2 ms·

> If you want a security boundary, don't create a user in the Administrators group. Which makes no sense. The fact that a user is in the Administrators group d

by pdonis 2y ago

> If you want a security boundary, don't create a user in the Administrators group. Which makes no sense. The fact that a user is in the Administrators group does not mean every single action they take should automatically have root permissions, or that using the UAC prompt to get root permission for a particular action shouldn't be treated as crossing a security boundary. On my Linux system, the fact that my user is in the sudoers group doesn't mean Linux just throws up its hands and says, oh well, can't enforce any security boundary now for what that user does. MS is simply punting here. But of course Windows was never designed for security, and what braindead security it does offer was bolted on as an afterthought.

dataflow 2y ago
> Which makes no sense. You're twisting what "makes sense" means here. What they're saying makes sense with respect to the current design. They have had a design with one sharp security boundary and maintained it... for decades. Their statement is entirely consistent with that, and in no way nonsensical. You're saying it "doesn't make sense" to mean "I think this is poor design, and there should be multiple layers of security boundaries", and you're obviously welcome to have that opinion, but that doesn't mean their disagreement implies their statement is nonsense.
3np 2y ago
I fail to see the fundamental difference with Linux you're talking about. Typically adding a user to the sudo/wheel group mean precisely that they can run whatever as the superuser (root). Once you're root, Bob's your uncle. Sure you can tweak it to only allow certain commands, restrict it to another group, etc. Which would be equivalant to, in Windows, probably using another group(s) than Administrators and assign privilegas as appopriate. I have a lot of unfavorable opinions of security fundamentals in Windows but you're barking up the wrong tree here. From your other comment in this thread: > The issue is not that people don't understand how MS defines what is and is not a security boundary. With all due respect, check your assumptions...

by pdonis 2y ago

dataflow 2y ago

> Which makes no sense. You're twisting what "makes sense" means here. What they're saying makes sense with respect to the current design. They have had a design with one sharp security boundary and maintained it... for decades. Their statement is entirely consistent with that, and in no way nonsensical. You're saying it "doesn't make sense" to mean "I think this is poor design, and there should be multiple layers of security boundaries", and you're obviously welcome to have that opinion, but that doesn't mean their disagreement implies their statement is nonsense.

3np 2y ago

I fail to see the fundamental difference with Linux you're talking about. Typically adding a user to the sudo/wheel group mean precisely that they can run whatever as the superuser (root). Once you're root, Bob's your uncle. Sure you can tweak it to only allow certain commands, restrict it to another group, etc. Which would be equivalant to, in Windows, probably using another group(s) than Administrators and assign privilegas as appopriate. I have a lot of unfavorable opinions of security fundamentals in Windows but you're barking up the wrong tree here. From your other comment in this thread: > The issue is not that people don't understand how MS defines what is and is not a security boundary. With all due respect, check your assumptions...