takes ownership of the C disk in windows and gives administrators full priveledges for program files. by default they belong to "trustedinstaller" which bars you from using a lot of your own computer, even if you make an admin account.

[–] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 20 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I feel like that would break a lot of stuff

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 38 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It doesn't break anything to add privileges. It's only a security risk.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 25 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

The way I do it is I have a script that adds an entry in file explorer called "Take Ownership". I don't have to use it often but when I do it's a life saver, and it doesn't blanket take ownership of the whole disk.

Obviously an elevated super user like linux has would be much more secure, but it's windows, they're not interested in security if it isn't about their share price.

[–] sad_detective_man@leminal.space 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

in retrospect that's actually a way better method. do you use the one from winearo? they strike me as untrustworthy but that is 100% based on vibes.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Oof, yeah, those vibes are rancid. The website is covered in shady looking links and they want you to download an exe, which you don't need for a simple registry edit which can be done with a text file.

This link shows you how to make the .reg file: https://www.windowscentral.com/how-take-ownership-files-using-right-click-context-menu-windows-10

For my money that's way easier than doing it manually through the registry editor yourself, and you can inspect the code to see what it's doing.

If you want to see the manual steps to take ownership without the registry entry, it looks like this: https://www.windowscentral.com/how-take-ownership-files-and-folders-windows-10

If that isn't a dark pattern then I don't know what is. They do not want you to have control over your machine, at all.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Preventing users from breaking their machines unless they really work to bypass the defaults is a good thing. It's the same path all major Linux distros have followed by doing things like disabling the root account at install. The entire ethos of distros like NixOS is to not be able change your own OS unless you actively go out of your way.

The important part is that you can change it.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Obviously an elevated super user like linux has would be much more secure,

NTFS access control entries are more secure than traditional Unix owners. It's why Linux copied NTFS style ACE file permissions years ago.

[–] sad_detective_man@leminal.space 14 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

they say it does. the consequences have yet to reveal themselves to me

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Windows permissions are more flexible than basic Unix ones. A file doesn't just have an owner and a group, it can have individual permissions for arbitrarily many entities, so taking ownership doesn't remove any of the permissions from anything that already had access, it just adds more. The command shown here is closest in effect to deciding you're always going to log in as root from now on, although Windows has a way to effectively do that without modifying the ACL of every file. Either way, it's silly, and usually people who suggest it are under the impression that XP did permissions right by not meaningfully enforcing them and not having an equivalent of a root account you can temporarily switch to, and Vista only changed things specifically to annoy people, and not to be more like Unix.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Good on you if you think you can handle the responsibility of being able to completely wreck your OS. The option exists for a reason.

But Windows was made with the average user in mind. And they can't be trusted with that kind of power.

Though I do question the security issues that arise from doing this. If your account can break everything, so can every software/malware you install.

[–] sad_detective_man@leminal.space 2 points 3 days ago

honestly if I install a malware at this point I kind of deserve what happens.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Trusted installer" has such "Trust me bro" energy and I hate it. I don't trust you one goddamned bit gimmie those files!

[–] sad_detective_man@leminal.space 1 points 3 days ago

FR, like I know why Microsoft started wrestling away control from end users but dammit I NEED those priveledges for myself