Re: Advice sought on Running XP Home SP2 as Admin or Limited User

GSD wrote:
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> wrote in message
news:O25neDqDHHA.1748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Running as a limited user is far more secure than running as an
administrator. Most other modern OS' are normally run as a standard
or limited user. This is the main reason they are more secure than
Windows XP. Unfortunately with XP this is almost impossible for most
people. It requires a high level of skill to set things up so this
will work. It's hard to know where to place the blame for this. I
believe it's a combination of things. Many programmers started
programming in DOS based versions of Windows where all users were
equal and could do anything. They never learned how to program for
security because there was no security in the OS. Microsoft never
really encouraged programmers to write programs that would work when
run as a standard user. Indeed as you have noticed many Microsoft
programs don't work unless the user is an administrator. Microsoft
has seen the light with Vista and is starting to enforce better
programming. With XP you are probably stuck running as an administrator.
Make
sure you have antivirus, antispyware, and firewall programs running.

If you do want to run as a standard user then you will have to keep
switching the account back and forth between standard and
administrator. Create a second administrator account. Use this
account for installing new programs and maintenance tasks. If you
install a program with the administrator account and then have
problems with the standard account you can temporarily set the
standard account as an administrator, then run the program and let
it update whatever settings it needs. Once this is done switch the
account back to a standard account. This will get most programs
running. Those that don't complain to the developer. It's sloppy
programming on their part that is the problem, not XP itself. If
programs are written properly they need administrator status for
installation only. --
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
www.vistahelp.ca



GSD wrote:
I am a late convert to XP after using Win 98 for the last 7 years
and am trying to come to terms with the User Account side of things
particularly from the security aspect .My new PC was set up by my
supplier with myself as the one Admin User .



Thanks for that Kerry , I find your comments very interesting .
What you are saying I guess is that Win 98 was not very secure but I
managed to survive it .
You are the second person to suggest creating a second Administrator
account . Could you clarify the reason for this .

GSD

In some ways Windows 98 was more secure from Internet worms and hacking but
less secure from viruses and trojans.

I was talking more about security for multiple users. An OS has several
users besides the user running programs. There is a system account and a
network account which OS uses. There may be other accounts for backups and
other things. When you run as a standard user processes you run cannot
affect the other accounts and their processes giving the OS protection from
rogue processes. When you run as an administrator this protection is gone.
Rogue processes can crash, alter, or corrupt any other processes so malware
has an easy time of it. That's a very simple version of why running as a
standard user is more secure.

I was suggesting a second administrator user in the context of two users,
one standard for everyday use, and one administrator for administrator use.
It is best to have two administrator accounts, but you already have this.
The administrator account and your account which is a member of the
administrators group. You don't normally see the administrator account but
by default there is a special account called "administrator". The reason for
two administrator accounts is in case one gets corrupted you can still
logon.

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
www.vistahelp.ca





.

Relevant Pages