|
Number_6 posted:Windows 7 is a bitch with permissions and ownership issues, I'm too much of a novice when it comes to PC security and account types to really absorb it all. But I've had problems with games that use manually-edited config files or saved games in "Program Files" subdirectories. The reason for permissions is not to fight you, it's to fight malware and malicious/idiotic users. If you have 100% complete access to everything on the system, what happens when a piece of malware gets on your system from some javascript or flash exploit? It inherits all of those same privileges and can mess with any files for any reason with no restrictions. This is how it was on windows 95/98/2k/xp and that's why viruses could completely infect those systems without giving any hint at all that they were there. Also, believe it or not, many computers are used for multiple users. If every user had full permissions to everything, then what's to stop an rear end in a top hat user from deleting your poo poo or purposely making the system unbootable?
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
^^ this Microsoft doesn't write operating systems for Mr. Overconfident Power User, they write them for Mr. Clicks Pop-Up Ads and Mr. Never Installs Updates. The vast majority of users need the OS to tell them "WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO IS A HORRIBLE IDEA." Also, it's folly to think that because you've "never had an issue" in the past decade, that's somehow proof that you won't in the future. Most malware these days doesn't come from stupid email attachments or something obvious like that; it comes from drive-by exploits using javascript, flash, and acrobat where you're none the wiser that it was ever there (and they are often from legitimate websites as well). One of these days you'll come across one and you'll be glad when proper user controls stop it. Also, most viruses and rootkits do not advertise their presence. Unless you were actively scanning for them, it's entirely possible you've had them on your system all these years anyway. I'm not talking about you here, but I have friends who do not use any antivirus protection and claim that they've "never had a virus," but without an antivirus how would they ever know?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
Hi windows guys, I'm having a strange problem with network shares and I assume the megathread would be the best place to start. I'm a unix admin so I apologize if this is something dumb. We have a setup at our warehouse with two xp pro machines, one acts as a ups worldship server and one acts as a remote workstation. The remote workstation mounts a share from the "server" and this setup has been running great literally for years. Now all of the sudden it keeps losing its connection to the share, saying "Login failure: unknown username or bad password." But if I just disconnect and reconnect to the share, it works fine again (without even prompting for any credentials). Then a couple days later the same thing happens. This machine has a bunch of network shares pushed to it via group policy and those shares never have this problem. This one particular share is not done via group policy (because it's not shared from the domain controller, but rather from that xp machine on-site, and plus it's only used on this one computer) and it's the only one where this happens. Background on the rest of the infrastructure: samba on freebsd is the domain controller, the warehouse location connects to the main network at our office via an ipsec tunnel. Google suggesting checking the clocks on the two machines and they are both correct. Does anyone have any idea what's happening? It's worked great for years and nothing has changed. EDIT: I should clarify that this is just a regular windows share. It's not some special UPS-specific thing. lazer_chicken fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Nov 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
I've got a question for you windows guys. I've got a Server 2008 R2 machine with a very large disk usage discrepancy. I'm well aware of WinSXS and the shadow copy service but this discrepancy is to the point of being absurd. Plus this is 2008 so there is no system restore. The disk shows 59.5G used but all of the visible and hidden folders on the disk are only 15.4G. That's almost four times the space. How is there 45G of shadow copy space being used for only a 15.4G install? The only thing this machine does is host Exchange. Is this expected behavior or is there something funky going on? FAKE EDIT: the Exchange data is on another disk, thus the low usage on this disk.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 18:19
|
|