Tell me more ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 0 down vote favorite

The Windows File "Security" very often aggravates me. In the most enraging situations an application that I normally started (although actually my main/only account is an administrator) doesn't work because it needed admin rights for some file actions.

So for my big hard drive I started taking ownership with my main account - I thoaught that this shouldn't be any security risk - because the files on there should be dealt with in any way possible and I don't want to press some extra admin button for simply copying files into it. But with the root partition, and the program files folders I think I should ask around :)

Obviously ownership by SYSTEM makes sense for the Windows directory - but should I leave it as that for the ProgramFiles directories? It might come in handy to have that extra question before some bloatware / malware whatever wants to get installed; but I figure that any software with "malicious intent" wouldn't try to install itself in a directory that is protected by default...

share|improve this question
You really shouldn't take ownership of a file unless you really need to. There are many articles on the security downfall of such an action. – Ramhound Feb 1 at 18:39
Please enlighten me with such articles - I am willing to learn the philosophy of Windows file security. I can't seem to learn from short comments like this. – klyonrad Feb 1 at 18:54
Do your own research on the subject. If you take of a system file that is bad, it would be bad on any operating system, and thats what seems to be your question. You shouldn't even have to take ownership of a file unless your system is not configured right. – Ramhound Feb 1 at 20:01

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote

Leave it alone. I don't understand people's obsession with this. The enhanced security of Windows now requires admin rights to mess with files and folders in areas outside your home folder, (very similar to how it works in a linux or unix system.)These new changes are for security purposes, and you have no real reason to take ownership en mass like you're suggesting. Trust me, I work with an old geezer of a desktop tech who has trashed many systems trying this nonsense.

share|improve this answer
There are many folders outside of my home-folder that I consider as part of my home folder - on other drives and on my C: partition do you suggest that I make countless of Junctions instead? ;-P – klyonrad Feb 1 at 18:57
thats all well and good, but you should keep most the stuff you need to "own" inside your c:\users\username folder. – MDT Guy Feb 1 at 19:00
And like I explained: the reason why people are obsessed with this is that all these required admin rights very often just fuck with you for no. added. security. – klyonrad Feb 1 at 19:00
Are you saying to specifically not touch the C: partition or are you suggesting to not touch ownership ever? (again: talking about simple media files & games on the other drives) – klyonrad Feb 1 at 19:03
2  
@klyonrad - You shouldn't have to take ownership of a file on another drive unless it was actually created by an entirely DIFFERENT system and created in such a way the ownership isn't any user. In other words if thats the case a great of the time your system configuration is already wrong. – Ramhound Feb 1 at 20:03
up vote 2 down vote

No.
It can smash the security of system badly. And, you can't go back easily (recent full backup would be required).

If you have problem with it, just take recursive ownership of only those folders which are created by you. For example, you should take ownership of C:\PortablePrograms, C:\MyCompiledPrograms etc, but not of C:\Program Files.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.