Windows 2000 Support

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Sunday, 27 December 2009

Running Process Lasso with Highest Rights - new beta improvements

Posted on 21:14 by Unknown
I'm approaching final for v3.80. I've accomplished all but a few items remaining on my list, then I'll enter the testing (and regression testing) stage.

Slowly over the course of the next few days, I'll introduce a few of the new features in v3.80. Today's feature is better automatic startup of Process Lasso with Highest Rights for Vista+ systems with UAC turned on.

As many of us know, Windows Defender blocks automatic startup of all applications that want to run with Highest Rights. You can't even create an ignore list. I reckon this is a good thing, from a big picture perspective.

If you are running Windows XP or below, this article doesn't apply to you. So, you can stop reading now unless you are curious.

Since many people need to run Process Lasso with Highest Rights, even though it is not normally recommended, we have further accommodated that capability. Remember, Highest Rights is the mode that allows any single instance of Process Lasso to view and manage the processes of all users (including system processes). In some cases, this is certainly desired. In most cases, its not.

Originally, I had planned to work around Windows Defender by adding Process Lasso to the Windows Task Scheduler's list of application to launch when a user logs in. However, I changed my mind and tried a different approach. I call it the 'proxied launch'.

While Windows Defender doesn't allow launching of High Rights processes, it does allow launching of low-rights processes, who can then launch a High Rights process. Of course, when done this way, the UAC elevation dialog is shown to the user. In current beta, its actually shown twice - once for the GUI and once for the core engine. I plan to lower that to once before final.

Whether or not this is the way I stay with, I don't know. As a side note, the user has the choice of using the proxied launch or not. Still, the official recommendation is to just let Process Lasso run with normal rights. The only exclusions to this rule are single-user systems where a system service needs managing, or servers where the processes of multiple users need managing by a single instance of Process Lasso running as a service.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • WARNING: Cracks for Process Lasso may modify HOSTS file
    WARNING:  Cracks for Process Lasso have been seen to modify your system HOSTS file so that you can no longer access  bitsum.com  and/or  bit...
  • Process Lasso v3.65.3 beta released
    I've released the first new beta that is 100% UNICODE. I've regression tested almost all the software, though there may still be som...
  • Process Lasso v5.0.0.28
    This build continues maintenance, fixing several items and also making a nice improvement to the graph's display. Further, the last sele...
  • v5.0.0.18: Fix auto updater in XP
    During testing a few hours ago I noticed the auto-update was failing in some XP installations. Specifically, it would appear to stall at the...
  • BETA: Vista startup configuration
    Ok, I've got this fully correct now I think. In some cases in previous builds you could end up with both registry and Task Scheduler sta...
  • Process Lasso v5.0.0.48
    Changes: [.48]Change.GUI: Do not show 'Activate Now' menu item after activation [.48]Change.GUI: Adjusted logging thread CPU and I/O...
  • v5.0.0.17 final - Minor fixes
    This build fixes a reported issue with the watchdog rules (re: not default affinities, priorities, power schemes, but rather the terminate/r...
  • v5.0.0.21: Fix failure of web links within Process Lasso on some systems
    I've had reports of sporadic failure of the web links within Process Lasso. I've analyzed this situation for a while today and found...
  • One bit of bad news, one bit of good news
    One disappointing thing is that I've decided to cancel the change history shown in the update dialog, at least for v4.1. I may add it in...
  • Oh the frustration with this corporate crapware!!
    I now get uninstall feedback, as I solicit it (for better or worse). Once read, I can never go back, lol. Fortunately, most of it is actuall...

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (1)
    • ►  March (1)
  • ►  2012 (6)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2011 (166)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (12)
    • ►  July (14)
    • ►  June (17)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (27)
    • ►  February (31)
    • ►  January (20)
  • ►  2010 (203)
    • ►  December (23)
    • ►  November (34)
    • ►  October (38)
    • ►  September (17)
    • ►  August (19)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (11)
    • ►  May (16)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ▼  2009 (43)
    • ▼  December (6)
      • CNET 'Reviews' Process Lasso
      • The hazards of reading user reviews
      • Running Process Lasso with Highest Rights - new be...
      • WARNING: Beware of pirated copies of Process Lasso...
      • New low cost license experiment
      • The many instances of Chrome
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (10)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (9)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (4)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile