Can not save flightplan

[SteveW 1,792]

Not just no... but...  wow..  No.

No really, but wow yes. )

 

Funny though that they wouldn't leave their homes unlocked just to avoid a bunch of keys. Even so it's unfair to make fun of them because I think their feelings that security causes them a problem is borne partly from bumps in the road like the OP had exporting to plan directories.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

No really, but wow yes. )

 

Funny though that they wouldn't leave their homes unlocked just to avoid a bunch of keys. Even so it's unfair to make fun of them because I think their feelings that security causes them a problem is borne partly from bumps in the road like the OP had exporting to plan directories.

 

Not sure where the disconnect is here, Steve. What I told the OP to do has worked, despite your assertions that you have "not found Windows security to get in the way." If that were the truth neither my fix, nor your assertion to use a lesser privilege level would have worked.

 

Moreover:

when a setup.exe is used to install software, a good one would check itself for malware before *elevating to admin privileges*

 

Yes and no. While a good installer may verify its checksum, it's not a specific scan for malware as much as it's a scan for corruption, though data alteration through malware would also be caught.

 

So if you are already admin or you start it "Run as Admin" then the payload is already released before the program gets a chance to quit.

 

 

This one is mostly wrong. Even the Win admin accounts require intentional privilege escalation in order to have the highest permissions available. Sure, you have more privileges as an admin than you would as a normal user, but being the admin account does not give you root privileges. You must intentionally escalate using "Run as Admin" in a manner similar to using sudo on a Linux CL.

 

Speaking of Linux, the Windows ideology is actually pretty similar. Logging in with an admin account on a Linux box does not absolve you of running into permissions issues. In a manner similar to Win UAC, attempting to run something as an admin (with default settings), the box will prompt you. Win gives you the pop up Yes/No box, while Linux gives you an error unless you specify that you wish to invoke root privs.

 

As far as full control versus write/modify, on a personal box, it really doesn't matter much.

[SteveW 1,792]

 

 

Not sure where the disconnect is here, Steve

There's none, I'm simply saying we can do more to save the OP from that kind of trouble.

 

The OP's planner could do better. For example, it wasn't much work for my own planner to check the export directory for permissions. If the permissions don't allow the file export, the planner asks the user to allow elevation to admin, and the required permissions are set for the user. Since it's only needed to be set once, consequently other programs wanting access to the plan folder never have any problem.

[SteveW 1,792]

 

This one is mostly wrong. Even the Win admin accounts require intentional privilege escalation in order to have the highest permissions available. Sure, you have more privileges as an admin than you would as a normal user, but being the admin account does not give you root privileges.

Wrong. Yes, it's like when we had WinXP, when most user accounts had those privileges. These offered exploits, and so now we now have the added security features of Win7 and Win8. You make it sound like it was all unnecessary Kyle.

 

Never the less, programs that worked properly for regular users back then continue to work without intervention on Win8.

[SteveW 1,792]

OK Kyle, I found some time to answer the rest of your post that was picking through my advice looking for flaws:
 

What I told the OP to do has worked, despite your assertions that you have "not found Windows security to get in the way." If that were the truth neither my fix, nor your assertion to use a lesser privilege level would have worked.

You are laughably changing the meaning of 'get in the way'. That's just unnecessary spin. Obviously I am saying I have no trouble 'using' security features and being logged on as an ordinary user, security does not get in the way of my workflow.

 

While a good installer may verify its checksum, it's not a specific scan for malware as much as it's a scan for corruption, though data alteration through malware would also be caught.

Perhaps if I had said 'check itself for tampering by malware', would have satisfied your propensity for exactitude. Of course a checksum would be handy to find corruption, however there's more to that to check for tampering and provide safeguards.

Defeating malware is about removing the options it has available.

 

As far as full control versus write/modify, on a personal box, it really doesn't matter much.

 
I did mention that it's not such a big deal. I was only being exact like you, so you should be able to live with it.

 

I was narked about the same old permission support though. No! no...nooo, no not another permission issue. It's certainly good to see support on that issue and setting permissions is getting airtime nowadays. I've been posting the permissions fix since before I joined AVSIM and it's becoming de-rigour now - so that's well done guys. Better than suggesting a reinstall of FSX at least.

But come on, arguing about admin account or user? You can only say it's user, you can't professionally appear to ignore any element of security on a support forum!

 

If Dan, or the OP wants to be admin, that's fine, but It's quite normal to recommend the user account, as I mentioned in the first post. Being an admin didn't solve the OPs problem anyway, and it's one door unlocked for the exploits already!

In the end the OP chose your "Full Control" solution, it's attractive, all that control, but you admit it's slightly over the top. I said it wasn't a big deal, but I would say it unnecessarily provides more of those 'options'. Scroll to the start of this discussion, you can't deny that my answer was at least, equally correct.