Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Securing Windows XP 4
- Thread starter samsonx
- Start date
-
1
- #2
I do not think that the type of account you access your PC with is going to prevent viruses, otherwise no company would get them (end users in a company are rarely administrators of their own PC).
I do believe that having a proper firewall will do wonders in preventing Blaster worms or unwanted attention from the Web.
Check Tiny Personal Firewall, or even better go to and take your pick.
Many people insist that an anti-virus product is also a must-have. I have been without for longer than I can remember and I have NEVER been affected by a virus.
Just avoid clicking on any attachment without thinking is a much better anti-virus product, and it only requires a few brain cells.
Pascal.
I do believe that having a proper firewall will do wonders in preventing Blaster worms or unwanted attention from the Web.
Check Tiny Personal Firewall, or even better go to and take your pick.
Many people insist that an anti-virus product is also a must-have. I have been without for longer than I can remember and I have NEVER been affected by a virus.
Just avoid clicking on any attachment without thinking is a much better anti-virus product, and it only requires a few brain cells.
Pascal.
-
1
- #3
Despite the virus situation pmonett mentioned, it's still a good idea to use a non-administrative account for normal daily use. Doing this would prevent any number of problems like:
'Oops, that's not the registry key I wanted to delete'
because a limited user can't do that.
'Oops, that's not the registry key I wanted to delete'
because a limited user can't do that.
-
1
- #4
Some further reading for you. Using limited user settings rather than administrator settings wont stop you getting infected, but it will prevent the amount of damage that can be done to your machine.
-
1
- #5
- Thread starter
- #6
smah:
I agree that, in principle, limited use is a good idea to keep from experiencing unnecessary failures.
Unfortunately, the way MS has implemented it in XP is, for me, rather laughable.
Indeed, we're talking about a home PC here. When I first installed XP at home, I did it with the intent of having one admin access (for me), and one generic access (essentially for my daughter). The idea was, my daughter would log on with her limited access, and could play her games or do whatever without me worrying about how she could break the PC.
Well, it did not work out. Why ? Because limited access is SO limited that my daughter could not play her games. Unless she had admin access to the directory the game was in.
Now, I can understand that "limited" means you cannot install NEW applications, but I do not understand how limited means you cannot use what is ALREADY installed.
It was a child's game, for Pete's sake. Not Regedit or Partition Magic.
So that scraps the use of "limited" for me. If it is so limited that games are not playable without tinkering access at admin level, its useless. If MS wants to transform each and every home user into an Administrator, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot once again.
Until MS corrects that, there will be no limited-access accounts on my PC. And I will still be stuck with the threat of having my daughter break the PC.
Of course, if you don't have any children and don't play games yourself, it might work. But, if XP is incapable of letting a limited user play a game, then I shudder to think of what would happen if a limited user tried creating a Word document.
Pascal.
I agree that, in principle, limited use is a good idea to keep from experiencing unnecessary failures.
Unfortunately, the way MS has implemented it in XP is, for me, rather laughable.
Indeed, we're talking about a home PC here. When I first installed XP at home, I did it with the intent of having one admin access (for me), and one generic access (essentially for my daughter). The idea was, my daughter would log on with her limited access, and could play her games or do whatever without me worrying about how she could break the PC.
Well, it did not work out. Why ? Because limited access is SO limited that my daughter could not play her games. Unless she had admin access to the directory the game was in.
Now, I can understand that "limited" means you cannot install NEW applications, but I do not understand how limited means you cannot use what is ALREADY installed.
It was a child's game, for Pete's sake. Not Regedit or Partition Magic.
So that scraps the use of "limited" for me. If it is so limited that games are not playable without tinkering access at admin level, its useless. If MS wants to transform each and every home user into an Administrator, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot once again.
Until MS corrects that, there will be no limited-access accounts on my PC. And I will still be stuck with the threat of having my daughter break the PC.
Of course, if you don't have any children and don't play games yourself, it might work. But, if XP is incapable of letting a limited user play a game, then I shudder to think of what would happen if a limited user tried creating a Word document.
Pascal.
- Status
Similar threads
