[OT] Limited User Account (WinXP Pro SP2).

With Windows XP Pro, all of the ordinary user applications included with Windows work perfectly when run by a limited user. Some administrative functions, such as creating accounts or installing software require Administrator privileges. Just log in as Administrator when you need to do those things. Third-party user applications should work for a limited user, assuming that they are properly designed. Of course, products like firewalls and virus scanners that require access to the entire computer will need to run as Administrator.

Yes, it's worth the hassle, especially for users who have no idea which operations are safe and which are dangerous. Don't even give them the Administrator password.

Can't confirm that. Most applications I work with run just fine under a limited user account, or can at least be configured to do so.

First ask yourself: would it be a good idea to run the application as a limited user? System maintenance tasks and stuff like that, like e.g. defragmenting the harddisk, changing the (system-wide) configuration of the virus scanner, etc., should only be done by administrative users. If it's something like that: log in as an administrative user, do the task, then switch back to the limited user. If it's something that can be expected to run with limited rights: check the support pages and FAQ of the vendor. Maybe they've already documented what to do. Also you can try to analyze and fix the problem yourself. I've just updated the little HOWTO [1] I wrote about this.

Contact the vendor only if the above steps didn't solve your problem. If the vendor doesn't respond, I suggest to dump their product and switch to something that does support LUA.

"Run as" does not solve the problem, because a) the application will be running with elevated privileges, which was what you wanted to avoid in the first place, and b) an application running interactively with elevated priveleges may be subject to so-called shatter attacks.

It most definitely is.

A very good idea, I use them.

For e.g. double clicking on the clock in the systray does not display the clock in a windows, because it does not want you to change the clock. Also, changing timezone is a quite legitimate thing for a non-admin user to want to do.

I would recommend makemeadmin for that.

... but none the less the user does not need to run as administrator while using them.

Yes it is worth the hassle.

Regards

Why?

Although the command line in XP from Executive software requires admin, their full products do not I think.

The excellent Whitney defrag command line does not require admin, except of course to install the driver.

And good, too, that you meant a kernel module, not the driver pattern ;-)

SCNR, VB.

Has been fixed in Windows Vista, where is shows a read-only calendar. For Windows XP and below, you can create a trivial system control applet that launches other programs, f.e. RainLendar.

Same thing. You can actually change the timezone, the applet is just too stupid. Aaron Margosis' Blog discusses a work-around.

After all, changing the time should also be a legitimate thing - if Windows had something like a user-dependent time like many Unix flavors have.

I would strictly disrecommend makemeadmin. You'd be starting to fuddle with ownerships and privileges. For the same reason, the classical invokation of 'runas' is bad.

Best recommendation would be Fast User Switching or SuperiorSU (for Windows

You consider allowing the user to start performance-critical and potentially security-critical maintainance tasks as a feature?

Installing a driver for defragmentation? This is crazy. Too good that you actually just meant a service, not a driver.

MSFT does not only use "driver" for kernel modules.

Yours, VB.

Maybe I didn't get the joke, that's why I'm discussing it:

For defragmentation, you just need to use some FSCTLs. This requires admin rights for some, but can be done by any user-mode program. Thus, implementing a driver is always superfluos. Implementing a service is no necessity either, just good for management. (Beside that, every driver is mapped as a service.)

I still don't get it. No-one ever mentioned if the driver would be kernel-mode or user-mode (both would work), I just stated that there's no need to have any driver at all, and neither a service (which is what he actually meant, as I derived by actually looking at this program).

Because system maintenance is administrative work? Sure, one can build a defragmenter that can be used with limited rights, but that'd require a either elevation of the user's privileges, or a backend running with elevated privileges, both of which might be exploited by malware. Plus, I'd prefer to logically separate administrative tasks (especially system maintenance) from user tasks.

The fact that you *can* do something doesn't necessarily imply that you

cu