MSBNSoftware.exe and non-admin account

[jay]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.broadbandnet.hardware (More info?)

I stopped running as Admin on my box -- much thanks to
hints at http://blogs.msdn.com/Aaron_Margosis.

Today when I came home from work, I was prompted to
install MSBNSoftware.exe. I click the bubble, check the
info on
http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/BroadbandNetworking/Auto
Update2/CheckUpdates.asp, and start downloading.

Turns out you can't install the package unless you're
logged on as administrator. Microsoft, if you're
listening, it'd be great if you could add this
information to the "Important notes" section. Not a big
deal, true, but anything you can do to help people
running as non-admin is good.

 

[joker]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.broadbandnet.hardware (More info?)

Over 90% of all software on the market now requires you to have local
admin rights to be able to install a program. I say get used to it as
it is a result of making the default security settings higher then they
had been before.

Jay wrote:
> I stopped running as Admin on my box -- much thanks to
> hints at http://blogs.msdn.com/Aaron_Margosis.
>
> Today when I came home from work, I was prompted to
> install MSBNSoftware.exe. I click the bubble, check the
> info on
> http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/BroadbandNetworking/Auto
> Update2/CheckUpdates.asp, and start downloading.
>
> Turns out you can't install the package unless you're
> logged on as administrator. Microsoft, if you're
> listening, it'd be great if you could add this
> information to the "Important notes" section. Not a big
> deal, true, but anything you can do to help people
> running as non-admin is good.

 

[jay]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.broadbandnet.hardware (More info?)

"Get used to it" is a ridiculous statement. Just because
few people run as non-admin doesn't mean this is the way
things should be. And if you didn't notice, Microsoft
recommends (time and again) that you run as non-admin.

Now, why do I need admin right on the *local* machine to
update my wifi router? Shouldn't admin pwd on the router
be enough?

That said, if there are genuine technical reasons to
require admin on the local machine to upgrade the wifi
router -- what's the harm in spelling this out on the
installation page? Currently there are 3 important notes,
no harm in adding a 4th.

I already conceeded that this isn't a huge issue, but
this seems like yet another good opportunity for
Microsoft to raise awareness.

>-----Original Message-----
>Over 90% of all software on the market now requires you
to have local
>admin rights to be able to install a program. I say get
used to it as
>it is a result of making the default security settings
higher then they
>had been before.
>
>Jay wrote:
>> I stopped running as Admin on my box -- much thanks to
>> hints at http://blogs.msdn.com/Aaron_Margosis.
>>
>> Today when I came home from work, I was prompted to
>> install MSBNSoftware.exe. I click the bubble, check
the
>> info on
>>
http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/BroadbandNetworking/Auto
>> Update2/CheckUpdates.asp, and start downloading.
>>
>> Turns out you can't install the package unless you're
>> logged on as administrator. Microsoft, if you're
>> listening, it'd be great if you could add this
>> information to the "Important notes" section. Not a
big
>> deal, true, but anything you can do to help people
>> running as non-admin is good.
>
>.
>

 

[joker]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.broadbandnet.hardware (More info?)

It is because of the default security settings for the registry & NTFS
file system in Windows 2000 & later. The update for the router was
trying to install some local software as well as the update to the firmware.

You are basically complaining about the OS now being more secure out of
the box.

Jay wrote:

> "Get used to it" is a ridiculous statement. Just because
> few people run as non-admin doesn't mean this is the way
> things should be. And if you didn't notice, Microsoft
> recommends (time and again) that you run as non-admin.
>
> Now, why do I need admin right on the *local* machine to
> update my wifi router? Shouldn't admin pwd on the router
> be enough?
>
> That said, if there are genuine technical reasons to
> require admin on the local machine to upgrade the wifi
> router -- what's the harm in spelling this out on the
> installation page? Currently there are 3 important notes,
> no harm in adding a 4th.
>
> I already conceeded that this isn't a huge issue, but
> this seems like yet another good opportunity for
> Microsoft to raise awareness.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Over 90% of all software on the market now requires you
>
> to have local
>
>>admin rights to be able to install a program. I say get
>
> used to it as
>
>>it is a result of making the default security settings
>
> higher then they
>
>>had been before.
>>
>>Jay wrote:
>>
>>>I stopped running as Admin on my box -- much thanks to
>>>hints at http://blogs.msdn.com/Aaron_Margosis.
>>>
>>>Today when I came home from work, I was prompted to
>>>install MSBNSoftware.exe. I click the bubble, check
>
> the
>
>>>info on
>>>
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/BroadbandNetworking/Auto
>
>>>Update2/CheckUpdates.asp, and start downloading.
>>>
>>>Turns out you can't install the package unless you're
>>>logged on as administrator. Microsoft, if you're
>>>listening, it'd be great if you could add this
>>>information to the "Important notes" section. Not a
>
> big
>
>>>deal, true, but anything you can do to help people
>>>running as non-admin is good.
>>
>>.
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.broadbandnet.hardware (More info?)

"joker" <no-spam@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:%230E88FWdEHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It is because of the default security settings for the registry & NTFS
> file system in Windows 2000 & later. The update for the router was
> trying to install some local software as well as the update to the
firmware.
>
> You are basically complaining about the OS now being more secure out of
> the box.
>

This is the way that most modern operating systems work. You install
programs
and configure the operating system(maybe also back up the OS) as an
administrator.

You do all other normal functions as a "limited" user.

This makes the operating system inherently more secure. How secure depends
on the OS.

Some operating systems allow you to install some programs as a limited user,
but you would normally be able to only run that program as that user.

This is widely understood in the computer industry, and is the basic
reason for having limited accounts. Microsoft didn't feel like it needed
to warn you ahead of time. Maybe they were wrong.

Maybe "get used to it" is a little harsh, but to get the added security,
that's how things work. Be aware that, in general, you should
be installing programs, updates(like Windows Update), drivers, etc.
as an administrative user. You should otherwise be operating as
a limited user if the programs you run allow it. Some programs that
were written before Windows operated this way(read Win 98, ME)
won't run in a limited account. Sometimes it is possible to circumvent
this problem by changing the permissions on the folder that
contains the program. This is not easy to do in XP Home.

You can also run
a program as another user(limited or admin) by right clicking the
program on the start menu and using the run as... option. You need
to know the password for the account that you are running as. You can
also install programs as an admin user while in a limited account this way
(no warranty expressed or implied). You can update programs like
your antivirus and spyware blocker this way. In some ways, this is
as secure a way to do the job as is possible.

Hope this helps.

Dick Kistler