Related
We have an ERP application which is built in VB6 and it was running just fine till a few of our customer upgraded all their systems to Win7.
This software is programmed in such a way that it registers a few plugins (found in plugin folder) which are COM based at runtime. Now when the software is run by user without setting Compatibility Mode and Run as Administrator setting it fails and crashes.
I know we can manually set both Compatibility Mode as well as Run a Administrator by right clicking on program executable and then going to its properties. But this looks very unprofessional.
I think there will be some way to tell Win 7 to automatically run a software in Compatibility Mode and Run as Administrator.
Please help me.
Compatibility is an administrative function, not a development or deployment function. It is better to fix the application where possible, especially to remove any requirement for elevation.
There are plenty of tools for investigating the issues so you can correct them. However globally registering "plug ins" at runtime is a nasty one. VB6 component self-registration is always global unless registry virtualization can redirect it. Why not create installers for the plug-ins that can run elevated once during installation?
There are ways to set compatibility less manually, even as part of installation - though Microsoft discourages this. Maybe take a look at:
Compatibility Fix Database Management Strategies and Deployment
However the effort required might be better spent on remediating the problem. Support costs will be less over time.
As the other answers have said, you shouldn't need to run all the time elevated.
If you want to register the plugins after its started (as a normal user), you can use ShellExecute() with the "runas" verb to run regsvr32.exe, or use COM elevation which has been discussed many times before.
You can indicate that an application must run as admin by specifying it in the Application Manifest, which in an xml file that you can either embed or deploy with your application.
Once your application is running with admin rights it should be able to register and load the plugins. You should not need to run in compatibility mode to access the COM plugins.
I made an updater which silently runs in XP and works just fine. But when it comes to Vista, the idea of silent installation gets ruined when UAC prompts the user to cancel or allow the user from running the program.
Is there anything at all we can do about this?
Thanks...
I know this post is old... 4 months to be exact. But Actually, yes it is VERY VERY possible. I wish to correct the people above.
Just add this line to your NSIS script.
RequestExecutionLevel user
This line tells Windows Vista and Windows 7 that this program does not require administrative access, which Vista/7 thinks.
Unfortunately there's no way around this. UAC is actually intended specifically to prevent this type of thing where programs install software or make changes to the machine without the user's awarness.
This is effectively a side effect of UAC and user permissions. From a security perspective, it does make sense.
If this is something you need to do, you should look to implement a system that is designed to run patching and deployments with elevated permissions. Microsoft's own Systems Management Server would do the trick, but is obviously quite a large scale solution!
You can read about it here.
UAC for non-MSI installs is a bit of a grey area, with signed MSI packages things get much easier and less confusing for the user.
You might want to take a look at Clickonce Deployment which may solve some of your problems.
Actually, it is possible, under very preconceived circumstances. Specifically, "service" can launch an installer, in a user session, with full privileges and bypass UAC prompting (already has it).
Of course this requires your user to have already installed your service, which DOES require Admin approval.
Update: Since development machine has moved to Vista, i now automatically test as a standard user. And with XP being phased out, this question isn't so relavent anymore.
Since the Windows 2000 logo requirements, Microsoft has been requiring that applications run as standard user. Like everyone else i always ran my desktop as an administrative user. And like every developer: i log in, develop, run, and test as an administrative user.
Now with a new push to finally support standard users, i've been testing my applications by running them as a normal user - either through RunAs, or having my application relaunch itself with normal rights using [SaferCreateLevel][1]/[SaferComputeTokenFromLevel][2] if it detects it is running as an administrator. i quickly see how specacularly some of my apps fail under Windows XP as a standard user (due to my own stupidity). i also see how the same applications work fine under Vista (thanks to it's numerous shims to fix my bugs for me).
Aside: It's ironic that applications are more likely to run on Vista as a standard user than on XP.
The question is do you test your applications for standard user compatiblity? Do you develop as a standard user on XP? Do you ignore standard user access and hope for the best?
i tried, as a bonus, to have my app relaunch itself as a limited user (rather than normal user). It doesn't even come up - Windows says it failed to initialize. So there an area of future research on my part: making the app even support limited user.
i specifically referred to standard users on XP rather than Vista to enforce the truth that Vista is no different from XP as far as compatibility is concerned. And anyone who says their app fails on Vista must realize it also fails on XP.
I'm going to point you to Crispin Cowan's "Best Practices for Developing for Windows Standard User" talk. It's well worth watching.
If you want to sell your application to businesses then yes, you must test your application running as a standard user. If your application can't run without administrative privelleges, that's going to doom any sale in to a business.
Even in the home market, plenty of people can and do use limited users to go about their daily activities; I know I do.
Even administrative applications that do legimately need administrative privelleges should behave sensibly when running as a limited user. They should popup up a dialog informing the user that administrative rights are required to complete whatever task it was that they were attempting.
The best way to build software that respects these limitations is to develop your software under a user that has limited privileges. That way, every time you develop a feature you're implicitly testing whether it will work in a limited environment.
None of this is hard, it just take a degree of discipline - just like all quality assurance procedures do. People have been developing as non-root users on *nix for decades. Windows development is behind the curve in this respect.
Crispin, in his PDC talk, made a very good point, one that i had never considered before.
Google Chrome installs as a standard user: it installs in the per-user folder, without needing a UAC or OTS prompt, and everything is user friendly because the install is so easy. Unfortunatly, it is installed in a per-user folder, where the user can modify it.
Put it another way: malware can modify the Chrome exe.
Chrome would now become the biggest target for any mal-ware. And if some malware does modify it, Chrome is now sending your usernames, passwords, and credit card info back to home base, because that's what the new Chrome exe does.
That is why you sometimes want applications installed to protected locations.
Edit: The entire Microsoft "Click Once" deployment inititave suffers the danger.
I run on XP as a limited user almost all of the time and as the default. (On Vista, I use an adminstrative account and rely on UAC.)
I develop as a limited user. There's very little in Java and Visual Studio development that requires any more privilege than that.
If I need to run something under the limited account but with administrative privileges, I use a MakeMeAdmin (renamed and tuned as ConsoleMeAdmin) .bat script that creates an administrative console session.
If I really need to be an administrator in order to do installs and do first-time-runs so my security software can condition itself to allow network access to the new code (or not), etc., I will elevate my Limited User Account to Administrator long enough to get all of that done, then restart the account as Limited User again. Other than for Windows Updates, I do all of my downloads as a limited user and then install off-line after elevation to Administrator.
Because I only have a small workgroup LAN with no Active Directory, the only useful account types are Administrator and Limited User on XP. (I tried power user when I first began using XP but found that I could do without it and I prefer what that teaches me about not depending on special privileges in code I build.)
[PS: I also have Data Execution Protection (supported in hardware) active by default on my XP system, and you'd be surprised what that turns up.]
In the business environment most users are standard windows domain users.
To ignore standard user compliance tests is a really bad move.
And you will get each domain administrator that has to install your application very angry and they will go to your competition.
IMHO developing in an administrator account is not only unnecessary, but also highly dangerous! Suppose you check something on the internet while developing (stackoverflow comes to mind) and you catch some malware - history shows that this is far easier than you might have thought, e.g. through banners. As an administrator this malware will infect your computer and you might never get rid of it. It can even be a danger to all your development work (think of industrial espionage)!
If you have to run/test anything as an administrator, use either runas or even better virtual machines - that way you can use separate systems with defined behaviour (lots of problems with Windows software come from libraries that are of course available on the developer's PC, but hardly anywhere else!). In times of Microsoft Virtual PC and VMWare Server (both free) there isn't even an excuse due to high prices for virtualization software.
I've developed some Windows apps some years ago and besides their installers NOTHING ever required administrative rights. The run-time settings always belong to the user, not to the machine.
And yes, I run Windows XP as normal user at home too, as do my family members (parents etc.). Sometimes a crappy piece of software needs write access to their installation folder, but 95% of all installed apps run fine out-of-the-box by today.
Yes, we test that.
Probably the simplest, but most abused, rule is that you shouldn't do anything that requires write access to your program's install folder. Instead, there's a special folder called Application Data for that kind of thing.
Yes, and I took the general advice that its much easier to get your application to run on Vista if it runs ok on XP as limited user. To achieve that, and know if there were any problems running as limited user, I used LUABuglight.
I generally don't develop as limited user but only log on as limited user for testing.
The number of programs that require Admin rights and write to their own Program Files folder is amazing. To be honest, I've found very few programs that run correctly as limited user, from any software company, big or small.
Anyone else find it funny that Windows developers think its normal to run as Admin (apparently), but Linux developers pretty much never run as root?
As an old-time BOFH I will rain fire and ugly words over anyone asking for elevated rights for their client-side applications to run properly. It's just out of the question, always was ever since around 2001-2002 when we switched from Win9x to XP (sic).
As a newly born developer in a place where everyone on XP is a local admin by a forced group policy and changing it seems to take time and noone is especially inclined to start either - I've installed the RunAsAdmin shim that lowers me down to a normal user for most tasks including developing - much like in Vista. Recommended if you're stuck as a local admin on XP ^^
I didn't upgrade to Vista until May or so and one of the things I've always heard developers I know in real life say is "first thing you should do is turn off that UAC crap"
Well, I've left it on this whole time for a few reasons. First, just as a failsafe in case I do something idiotic like have a momentary lapse of reason and run an attachment from an email, or in case I view a site which hits some unpatched exploit. Second, as a big of an experiment to see how good or bad it really is.
Finally, I figure that it enforces some better practices. I used to develop every website in Windows directly in inetpub\wwwroot (Visual Studio .NET 2003 more or less required this) but now I develop them elsewhere because the UAC clickfest is a nightmare. I figure this is Microsoft's way of saying "you should really be doing it this way".
By way of another analogy - if you wrote a web app which runs on XP and 2000 just fine but requires 50 different security features of Server 2003 to be turned off, the real solution might be instead to just fix the application such that it doesn't require the security features to be turned off.
But now I'm having to work with an app which is really really NOT designed to be developed outside of inetpub/wwwroot and so UAC is really a nuisance. It's beyond the scope of the project to rectify this. I want to stick to my guns and leave UAC on but I'm also worried about being so autopilot about clicking "Yes" or "Allow" three times every time I need to modify a file.
Am I just being hard headed? Do most developers on Vista leave the UAC on or off? And for the instance described above, is there a better/easier way?
I think it is necessary to leave UAC on on a test machine, so you can see what a real user would see using your app. However, I turn it off on my development machine since I find it distracting, and I trust myself enough to not need it.
(Hopefully your test machine != your dev machine right?)
All this being said, I support UAC, and I am not recommending anyone else turn it off, especially 'common users'.
I code in a standard user account, with UAC turned on.
No I do not close UAC.
Programming C# winform, and web with IIS. Database is progresql. No need to bother with UAC. Some program only require 1 authorization, not a big deal.
I keep UAC on. I find it useful to develop in an environment similar to my end user. That way if I write any code which is trying to read / write from restricted areas I will know about it quicker.
UAC is incredibly annoying at first when you get a new system. The problem is that when you first start out with a new install you have all kinds of programs to set up and settings to tweak. It seems like you see the UAC prompt every 5 minutes.
After a while, two things happen:
You're not setting up as much new stuff.
You've become a little more used to the prompt.
At this point UAC isn't so bad anymore. I have UAC on and I've only seen one or two prompts in the last couple weeks. That's right about perfect: if I see a prompt I wasn't expecting I know to make sure I really want to proceed.
I will argue that the 2nd effect kind of defeats the purpose. What they should do is have UAC disabled by default, but for the first month only. After the first month prompt you to turn UAC on, where the default option for someone who doesn't really read things is to turn it on. Then people aren't annoyed during their setup period, and it's easier to make an informed choice about what you want to do with UAC.
I leave it on
I leave it on, but have it set to automatically elevate privileges when necessary. It's a fine distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
Services like Microsoft SQL Server runs with administrator privileges. Visual Studio on the other hand does not. Nor do most developer-tools.
I make heavy use of virtual machines to 1) make sure my development environment is safe at all times, and 2) to test out software with the potential of leaving my machine FUBAR. And 3) to limit down-time, restoring my development environment, "in case I do something idiotic like have a momentary lapse of reason and run an attachment from an email" :)
I have been using Windows 2008 in my workstation following the advices on http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/ and it has worked great for me. I don't remember turning off UAC, but certainly I haven't suffered it, so I guess it's turned off.
As others have said, you do need to have test [virtual] machines that are configured as close as possible to the ones your users will have so you won't have any surprises deploying your app.
I think whether you do this or not should depend on the target audience for your application, although I can completely understand people disabling it.
If all your users run Vista with UAC disabled then I think you can get away with turning it off, but this probably isn't realistic--or advisable. At the other end of the spectrum, our applications are used by a vast number of people with every conceivable version and configuration of Windows from Win2k onwards, and obviously including Vista and Server 2008. Since we're an ISV with no control over our users' environments, or over policies governing their privileges and administration, I always leave UAC enabled--even though it annoys me beyond all reason at times--because then I know about any possible problems it might cause for people using our applications sooner rather than later.
Disclaimer: most of my actual coding time is spent on Windows XP, although I have a Vista 64-bit test machine under my desk which I use on a daily basis for testing. Generally I'll use this box around 20 - 30% of the time.
Developing or not developing - was the first thing I did after installing vista. Just seemed an annoying nuisance at best.
Instead of running antivirus to suck away my CPU cycles (I need as many as I can with RDPs and VMs running all the time). I just leave UAC on as a safeguard to double check and make sure only certain things run. It does more than that though, it also restricts programs access to sensitive areas, so a program basically can't trash your system without you allowing it through UAC. I have not had a problem yet and my system runs only what I need it to run, quickly and smoothly.
It's too annoying for me, it gets turned off as soon as I install Vista.
I turn it off as soon as I install the OS. Security by endless modal dialogs is no security at all. Normal users just get used to clicking even more 'OK' buttons after a couple of weeks or so.
EDIT: Wow, down-voted huh? Must be some Microsoft employees around here...Of course it should remain on on a test machine, probably should have mentioned that.
I turn it off on computers that I am using.
When testing, I test in the target environment, which means I may have UAC on or off.
I see no benefit to developing with it on.
I find it extremely annoying and turn it off at all times, I trust myself enough to not have to have fail safes in place. If I screw up and run some dodgy application that's my bad and I'll live with the consequences. Meanwhile I'm not spending 5 minutes of my day clicking though some damn annoying popups.
I have it off, but that's because I trust myself entirely too much. Its funny though, it seems to make the average user (I live in Jourdanton TX, we have a lot of "average users" here in the middle of nowhere) afraid of the control panel, because it causes all these weird prompts to come up and wants their password every 5 minutes if they start to poke around.
That said, I think it depends on your level of expertise with the system. On your dev machine, yes, definitely turn the darn thing off. I haven't gone a day this week without needing to install or update some piece of software, and I don't like having to elevate myself to admin status to have to do that.
What I would really like is the ability to have it elevate for a period of time, or say automatically turn itself back on when I log off, so that I could do an entire session's worth of installing stuff without being bothered, and then be secure again when I was done and (inevitably) had to restart the machine as seems to be common practice with windows installers now.
And all that ranting aside, I think for your test machine, it should definitely be on. Not because I necessarily agree with the feature (any more than I agree that the Administrator account should be disabled permananty, I love that account way too much) but because the User is very likely to have it turned on, and you need to see your program through their eyes. This is especially true if your program is going to require elevation, say to change a setting or modify a certain directory, so that you can prompt your users to accept the UAC warning in your program, which adds an extra layer of comfort to the user I think.
Oh, and as for the one program, let me harp on you just slightly. Shouldn't the program have a define somewhere in the main header files that tells it where its "working directory" is? If this is already the case, then why is it so hard to change that working directory to somewhere else? If its not the case, shame on you, and you should go fix that. ^_^ That would have saved you a lot of trouble.
-Nicholas
I'm running into issues where our build scripts do things like manipulate registry entries or add things to the GAC. We're trying to get away from this stuff but until we do it's there and requires privilege escalation. So the build scripts get run from an Administrator command window. The problem comes in when I open Visual Studio 2008 and try to build part of the application - I can't as a normal user because the output files can't be overwritten because the build in the Admin console produced the same files at a higher privilege level. It's causing me a lot of frustration and I'm thinking the best way is to turn UAC off for now but I'm very reluctant to do so.
Because I've got post-build scripts to copy executables into the Program Files directory for testing I run Visual Studio with elevated privileges.
One tip I've found that makes life easier, is that to quickly start a command prompt with elevated privileges you can:
press Window Key
type "cmd"
Press Ctrl+Shift+Enter
Left cursor key (with right pinky) to move to "Continue" button on UAC dialog
Enter
I always keep one open for launching my IDE and running build scripts.
The only downside I've found is that elevated windows don't interact with some of my window tweaking software like KatMouse and Switcher.
No, but I do change some settings:
Do not prompt for elevation if not in the administrators group.
Evelvate automatically if you are the [machine]\administrator
I do not put myself in the administrators group.
Juts a plain old user, with no elevation prompts.
Use Run As if developing/debugging web apps with development server
I code with UAC off. I found annoying to see all those popups when i open visual studio or star uml, or just want to change a setting in my machine. I have always installed a good internet security suite that keeped me "virus free" on my machine for long years and i don't see the point to have always an "are you sure" prompt on every task i do. I agree with Ed because everyone click ok.
Exemple : install a firewall to some member of your family. When they will be prompted if app XYZ can connect to the internet, they will click yes. They will not make the distinction between a good app and a spyware/virus. It's the same thing with UAC.
I leave UAC on, but have VS set to always run as admin. The only real reason why I do that though is that I mostly work on software that requires admin permissions to run anyway. (And yes, I know that should be the minority, but my app happens to be one of those -- it's a soft-realtime hardware controller.)
For general purpose apps, you must at least test with UAC enabled; while you could do that on a separate machine, it's easier to test on your dev machine. And the prompt isn't that much of an imposition, especially if you disable the "secure desktop" option (which reacts very slowly with most graphics cards when enabled).
If you stay on Vista, turn off UAC and rely on Microsoft Security Essentials' real-time monitor to intercept anything that wants to alter your system. Or, upgrade to Win7, where you can leave UAC on and control the levels at which you want UAC to notify and interrupt the execution.
EDIT: It's very easy to exploit a Windows computer anyway, so what's the sense in having UAC turned on, if it really doesn't guarantee protection?
I just noticed that Chromium was installed in AppData in both Vista and XP. If Google does that and if other applications does this, than is that becuase there is some form of protection? Should we write installers that does the same thing as Google?
Windows still lacks a convention for per-user installation.
When an installer asks whether to install for the current user or all users, it really only refers to shortcut placement (Start Menu; Desktop). The actual application files still go in the system-wide %PROGRAMFILES%.
Microsoft's own ClickOnce works around this by creating a completely non-standard %USERPROFILE%\Local Settings\Apps (%USERPROFILE%\AppData\Roaming on Vista / Server 2008) directory, with both program files and configuration data in there.
(I'm at a loss why Microsoft couldn't add a per-user Program Files directory in Vista. For example, in OS X, you can create a ~/Applications, and the Finder will give it an appropriate icon. Apps like CrossOver and Adobe AIR automatically use that, defaulting to per-user apps. Thus, no permissions issues.)
What you probably should do: if the user is not an admin, install in the user directory; if they do, give them both options.
One advantage nobody mentioned are silent auto-updates. Chrome has an updater process that runs all the time and immediately updates your chrome installation.
I think their use-case is non-standard. They need a way to fix vulnerability issues (since it's a browser) as soon as possible. Waiting for admins approving every single update company-wide, is simply not good enough.
As far as I can tell, the only reason why Chrome installs into the Application Data folder is so that non-admin users can install it.
The Chrome installer currently does not allow the user to pick where the application is to be installed. Don't do that – instead, give the user a choice between a per-user (somewhere like App Data) and computer-wide (Program Files) installation.
Windows 7 and Windows Installer 5.0 provide real per-user installation capabilities now.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd408068%28VS.85%29.aspx
You can sort of fudge it in Vista and XP by using ~/AppData/Local or the equivalent like Chrome does. Microsoft themselves use this for the ClickOnce installers.
So at least on Windows 7 and beyond the solution is simple.
Frankly, I have yet to see the first installer that really allows both per-user and per-machine installations. Many installers offer this option in their GUI, but the setting only affects where the shortcuts etc. go -- the binaries always fo to %ProgramFiles%.
In fact, it is pretty hard to create Windows Installer packages that allow both kinds of installs, to say the least. With the advent of UAC, I'd say its is impossible: Per user installations must not require elevation, per machine installations have to. But whether an MSI package requires elevation is controlled via a bit in the summary information stream -- there is no way to have user input have impact on that.
Whether per-user or per-machine is the better choice greatly deoends on the application. For small packages, however, I tend to prefer per-user installations. Besides being slightly more user-friendly by not requiring an UAC prompt or runas, they also signalize the user that the setup will not do much harm to the computer (assuming he is a non-admin).
The Chrome installer really ought to allow global installation (with elevation) in addition to per-user. I don't want to have to maintain an installation for every user; I want to be able to centrally manage upgrades and so on. Chrome doesn't allow that.
That said, the option to install per-user is quite nice, as it means no permissions issues.
Just so you people know, Google has created an MSI installer for global system installation and management. It's located here:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/browser/
I do not see anything in %PROGRAMFILES% on Win7. Looks like Chrome must be installed for each user on the machine.
Perhaps the true reason of doing this is faking number of Chrome installations by few times ! Thus making it first browser in the world !