Windows 7: Release Candidate 1 Preview
by Ryan Smith and Gary Key on May 5, 2009 11:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Reworking UAC
Predictably, one of the most common complaints about Vista was the User Access Control (UAC) feature, which firmly established a real degree of security in Vista by blocking applications from attaining administrator-level privileges by default. It was something that was long overdue for Windows given how easy it is to compromise a machine when everything runs with admin privileges, but that doesn’t mean it was taken well.
Half of the problem going into Vista’s release was that few applications were coded following best security practices, even though Microsoft had been recommending such a thing for years, and such practices were necessary for applications to work correctly under limited user accounts. With so many poorly coded applications misbehaving under Vista until they were brought up to spec by their developers, it left a bad taste in the mouths of many. Compounding the problem was that Vista’s UAC implementation was not streamlined very well, resulting in redundant notices. Microsoft resolved some of the streamlining issues in Vista SP1, but this never completely satisfied users who were expecting a more XP-like (and insecure) experience.
With Windows 7 we have an attempt at a compromise, which is a noble intention by Microsoft, but leaves us concerned about the security implications. Previously UAC could only be turned on or off (Group Policy settings not withstanding), which would sometimes result in unhappy users shutting it off and giving up most of Vista’s security abilities in the process. With Windows 7, UAC has now been divided up into four levels: Off, followed by three levels of increasingly strong security. Level 3 is the equivalent of Vista’s UAC mode, meanwhile Level 2 is the default setting for Windows 7. With Level 2, certain signed Microsoft applications (basically most of the Control Panel apps) are allowed to elevate to administrator privileges without needing user confirmation. The working belief here is that most people are encountering most of their UAC prompts when initially configuring Windows, and if they didn’t encounter those early prompts they would have no great reason to turn UAC off entirely, particularly since 3rd party applications are so much better behaved these days.
The UAC Control Panel With Level Slider
Hence the compromise is that UAC prompts are disabled, but only for the Control Panel apps, meanwhile all other regular apps are still controlled by UAC as normal. The concern we have with this compromise is that with applications allowed to auto-elevate from user to administrator, it creates a potential local privilege escalation exploit. For Beta 1, a proof of concept exploit was put together that used rundll32 to disable UAC entirely without informing the user or requiring their intervention. In return Microsoft removed the UAC control panel from the auto-elevating list so that any direct attempts to manipulate it still require user intervention. This blocked the proof of concept exploit while maintaining all the other benefits of Level 2 UAC. It should be noted however that similar exploits could still work with Level 1, as it’s Level 2 without the secure desktop screen (thereby allowing apps to fake pressing the Allow button).
At this point it remains to be seen if Level 2 could be exploited in a similar manner, such as by breaking out of another auto-elevated application and attacking UAC from there. The fact that it leaves an obvious potential attack vector open leaves us leery of Level 2. Microsoft had the security situation right in the first place with Level 3/Vista, and it may have been better if it stayed that way.
With that said, Level 2 does what it’s advertised to do. Compared to Level 3/Vista, you’re going to get far fewer UAC prompts when messing with Windows’ settings. Undoubtedly it won’t satisfy those who absolutely abhor UAC, but at some point Microsoft has done everything they can.
Quickly, the other security element that was reworked for Windows 7 is the Security Center, which has been expanded and renamed the Action Center. Besides being a one-stop-shop for various Windows security features, now it is also home to an overview of system maintenance tasks and troubleshooting help. This doesn’t significantly change the functionality of the Action Center, and the biggest change that most people will notice is the GUI.
The Windows 7 Action Center
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
121 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link
Actually, the public release of the 8.612 betas work fine with the HD 4770. AMD made a couple of changes right before they were posted on the site. :)CSMR - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
Best source of information on Windows 7 by far. Nice work!ssj4Gogeta - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
In the article you said that the "Jump Menus" have their roots in OS X? Not at all. They've been their for years. The only example I can think of at this time is Winamp. It had a "jump menu" in Windows 98 for controlling playback.Axell - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
Well, this is actually Windows 7 Release Candidate. There won't be a second RC, so it's "Release Candidate" only, no RC1 like the title and text suggests.vectorm12 - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
Just for the sake of argument.Ever thought about how long it usually takes for MS to actually make their OS:es work well? Doesn't anyone remember what a abysmal OS XP was before SP1 let alone SP2(which in my opinion was the point where I felt confident enough to upgrade from win2k). I'm starting to wonder if people have actually forgotten how much they where complaining about XP before SP1&2 or if they just don't want to remember. What about the security vulnerabilities that still plague XP? The fact that both Vista and Win7 improves on these seem to have been lost in the quest to keep XP alive.
After all do you hear Apple users complaining about 10.5.6 being significantly slower in many respects than 10.4? The fact that 10.4 in my opinion had a bunch of features lost in 10.5 that where really useful doesn't seem to bother them half as much. In the end I think this whole discussion has become more of a "hey I'm cool for bashing Microsoft and Vista rather than keeping an open mind and actually seeing the improvements they make"
How long did it take for Microsoft to make windows 2k a better OS than NT4.0 besides the USB support (which for the first couple of years was more or less pointless anyway).
Windows 95 and RC2 and so on. I mean it usually takes years for MS to actually make a OS superior to the older version.
What sets Windows7 apart from Vista in my opinion is just that.
Windows 7 may as well be a dressed up/optimized/"insert random comment" version of Windows Vista. Sure they could have made major GUI changes and feature updates to Vista through service packs etc but the fact is that when people hear or think vista it usually equals "dog turd" or worse and usually that is because it's become cool to bash Vista. In my opinion I wouldn't hesitate to run Vista SP1 on our studio computer where I work but unfortunately most of the software required for production purposes require specific software configurations which means Vista isn't supported other than in the latest releases.
The name change is a chance for people to try what in many ways is a vastly improved OS without having that association in mind when doing so. Sure Windows 7 is still more bloated and in certain areas probably slower than XP because of bloated code/new functions etc but the fact is Microsoft has actually taken a lot of great functionality in vista and(most likely taken inspiration from Mac OS in certain areas) and improved upon it even further.
I for one want a Microsoft OS for my gaming computer. I can't be bothered running Linux and wine just to play WoW and run the Adobe suite. Given the choice I'm going for Win7 rather than XP or vista, it's safer, I've got performance to spare and there's nothing wrong with a little eyecandy to make things look more exciting.
Macs are fine but to be honest I don't like OS x THAT much to pay the premium.
Linux works perfectly on my work computer and on the servers I run at work or on my laptop that I use to surf the web.
leexgx - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
apart from some drivers XP has allways worked well for me (+ i was behind an router so RDP basid worms was not an problem),Vista is slugish and bloted for the most part and it allways will be as thay not port stuff to vista that are makeing windows 7 run far more smoother,
i have loaded win 7 onto an amd64 3000+ 2ghz, 2gb ram, it works well there is One small bug not sure why but it thinks i got 16gb installed in an socket 754 socket lol, but lists 2gb useable (at least Win7 now Shows Both numbers useable and installed as on SP1 for vista that was an joke hideing useable ram) need to report that to MS but not sure where i submit that
Lexington02 - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
:face palm:You have 32 bit and that is not MS's fault for 32bit portion, it is pure math. Also 64 bit will always be slower than 32 bit on the same specs. Think about it, 64 is twice as big as 32 bit...
Bmadd - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
If any of that was refering to my post my Thanks MS was for giving me the features i wanted and not having to go to win7. Not that they make bad products. I love the one ppl "hate" the most. PS xp needs to be laid to rest, pleaseiAURA - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
I'm in the same boat as the above poster, all I will get from W7 is a "funner" GUI and DX11, but hey, there's still tons of game being released as DX9 games.ssj4Gogeta - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
DX11 will be released for Vista as well.