On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:07:48 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:32:32 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Vista's UAC needs an overhaul. Ideas?
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| It seems like everyone, other than possibly Microsoft's Vista team
>>>| itself, seems to believe that the User Account Control (UAC) in
>>>| Vista already needs an overhaul.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=277
>>>
>>> Lots and lots of criticisms below.
>>
>> To those people that continue to believe that Roy isn't creating
>> fraudulent headlines, please tell me where in the reference article it
>> says anything about Microsoft acknowledging that UAC is a Failure.
>>
>> It's not there.
>>
>> Roy is a liar.
>
> http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/02/12/638372.aspx
>
> /quote
> It should be clear then, that neither UAC elevations nor Protected Mode IE
> define new Windows security boundaries. Microsoft has been communicating
> this but I want to make sure that the point is clearly heard. Further, as
> Jim Allchin pointed out in his blog post Security Features vs Convenience,
> Vista makes tradeoffs between security and convenience, and both UAC and
> Protected Mode IE have design choices that required paths to be opened in
> the IL wall for application compatibility and ease of use.
> /unquote
>
>
> Care to dispute that also, Erik "FUDdingmuch" Funkenbusch?
Even if your quote said what Roy's headline did (which it doesn't), Roy is
still making a fraudulent headline.
|
|
