malware that is user action based can ALWAYS overcome security programs since your click finger decided so when you clicked the file. its like handing over the keys to your house to a strange person and then wondering why your HIFI, Dolby, 3D quantum television got stolen.
Malware is no different.
But if you would not have clicked that file, then in 9 out of 10 times your security would have given you LOADS of info why you should or should not click a file.
I am so done with "ohh my security failed it sucks" when YOUR finger did click the file.
or did your security program told you: Yes do click that file, we got it covered... lol really?
Last edited:
- Aug 23, 2016
- 193
If your going to do that, even I admit you need something in it's place
VoodooShield is a good surrogate so install it or turn back on UAC
And Password Protect VS
Done. Thanks, CG.
Similar threads
