Bingo, if this is ever implemented, then there would be a mass-outcry no doubt that its so inconvenient for them.

Everyone wants everything in this world, but the question is: Can we trust them with it all?

you should do this regardless of any security. I ALWAYS check programs (if program is small enough I even scan the code) before running it, thats what responsible network administrators do. If you are not checking programs out, then I would not be surprised if you were or are attacked.

Also I would like to thank you for using linux, people like you and me are way ahead of the rest of the population still plagued with problems such as the one we are discussing. (not that linux is bulletproof, but it is close). The system I am proposing is close to the linux approach. Only that the admin cannot do daily user tasks in that account. In linux root can do those tasks. In my approach, they cannot.

Please read above mentioned points, that topic has already been covered.

To save time ill summarize. Malware authors are going to set that. Its expected, and if an admin executes the bad program without checking it out. You now point I hope...

Also I should explain the last point. Command prompt couldn't be blocked. I need it as an admin. Administrators should always check foreign scripts before executing them. Its not that hard to get the source code to a batch file or VBscript or (insert favorite cmd language here). Admins can always download using their standard accounts and switch users to execute it. Its more inconvenient but it takes almost as long to display and read a UAC prompt anyways. A switch user takes what 10 seconds. Thats a really long time.

If the security flag was set then the program would not be available to the standard user, only to the admin. That would defeat that argument. If the admin still used the poorly coded program, thats his fault. I'll be awaiting his payment.

1. Im assuming that the virus authors probably would set that flag which goes back to my "the user should not be a complete retard rant"

2. Allowing a web browser to run in admin as a security flagged app! Are you !@#$'ing kidding me!!! Please go shoot yourself, or at least get re-educated in basic security principals. Thats exactly what the system would be aimed at stopping.

Like it was mentioned before, all systems have its pros and cons and when weighed (microsoft controlled vs. developers) I trust that a game developer wouldn't set the security flag. Another thing that I should mention is that apps with the security flag set can only run as admin. So if a web browser had the flag set, not many people would use it then, and vice versa if a virus writer set the flag then only retards could execute it.

It is not impossible, in fact it is very possible. Microsoft would have to create a flag so that programmers can set it to tell the system that it is a security related program and thus should be allowed to execute under the admin account. There is no microsoft involvement there except that they have to create a flag in the API. Not impossibly hard to them do. With that in mind, I don't see how this is impossible. I didn't say we could completely prevent attacks, just make them a hell of a lot harder. I am assuming however that the user that knows how to get in and use the admin account is not a complete retard. If they are and do execute a virus as admin, then they are retarded and deserve to pay me to fix their computer. Yes, I run a computer business. So offering this could hurt me in the long run, but I hate seeing all the pings and scans and attacks against my firewall everyday. Something needs to be done.

What they need to do is limit all users to not be administrators. They should create the admin account so that it can ONLY do admin tasks. It cannot run programs like office or games. It can only run security and diagnostic apps, adding-remove apps. If they restricted admin users from using their account for daily use and only for admin use, that would significantly reduce the attack surface for crackers.

but doesn't the object need to be very very light in order for it to work? I mean birds have hollow bones and thats how they are very light, they would need a very small very light camera or whatever they plan on using on this "flapping object" or it wont fly. Or have they made things that im not aware of that are light like this?

... something they can afford ... supposed to be cant, oops

I didn't ask if it was morally correct to have free music, I just used that as an example to state a fact that DRM or no DRM people are still gonna pirate the same if they want something they can afford. Its like shoplifting, they are taking it because they can't afford it, but they want it anyways.

you forgot tax ;)

I don't think that it would help really, most people pirate because they can't afford to pay that much. I know people that have 8000 song music collections, do you really think that @ 99 cents a song at most music download places they paid $8000 for their music? I doubt it.

why not? it was probably them that did those searches so they had somebody else to scream at and sue. Now the MPAA and RIAA will want to start censoring google, and the sad thing is google would probably let them do it.