DIGIT-ARC read-only archive · snapshot: July 23, 2026

Windows 7 Security Flaw is "By Design"

33 posts · originally from https://geek.digit.in/community/threads/windows-7-security-flaw-is-by-design.108029/

topgear
topgear Original post #1
Feb 5, 2009 at 6:14 AM
It is well known now that User Account Control (UAC) in Windows 7 is more customizable than in Windows Vista. With several levels of notification, the system can be "tamed" so that it doesn't ask for permission to do every task. However, the default setting that most people will run has an inherent flaw that will allow a malicious script or program to trick users into disabling UAC, without causing a UAC security prompt to occur.

Vista users complained about UAC, so Microsoft offers four levels of notification in Windows 7. The default option is “Notify me only when programs try to make changes to my computer” and “Don’t notify me when I make changes to Windows settings”. A security certificate is used to distinguish Windows settings from third-party software, thus preventing prompts when changes are made to these settings.


The problem lies with the fact that when a user alters UAC settings, it is considered a "change to Windows settings" by the default notification level. Therefore UAC's notification level can be altered, or even disabled altogether, and the user would not be prompted to actually consent to it.


A basic proof-of-concept VBscript has been made public that demonstrates how simple it is to disable UAC automatically. A sequence of keyboard inputs is emulated to perform this simple task, alongside Sleep and Run methods. It is also possible to force a restart after UAC has been toggled off to force the user to run with full administrative rights. Malicious programs can then freely alter the system now that they have sufficient privileges to do so.


It would be simple for Microsoft to fix this security hole before the OS ships out. All that is needed is to force a UAC secure desktop prompt to occur whenever UAC settings are changed, regardless of current level of notification. The user would then have to click "yes" to render their system open to attack, so while the fix is not bullet-proof, it is better than requiring no user intervention at all.


Microsoft responded to the publication of this security flaw stating that in order for this vulnerability to be exploited, a user's computer would have to contain malicious code already, which means other security software has failed to prevent this or the user has explicitly allowed it. Also, on Microsoft Connect, submissions made regarding this flaw were all closed and labeled as "By Design."


It is important to note that only users that are part of the Administrative user group will be vulnerable, as Standard users will require an administrative password to make these changes (whether they are initiated by the user or by scripts). However, since the default user group is Administrative, most home users, especially those with only a single user account, will be vulnerable.

Source : *www.tomsguide.com/us/windows-7-uac-vista,news-3416.html

Take look at here also : *www.withinwindows.com/2009/01/30/malware-can-turn-off-uac-in-windows-7-by-design-says-microsoft
Faun
Faun #2
Feb 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM
lolwut? It was expected

Catering to noobs and pros.
JojoTheDragon
Feb 5, 2009 at 7:27 AM
I thought that win7 was better than vista's security. Lol
G
Feb 5, 2009 at 7:36 AM
Win7 would be worse than win98
hellknight
Feb 5, 2009 at 8:14 AM
Microsoft needs to release a solid version of Windows or end the Windows brand and focus on their new operating system called Midori
Pat
Pat #6
Feb 5, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Already posted :p
comp@ddict
Feb 5, 2009 at 12:35 PM
So, win7's future looking shaky here
Dark Core
Feb 5, 2009 at 4:42 PM
If M$ falls down in Win 7, it wil b hard 4 them to rule 0S market. They know that and won't try 2 let it down. I hate using linux, don't know why but doesn't come near to Windows for me :-/
Faun
Faun #9
Feb 5, 2009 at 7:04 PM
^^M$ wont fail as long as users like you are clinging to it.
Liverpool_fan
Feb 5, 2009 at 7:11 PM
That is what happens when the design is secure as an afterthought, rather than by design...
topgear
topgear #11
Feb 6, 2009 at 6:10 AM
Windows 7 is in still beta stage. So I think they will fix it in the final version & so it's release will be delayed like vista.

For M$ market share - A huge numbers of gamers have to use windows despite of knowing it has more flaws & security holes than linux as many DX based games just won't run ( or run properly ) on linux.
gxsaurav
gxsaurav #12
Feb 6, 2009 at 2:03 PM
The issue has been fixed in the latest internal built of Windows 7.
x3060
x3060 #13
Feb 7, 2009 at 1:44 AM
thats great to hear, i hope they would do well this time. i just like the number "7". :)
chooza
chooza #14
Feb 7, 2009 at 2:11 AM
WOw. another MS bashing thread. Do some research of such kinds on other OS'es also.

So, win7's future looking shaky here

Yaar. Full & stable versin release toh hone de. Abhi se bhavishyawani karne laga.
iMav
iMav #15
Feb 7, 2009 at 2:19 AM
It's gonna be fixed. MSFT has admitted to the flaw in UAC & have said on the Win 7 blog that it will be fixed in the RC release.
chooza
chooza #16
Feb 7, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Win7 would be worse than win98

Oh I see! I think that you had worked on all the code of Win7. Right???? Dont make such statement when you dont know anything. and there are many difference between India and America. Some of them are:

1. In India you remain with your parents in their old age and do not throw them in old age homes, not in America.
2. In India, you do not sleep with you gf when your parents are with you.
3. In India, there is still some decency left for girls and kids. They are not only meant to do ***.
iMav
iMav #17
Feb 7, 2009 at 2:45 AM
That is what happens when the design is secure as an afterthought, rather than by design...
Actually its the other way round, people on many forums cried like babies because of the UAC in Vista & when it was relaxed because of the troubled souls they are now criticizing it for being weak. Microsoft - damned if they do, damned if they don't.
infra_red_dude
Feb 7, 2009 at 6:32 AM
^^^ Fully agree with you!

Win 7 is still in beta, give MS a chance!!! Bash if you find all this in the final release. How can anyone expect a beta version to be perfect??!! Beats me!
MetalheadGautham
Feb 7, 2009 at 8:44 AM
When is the RC expected to be out ?

And when is the Windows 7 launch date ? I am eagerly waiting for Windows 7 Home Basic edition. Its propably the BEST version of windows to use and buy.
Garbage
Garbage #20
Feb 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Oh I see! I think that you had worked on all the code of Win7. Right???? Dont make such statement when you dont know anything. and there are many difference between India and America. Some of them are:

1. In India you remain with your parents in their old age and do not throw them in old age homes, not in America.
2. In India, you do not sleep with you gf when your parents are with you.
3. In India, there is still some decency left for girls and kids. They are not only meant to do ***.
Reported!
Reason - OFFTOPIC

[ontopic]
Before commenting, we should wait for final release.
I won't say it's too bad, but installation of Windows 7 Beta failed 4 times on my lappy. :D

Any way, it's good that M$ is fixing it's os.
[/ontopic]
Pat
Pat #21
Feb 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Actually its the other way round, people on many forums cried like babies because of the UAC in Vista & when it was relaxed because of the troubled souls they are now criticizing it for being weak. Microsoft - damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Really ? There were just too many (stupid) UAC prompts during Vista and that was the reason why people complained. Does that mean that in the next version, MS will let anyone (any script) completely disable UAC without the user even knowing ?? :rolleyes:
C
Feb 7, 2009 at 3:06 PM
But I simply don't understand why the first user is created with full admin privileges? Why can't they just create a restricted default account? That to me is a design flaw in how most Windows systems (at least at homes) get installed and run. Users cannot be blamed for this. This is what makes Windows so difficult to maintain safely by not so techie users.

Since some of Windows fanboys spoke of Linux here, I gotta say Linux (esp Ubuntu) gets it right. root is completely disabled by default. A power user who knows the consequences can enable it if needed. All programs run by user are run as normal users no simple yes/no prompt to run as admin. Even admin programs which automatically prompt for password are prefixed with "gksu" in the menu item. If a user downloads a random program from mail/web and runs it, at the most it can wipe his home dir clean unless he specifically prefixes it with sudo/gksu and gives the password. That is where "secure by design" comes in.
Liverpool_fan
Feb 7, 2009 at 3:54 PM
But I simply don't understand why the first user is created with full admin privileges? Why can't they just create a restricted default account? That to me is a design flaw in how most Windows systems (at least at homes) get installed and run. Users cannot be blamed for this. This is what makes Windows so difficult to maintain safely by not so techie users.

Since some of Windows fanboys spoke of Linux here, I gotta say Linux (esp Ubuntu) gets it right. root is completely disabled by default. A power user who knows the consequences can enable it if needed. All programs run by user are run as normal users no simple yes/no prompt to run as admin. Even admin programs which automatically prompt for password are prefixed with "gksu" in the menu item. If a user downloads a random program from mail/web and runs it, at the most it can wipe his home dir clean unless he specifically prefixes it with sudo/gksu and gives the password. That is where "secure by design" comes in.
+1
Exactly.
SuRun attempts to do similar with Windows. It worked really well in WinXP. But I am not sure whether it''ll work with Win7.
red_devil
red_devil #24
Feb 7, 2009 at 4:51 PM
@chandru's argument is very true...
iMav
iMav #25
Feb 7, 2009 at 9:02 PM
ROFL! at some posts. :lol:
gxsaurav
gxsaurav #26
Feb 7, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Really ? There were just too many (stupid) UAC prompts during Vista and that was the reason why people complained. Does that mean that in the next version, MS will let anyone (any script) completely disable UAC without the user even knowing ?? :rolleyes:

With Vista, UAC was released in its first iteration which was fixed & enhanced with User Feedback in Vista SP1 & is being further enhanced in Windows 7. What's the problem here then? Is listening to feedback & fixing the problem a bad thing? The problem came in a "beta" (Read : unfinished) version of Windows 7 which was supposed to have bugs (which is why we call it beta). Yes there was a problem, yes MS was stupid to have this bug...but now they are fixing there mistake so stop cribbing.

Hey, Apple isn't listening to use Windows users to optimize iTunes for Windows which still is a memory bloat & hack slow, shell we start talking about that?

But I simply don't understand why the first user is created with full admin privileges? Why can't they just create a restricted default account? That to me is a design flaw in how most Windows systems (at least at homes) get installed and run. Users cannot be blamed for this. This is what makes Windows so difficult to maintain safely by not so techie users.

The default 1st user created in Windows 7 is "Standard user".

Maintaining Windows isn't tough for not so techie users. They are the crowd which buys Norton 360 or Norton Internet Security or something similar or has it bundled with there OEM PC already. In this case the software does the work automatically, have u heard about scheduled backups, defragmentation, temp file cleaning etc already in Windows?

Ok tell me, what is "maintaining" in your point of view?

All programs run by user are run as normal users no simple yes/no prompt to run as admin

Everytime I try to run Nautilas as root, it asks for my root password. Count that as a flaw of GNOME with your logic too.

f a user downloads a random program from mail/web and runs it, at the most it can wipe his home dir clean

Which means everything in Linux terms :p cos all the music, documents etc are in home folder by default which many new users do not migrate to some other partition. They don't even know what a partition is.
iMav
iMav #27
Feb 7, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Maine toh sirf ROFL kar ke chodd diya tha tu ne khol di :lol:
Pat
Pat #28
Feb 7, 2009 at 10:17 PM
With Vista, UAC was released in its first iteration which was fixed & enhanced with User Feedback in Vista SP1 & is being further enhanced in Windows 7. What's the problem here then? Is listening to feedback & fixing the problem a bad thing? The problem came in a "beta" (Read : unfinished) version of Windows 7 which was supposed to have bugs (which is why we call it beta). Yes there was a problem, yes MS was stupid to have this bug...but now they are fixing there mistake so stop cribbing.

I know you never read posts before replying. And thats what you have done here again. I was NOT cribbing about it. I know it is Beta and it is expected that there will be some bugs in it. I was just responding to an oversmart fellow who was justifying it saying this was NOT a bug. Go figure :rolleyes:

Hey, Apple isn't listening to use Windows users to optimize iTunes for Windows which still is a memory bloat & hack slow, shell we start talking about that?

Go ahead boy! Who's stopping you :)
infra_red_dude
Feb 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM
[offtopic]

Lol.. another Windows vs. Linux thread. I was missing this since long :D

[/offtopic]

I think its time to close this thread. Users haf given their opinions and it seems to haf reached MS (as GX puts it). So I guess this thread can be unlocked and the discussions started if the next release of Win 7 presents the same thing.
topgear
topgear #31
Feb 8, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Microsoft Apologises; To Fix Win 7 UAC Flaw

Earlier this week, Tom's Hardware reported that there was an inherent security flaw in the newly renovated User Account Control (UAC) built into the current Windows 7 beta build 7000. Microsoft has listened to the critics and has released details of their fix to address the problem.

At first Microsoft brushed off the issue as "by design," that is, it won't prompt users as much as in Vista which is what it was aiming for. But because the default UAC setting prevents changes to UAC from causing a secure desktop prompt, malicious code can alter the settings and even disable UAC without the user knowing it. Viruses and other malware can then run wild on the system with full administrative rights.

Who makes changes to UAC so often that they will be constantly pummelled with prompts? It wouldn't damage Microsoft's quieter UAC policy too badly to make an exception to the rule in this case for the sake of security. Fortunately, that is what it has now decided to do.

After a negative outcry from the community on their blog post defending the "problem", Microsoft's Jon DeVaan and Steven Sinofsky followed up with another post responding to community feedback.

“Our dialog is at that point where many do not feel listened to and also many feel various viewpoints are not well-informed. That’s not the dialog we set out to have and we’re going to do our best to improve,” they said.

According to the blog post, two changes will be made to the Release Candidate regarding UAC. Firstly, the UAC control panel will run in a "high integrity" process that requires permissions elevation. The blog states that this first change was already being worked on before this issue came to light. The second change will force prompts for confirmation to changes to UAC settings, which is the "simple" fix that Long Zheng mentioned in his blog when the problem was first publicised.

While it may take a fair amount of persuasion, it's good to see that Microsoft responds to user feedback positively.

Source : *www.tomsguide.com/us/windows-7-uac-fix,news-3451.html
Faun
Faun #32
Feb 9, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Thanks Microsoft :D

Oh I see! I think that you had worked on all the code of Win7. Right???? Dont make such statement when you dont know anything. and there are many difference between India and America. Some of them are:

1. In India you remain with your parents in their old age and do not throw them in old age homes, not in America.
2. In India, you do not sleep with you gf when your parents are with you.
3. In India, there is still some decency left for girls and kids. They are not only meant to do ***.
1. Well thats a good point.
2. So you will sleep with your girl friend if your parents are not with you. Then you are fckuing hypocrite.
3. What decency ? Simply coz it happens secretly and unsafely doesn't make your country a virgin. Stop living in dreams.

Everytime I try to run Nautilas as root, it asks for my root password. Count that as a flaw of GNOME with your logic too.
Yes you can :D Just do a sudo nautilus in terminal and you can again do sudo nautilus in another terminal or same without even entering password. Of course till the session expires.
And why would you do everytime ? I mean I never ever opened nautilus as root since I installed Ubuntu.

Which means everything in Linux terms :razz: cos all the music, documents etc are in home folder by default which many new users do not migrate to some other partition. They don't even know what a partition is.
Still, my documents is the most adored place for WIndows users :D
chooza
chooza #33
Feb 9, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Thanks Microsoft :D


1. Well thats a good point.
2. So you will sleep with your girl friend if your parents are not with you. Then you are fckuing hypocrite.
3. What decency ? Simply coz it happens secretly and unsafely doesn't make your country a virgin. Stop living in dreams.


Yes you can :D Just do a sudo nautilus in terminal and you can again do sudo nautilus in another terminal or same without even entering password. Of course till the session expires.
And why would you do everytime ? I mean I never ever opened nautilus as root since I installed Ubuntu.


Still, my documents is the most adored place for WIndows users :D
Define hypocrate.
point 3> Its same in US of A, just check with the no of rape cases they are having or minor pregnency. Here, girls are more safe than USA.