This may be a stupid question but when I had Vista I used to have the admin account that I would only do major installations with. For almost all other daily use, I would have a different user account. Do I need to do this with Windows 7 (or is it a good idea?)?
Should you always use the "admin" account with Win7?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
It is a good security precaution although most people don't care and use admin all the time. If you think that it is worth it then go ahead imo. If not you aren't really at a great risk or anything.
This may be a stupid question but when I had Vista I used to have the admin account that I would only do major installations with. For almost all other daily use, I would have a different user account. Do I need to do this with Windows 7 (or is it a good idea?)?
XanaduTheBand
i recommend making a second account and using it that way but really from your point of view its probably fine to use the admin.. i mean i used the hidden user account settings to eliminate the admin as a bootable option (unless in safe mode) but thats simply to avoid any unpleasentness.
no, you shouldn't - that's one of the main security advantages that linux and osx have over windows is that people don't actually use admin accounts
[QUOTE="XanaduTheBand"]
This may be a stupid question but when I had Vista I used to have the admin account that I would only do major installations with. For almost all other daily use, I would have a different user account. Do I need to do this with Windows 7 (or is it a good idea?)?
ionusX
i recommend making a second account and using it that way but really from your point of view its probably fine to use the admin.. i mean i used the hidden user account settings to eliminate the admin as a bootable option (unless in safe mode) but thats simply to avoid any unpleasentness.
Yeah, this is probably the best way to go about it. I use the Admin account as my main one and haven't run into any problems, but I still wouldn't recommend it.No, the biggest advantage that Linux and OSX have over Windows is that both were built using Unix kernals and have been hardened since day one. I would love to see a tally of Windows users that only have/use a Windows PC because they game. If it wasn't for gaming, my pc would be pure Debian through and through.no, you shouldn't - that's one of the main security advantages that linux and osx have over windows is that people don't actually use admin accounts
Firebird-5
Lol, you're kidding right?
The amound of enterprise development on Windows, the ton of windows software and tools, the flexibility and openes of the OS, that's why I use windows, not just 'cause of games.
Modern windows OS's are very well secured. In fact, the windows OS is usually more secure than Apple's OS - as OSX usually has more serious vulnerabilities.
Its not good practise but these days i don't think anyone cares, i know i shouldnt do it but i do anyway, i know i shouldn't have tonnes of trash on my dekstop when using roaming profiles but i do it anyway. Up to you if you're going to be attacked then the hack/virus will most likely use an exploit in the OS and being in a limited account probably won't stop it.
On topic, Windows 7 does need admin rights to install most things that make changes to registry or system files so yes, things like windows update will need admin rights.
What??? The openes of the OS is a primary reason why you use Windows. You do realize that every time you get a security update notification from Microsoft, its because another vulnerability has been discovered in the Windows NT kernal. Very, Very, Very rarely are there security updates released for vulnerabilities in the Linux Kernal, thats because they are extremely rare. And who gives a sh.. about OSX, except wanna be tweeners that dance in Apple stores like Britney Spears while dressing like Justin Bieber? Also, please provide me one tool that you run on Windows on a day to day basis that cant be found for Linux?Lol, you're kidding right?
The amound of enterprise development on Windows, the ton of windows software and tools, the flexibility and openes of the OS, that's why I use windows, not just 'cause of games.
Modern windows OS's are very well secured. In fact, the windows OS is usually more secure than Apple's OS - as OSX usually has more serious vulnerabilities.
Kinthalis
This is correct, hackers and virus makers are resorting to having to heavily invest in their attempts now on windows as Windows has been soooo hardened that only the best of hackers can find flaws in the actual OS, how the OS is setup is another story though and because linux is their main OS they aren't going to excrete a brown mess all over their own desktop which in effect means linux and OSX are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than Windows it's just no one bothers with them much.Lol, you're kidding right?
The amound of enterprise development on Windows, the ton of windows software and tools, the flexibility and openes of the OS, that's why I use windows, not just 'cause of games.
Modern windows OS's are very well secured. In fact, the windows OS is usually more secure than Apple's OS - as OSX usually has more serious vulnerabilities.
Kinthalis
In the end the user is usually the greatest vulnerability. No OS can protect itself against ignorant people succumbing to social engineering ploys.
which in effect means linux and OSX are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than Windows it's just no one bothers with them much.JohnF111
Do you have any evidence that Linux is a lot more vulnerable than Windows?
[QUOTE="JohnF111"] which in effect means linux and OSX are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than Windows it's just no one bothers with them much.Tezcatlipoca666
Do you have any evidence that Linux is a lot more vulnerable than Windows?
Nope not a sausage, i have a lot of evidence to show that Windows has become pretty fortified and that Linux hasn't had nearly as many patches or investment in security. So which would you prefer, a platform thats been hacked and attacked since day one and given a million patches, or one that no one really bothers to patch much because it's not a target..Example:Sony didn't patch their servers because "they weren't a target of attack" - Yet they were extremely vulnerable when someone DID attack which showed that just because they hadn't been badly attacked doesn't mean you are completely secure(can be directly applied to an OS).
[QUOTE="JohnF111"] which in effect means linux and OSX are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than Windows it's just no one bothers with them much.Tezcatlipoca666
Do you have any evidence that Linux is a lot more vulnerable than Windows?
This link shows how "easy" it is to compromise a system.Yes, I know this is a web browser, however, it makes the point that with resources and tenacity, anyone is vunerable. The "godlike" powers of Linux are no match for a talented hackers determination. The Nuclear programs in Iran (Linux systems) were made foolish by hackers. Our goverment is hacked no matter what OS they are using. The point is arguing over superiority is pointless as it is almost impossible to accurately measure. It's like arguing which leaky ship is sinking the slowest. Also, as someone pointed out earlier, there is an element of "let's attack the biggest target" going on here. Let's say you are write code to create a botnet. Who do you target? 300 million users on XP service pack 1,20 million people on OSX, or 5 million people running a linux distro. Seems like a no brainer to me.
[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"][QUOTE="JohnF111"] which in effect means linux and OSX are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than Windows it's just no one bothers with them much.JohnF111
Do you have any evidence that Linux is a lot more vulnerable than Windows?
Nope not a sausage, i have a lot of evidence to show that Windows has become pretty fortified and that Linux hasn't had nearly as many patches or investment in security. So which would you prefer, a platform thats been hacked and attacked since day one and given a million patches, or one that no one really bothers to patch much because it's not a target.. Exmaple: Sony didn't patch their servers because "they weren't a target of attack" - Yet they were extremely vulnerable when someone DID attack.Linux has a fairly large market share in the server/mainframe world. It goes without saying that it has been targeted by hackers and it is patched quite regularly as a result. Nobody would rely on it for running their servers if it was substantially less secure than Windows...
[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]
[QUOTE="JohnF111"] which in effect means linux and OSX are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than Windows it's just no one bothers with them much.XanaduTheBand
Do you have any evidence that Linux is a lot more vulnerable than Windows?
This link shows how "easy" it is to compromise a system.Yes, I know this is a web browser, however, it makes the point that with resources and tenacity, anyone is vunerable. The "godlike" powers of Linux are no match for a talented hackers determination. The Nuclear programs in Iran (Linux systems) were made foolish by hackers. Our goverment is hacked no matter what OS they are using. The point is arguing over superiority is pointless as it is almost impossible to accurately measure. It's like arguing which leaky ship is sinking the slowest. Also, as pointed out earlier. Let's say you are write code to create a botnet. Who do you target? 300 million users on XP service pack 1,20 million people on OSX, or 5 million people running a linux distro. Seems like a no brainer to me.
I completely agree with all your points. I'm not trying to claim that any OS is superior to another. I just think that the claim that Windows is substantially more secure than Linux is far-fetched.
Nope not a sausage, i have a lot of evidence to show that Windows has become pretty fortified and that Linux hasn't had nearly as many patches or investment in security. So which would you prefer, a platform thats been hacked and attacked since day one and given a million patches, or one that no one really bothers to patch much because it's not a target.. Exmaple: Sony didn't patch their servers because "they weren't a target of attack" - Yet they were extremely vulnerable when someone DID attack.[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]
Do you have any evidence that Linux is a lot more vulnerable than Windows?
Tezcatlipoca666
Linux has a fairly large market share in the server/mainframe world. It goes without saying that it has been targeted by hackers and it is patched quite regularly as a result. Nobody would rely on it for running their servers if it was substantially less secure than Windows...
Oh so it gets patched quite a lot you say? So its got vulnerabilities that have to be patched and patched? There's your answer, they're about as secure as each other. Also a lot of places uses linux purely because it's free or very cheap compared to Windows. Oh and incase i maybe gave you the wrong end of the stick i don't approve of the "windows is better" claims either, i have a dualboot using Grub it's just the terms security is pretty loose, Linux is secure because no one really wants to damage it, and windows is secure because it's patched like crazy every month.[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]
[QUOTE="JohnF111"] which in effect means linux and OSX are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than Windows it's just no one bothers with them much.JohnF111
Do you have any evidence that Linux is a lot more vulnerable than Windows?
Nope not a sausage, i have a lot of evidence to show that Windows has become pretty fortified and that Linux hasn't had nearly as many patches or investment in security. So which would you prefer, a platform thats been hacked and attacked since day one and given a million patches, or one that no one really bothers to patch much because it's not a target..Example:Sony didn't patch their servers because "they weren't a target of attack" - Yet they were extremely vulnerable when someone DID attack which showed that just because they hadn't been badly attacked doesn't mean you are completely secure(can be directly applied to an OS).
You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Yes, Sony was attacked, but more significantly, Sonys SQL database was attacked. Their vulnerability wasn't "extreme" as you claim, but instead their vulnerability was targeted and exploited by a very coordinated attack. Quite honestly, human error played a tremendous role in Sony being exploited to the extent that it was. If only 1 person in the 4 months port scans were being performed on their network would have check their intrusion prevention devices logs, their exploitation would have been prevented.And like I said earlier, Linux does not release security updates to their Kernal very often because those exploitation's have been resolved in previously releases of those Kernals. When Linux releases a new Kernal, it is the equivalence of Windows releasing a new OS. Its like going from XP to Vista and I assure you new Linux Kernals release much more frequently than Window's OS''s. You do realize that the very board you are typing on, a PHP board, is running on an Apache server. Well guess what, that Apache server is running on a Linux machine.
[QUOTE="XanaduTheBand"]
[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]
Do you have any evidence that Linux is a lot more vulnerable than Windows?
Tezcatlipoca666
This link shows how "easy" it is to compromise a system.Yes, I know this is a web browser, however, it makes the point that with resources and tenacity, anyone is vunerable. The "godlike" powers of Linux are no match for a talented hackers determination. The Nuclear programs in Iran (Linux systems) were made foolish by hackers. Our goverment is hacked no matter what OS they are using. The point is arguing over superiority is pointless as it is almost impossible to accurately measure. It's like arguing which leaky ship is sinking the slowest. Also, as pointed out earlier. Let's say you are write code to create a botnet. Who do you target? 300 million users on XP service pack 1,20 million people on OSX, or 5 million people running a linux distro. Seems like a no brainer to me.
I completely agree with all your points. I'm not trying to claim that any OS is superior to another. I just think that the claim that Windows is substantially more secure than Linux is far fetched.
I agree. It seems to me that a complete re-write of software as we know it needs to occur that addresses fundamental flaws in the way software is made. I'm no computer expert, but the disruptiveness of butt-head individuals (not just ones that want money, but also those who do it for the lulz) is gonna get worse and worse.[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"][QUOTE="JohnF111"] Nope not a sausage, i have a lot of evidence to show that Windows has become pretty fortified and that Linux hasn't had nearly as many patches or investment in security. So which would you prefer, a platform thats been hacked and attacked since day one and given a million patches, or one that no one really bothers to patch much because it's not a target.. Exmaple: Sony didn't patch their servers because "they weren't a target of attack" - Yet they were extremely vulnerable when someone DID attack.JohnF111
Linux has a fairly large market share in the server/mainframe world. It goes without saying that it has been targeted by hackers and it is patched quite regularly as a result. Nobody would rely on it for running their servers if it was substantially less secure than Windows...
Oh so it gets patched quite a lot you say? So its got vulnerabilities that have to be patched and patched? There's your answer, they're about as secure as each other. Also a lot of places uses linux purely because it's free or very cheap compared to Windows.That's hardly the only reason to use Linux. I have a feeling that you don't know much about this OS and should refrain from making baseless claims about it.
[QUOTE="JohnF111"]Nope not a sausage, i have a lot of evidence to show that Windows has become pretty fortified and that Linux hasn't had nearly as many patches or investment in security. So which would you prefer, a platform thats been hacked and attacked since day one and given a million patches, or one that no one really bothers to patch much because it's not a target..Example:[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]
Do you have any evidence that Linux is a lot more vulnerable than Windows?
freesafety13
Sony didn't patch their servers because "they weren't a target of attack" - Yet they were extremely vulnerable when someone DID attack which showed that just because they hadn't been badly attacked doesn't mean you are completely secure(can be directly applied to an OS).
You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Yes, Sony was attacked, but more significantly, Sonys SQL database was attacked. Their vulnerability wasn't "extreme" as you claim, but instead their vulnerability was targeted and exploited by a very coordinated attack. Quite honestly, human error played a tremendous role in Sony being exploited to the extent that it was. If only 1 person in the 4 months port scans were being performed on their network would have check their intrusion prevention devices logs, their exploitation would have been prevented.And like I said earlier, Linux does not release security updates to their Kernal very often because those exploitation's have been resolved in previously releases of those Kernals. When Linux releases a new Kernal, it is the equivalence of Windows releasing a new OS. Its like going from XP to Vista and I assure you new Linux Kernals release much more frequently than Window's OS''s. You do realize that the very board you are typing on, a PHP board, is running on an Apache server. Well guess what, that Apache server is running on a Linux machine.
I was actually painting a bigger picture, instead of digging deep look at the whole picture, Sony gave a free service(linux) and it's fairly safe from harm so why should anyone put in lots of time or funds trying to patch things that no one will attack? But when someone did hit them(could be hacker, virus, back door) there are quite a lot of areas to do this because they didn't invest in security as much since Sony admins had a mindset of "Oh it's ok just use weak encryption not like anyone will take the data anyway.". Combine these points and it shows that if Linux had as much investment in security then i bet the community would be throwing us way more patches than they are currently and about as much as Windows gets each month.You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Yes, Sony was attacked, but more significantly, Sonys SQL database was attacked. Their vulnerability wasn't "extreme" as you claim, but instead their vulnerability was targeted and exploited by a very coordinated attack. Quite honestly, human error played a tremendous role in Sony being exploited to the extent that it was. If only 1 person in the 4 months port scans were being performed on their network would have check their intrusion prevention devices logs, their exploitation would have been prevented.[QUOTE="freesafety13"][QUOTE="JohnF111"] Nope not a sausage, i have a lot of evidence to show that Windows has become pretty fortified and that Linux hasn't had nearly as many patches or investment in security. So which would you prefer, a platform thats been hacked and attacked since day one and given a million patches, or one that no one really bothers to patch much because it's not a target..Example:
Sony didn't patch their servers because "they weren't a target of attack" - Yet they were extremely vulnerable when someone DID attack which showed that just because they hadn't been badly attacked doesn't mean you are completely secure(can be directly applied to an OS).
JohnF111
And like I said earlier, Linux does not release security updates to their Kernal very often because those exploitation's have been resolved in previously releases of those Kernals. When Linux releases a new Kernal, it is the equivalence of Windows releasing a new OS. Its like going from XP to Vista and I assure you new Linux Kernals release much more frequently than Window's OS''s. You do realize that the very board you are typing on, a PHP board, is running on an Apache server. Well guess what, that Apache server is running on a Linux machine.
I was actually painting a bigger picture, instead of digging deep look at the whole picture, Sony gave a free service(linux) and it's fairly safe from harm so why should anyone put in lots of time or funds trying to patch things that no one will attack? But when someone did hit them(could be hacker, virus, back door) there are quite a lot of areas to do this because they didn't invest in security as much since Sony admins had a mindset of "Oh it's ok just use weak encryption not like anyone will take the data anyway.". Combine these points and it shows that if Linux had as much investment in security then i bet the community would be throwing us way more patches than they are currently and about as much as Windows gets each month. Please stop posting, you sound like a fool. Please first understand what a SQL database is and how it functions before you comment further in regards to Sony. So many things you say are just wrong. Sony didn't use Encryption, they used hashing. The attack on Sony had NOTHING to do with security vulnerabilities with Linux, Windows, OSX, MySQL, Solaris, IOS, or any other version of OS/Software/Firmware they are running on their network. It was a coordinated, targeted attack that could have been prevented but was not due to human error. The greatest vulnerability!!!!![QUOTE="Firebird-5"]No, the biggest advantage that Linux and OSX have over Windows is that both were built using Unix kernals and have been hardened since day one. I would love to see a tally of Windows users that only have/use a Windows PC because they game. If it wasn't for gaming, my pc would be pure Debian through and through.no, you shouldn't - that's one of the main security advantages that linux and osx have over windows is that people don't actually use admin accounts
freesafety13
get off your high horse and read my post next time
[QUOTE="JohnF111"]I was actually painting a bigger picture, instead of digging deep look at the whole picture, Sony gave a free service(linux) and it's fairly safe from harm so why should anyone put in lots of time or funds trying to patch things that no one will attack? But when someone did hit them(could be hacker, virus, back door) there are quite a lot of areas to do this because they didn't invest in security as much since Sony admins had a mindset of "Oh it's ok just use weak encryption not like anyone will take the data anyway.". Combine these points and it shows that if Linux had as much investment in security then i bet the community would be throwing us way more patches than they are currently and about as much as Windows gets each month. Please stop posting, you sound like a fool. Please first understand what a SQL database is and how it functions before you comment further in regards to Sony. So many things you say are just wrong. Sony didn't use Encryption, they used hashing. The attack on Sony had NOTHING to do with security vulnerabilities with Linux, Windows, OSX, MySQL, Solaris, IOS, or any other version of OS/Software/Firmware they are running on their network. It was a coordinated, targeted attack that could have been prevented but was not due to human error. The greatest vulnerability!!!!! Yeah you're probably right maybe i shouldn't try and compare a Sony service to an OS... Its rather difficult to explain how i'm trying to compare it so i just won't. Although i do know it had nothing to do with SQL or the security of linux itself, i was commenting purely on the services provided by linux and Sony as being free, not the actual hack/exploitation itself and that because its free and very useful it makes them both much less of a target.[QUOTE="freesafety13"] You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Yes, Sony was attacked, but more significantly, Sonys SQL database was attacked. Their vulnerability wasn't "extreme" as you claim, but instead their vulnerability was targeted and exploited by a very coordinated attack. Quite honestly, human error played a tremendous role in Sony being exploited to the extent that it was. If only 1 person in the 4 months port scans were being performed on their network would have check their intrusion prevention devices logs, their exploitation would have been prevented.
And like I said earlier, Linux does not release security updates to their Kernal very often because those exploitation's have been resolved in previously releases of those Kernals. When Linux releases a new Kernal, it is the equivalence of Windows releasing a new OS. Its like going from XP to Vista and I assure you new Linux Kernals release much more frequently than Window's OS''s. You do realize that the very board you are typing on, a PHP board, is running on an Apache server. Well guess what, that Apache server is running on a Linux machine.
freesafety13
No, the biggest advantage that Linux and OSX have over Windows is that both were built using Unix kernals and have been hardened since day one. I would love to see a tally of Windows users that only have/use a Windows PC because they game. If it wasn't for gaming, my pc would be pure Debian through and through.[QUOTE="freesafety13"][QUOTE="Firebird-5"]
no, you shouldn't - that's one of the main security advantages that linux and osx have over windows is that people don't actually use admin accounts
Firebird-5
get off your high horse and read my post next time
I read your post, now whats your point? Do you really think whether your using an Admin(Root) account has much impact over the vulnerability of your system? For viruses, yes, for Intrusion Prevention, no. And the best defense against a Virus will always be Common Sense.[QUOTE="Firebird-5"][QUOTE="freesafety13"] No, the biggest advantage that Linux and OSX have over Windows is that both were built using Unix kernals and have been hardened since day one. I would love to see a tally of Windows users that only have/use a Windows PC because they game. If it wasn't for gaming, my pc would be pure Debian through and through.freesafety13
get off your high horse and read my post next time
I read your post, now whats your point? Do you really think whether your using an Admin(Root) account has much impact over the vulnerability of your system? For viruses, yes, for Intrusion Prevention, no. And the best defense against a Virus will always be Common Sense.you may have read my post but it will take a long time for you to understand it apparently. it's nice to see you still haven't lost the self-important, holier-than-thou tone.
I was merely making an observation, due to the topic of the thread, that one shouldn't use the admin account (circumstances allowing), and this is one of the main security advantages that linux and osx have over windows. The overwhelming majority of viruses, exploits, trojans, or otherwise in windows result from administrator rights.
Well, i use admin all the time, because so many of my applications ask for admin aproval, it is safer to not use admin...but im lazy.
Also, I do believe OS would be categorized under software, so its quite humerous that a heated discussion is in the hardware discusion board.
I read your post, now whats your point? Do you really think whether your using an Admin(Root) account has much impact over the vulnerability of your system? For viruses, yes, for Intrusion Prevention, no. And the best defense against a Virus will always be Common Sense.[QUOTE="freesafety13"][QUOTE="Firebird-5"]
get off your high horse and read my post next time
Firebird-5
you may have read my post but it will take a long time for you to understand it apparently. it's nice to see you still haven't lost the self-important, holier-than-thou tone.
I was merely making an observation, due to the topic of the thread, that one shouldn't use the admin account (circumstances allowing), and this is one of the main security advantages that linux and osx have over windows. The overwhelming majority of viruses, exploits, trojans, or otherwise in windows result from administrator rights.
You have never used Linux before have you? Well, just so you know, you can invoke Root privileges in any flavor of Linux through a shell. So, guess what, if you dont assign a unique password, it wont matter whether your signed on as a Admin/Root user in Linux. How is this an advantage? Forget it, you cant enlighten those who refuse to see the light And, btw, I'm typing this on a Windows PC as an Admin and I've been using Admin privileges in Windows since 2002 without ever having any problems.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment