2 ms·
I feel like this is similar to “Disabling UAC is the first thing I do, because it causes problems”.
by JoBrad 3y ago
I feel like this is similar to “Disabling UAC is the first thing I do, because it causes problems”.
- JohnFen 3y agoIf UAC prevented me from doing what I what I want to do with my machines, I would totally disable it, yes. None of this means that I'd be going totally unprotected. It means that I'm addressing my security risks in a different way that is compatible with my use of my machines.
- fuzzfactor 3y agoUAC is similar to Microsoft SecureBoot to the extent they can both be user-unfriendly false-sense-of-security "features". But UAC is not built into the motherboard, it's just a part of modern Windows, and it's only a factor when running Windows. While UEFI, GPT, TPM, and SecureBoot immediately acted as major stumbling blocks to any OS not already installed on the PC at the factory. Insidiously smoothed over to behave on the surface for Windows 8+ no differently than under traditional BIOS, these were and still can be major stumbling blocks to the use of Linux or previous versions of Windows. Plus with 20/20 hindsight as we have seen, CSM, regardless of the upcoming industry removal schedule for the CSM firmware modules, is not a full BIOS substitute for the real thing. As predicted without having to possess 20/20 foresight at all.
- JohnFen 3y ago> But UAC is not built into the motherboard, it's just a part of modern Windows, and it's only a factor when running Windows. Yes, this is why I don't put a lot of thought into UAC stuff -- the only place I use Windows is at my job, where it's required. Which means that SecureBoot is an even greater worry for me.