10 hours ago, nukecad said:<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> You really let all those log into your HOME computer? </p> <p> Guests maybe, but you should know if you trust your guests or not. </p> <p> If you have a system where employees/contractors can login then you should not be using CCleaner home editions (It's against the licence to start with). There are Business/Endpoint/Cloud editions for that. </p> <p> I'm sorry but you seem to be trying to find/make an issue where one doesn't exist. As said before many applications allow you to skip the UAC, Microsoft included that option in the UAC system, nobody sees it as any problem. </p> <p> If you can actually find, and demonstrate, a way in which skipping UAC for a particular app (not disabling UAC altogether) could be used to 'attack' a PC then Microsoft would like to hear from you. They will even pay you for it: <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc/bounty" rel="external nofollow">https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc/bounty</a> </p> <p> </p> </div>
Dude you are being embarrassing, you wouldn't do this in person. You've talked yourself into a corner and this isn't going anywhere, of course an app that can delete things as an admin can be used "maliciously"/"weaponized' as recognized by two others in this thread. The question is simply is skipping UAC by default a smart idea? Is allowing it to be set across multiple users a good idea? Goodbye.