Limited User Install?

CCleaner for Windows
1

I've been using ccleaner for quite some time and find it to be incredibly useful, so thanks for your hard work. If I could have one feature added it would be the ability to clean multiple user accounts at once - but I imagine you get that request a lot! Anyway, the reason for my posting here today is that I just set up a computer and created a few limited user accounts becuase the kids keep installing viruses! So I thought if I make them limited accounts, they won't be able to install anything - problem solved. As it happens, to test my theory, I downloaded ccleaner and tried to run it from one of the limited user accounts. To my surprise, it ran. It didn't create any of the shortcuts, (including in the add/remove programs applet) but it's there in program files/ccleaner alright. So, does this mean running as a lmited user isn't actually very effective at preventing installs, or is there something special about the way ccleaner installs? i.e. does it just put an executable in the program files folder and link to it - no changes to registry or any dependencies etc?

Any input appreciated.

Thanks

2

I've seen this behavior in limited accounts in the past with simple install programs that only use file operations (e.g. copy, paste, delete) and don't attempt to modify the registry, services, task scheduler, etc. I don't know the details of the CC installer, but it may act this way. I assume you're on XP; perhaps Vista exerts better control via UAC?

It doesn't answer your question, but a way I've found to help deter program use in limited accounts is to move the Start / Programs links for individual programs from the "all users" folder (which is where most programs default install) to the "owner" folder only. This prevents the links from showing up in the list in the limited accounts. Of course, if the kids become knowledgeable enough to go to "C:\program files" and find the executables, that stops working :( .

However, as most malware actively tries to run itself & compromise the system after install, I think the likelihood that a user will seek out and run an executable that _didn't_ behave that way is low.

Good luck,

mgr