Administrator account? Stupid?

[PadanFain]

Is using the Administrator account stupid? I have always used it by way of tweak ui and deleted all other accounts.

I just re-did XP and went ahead and set up the default account with administrator rights. Was just wondering if there are any major differences installing/ect with the account and admin hidden/Straight Administrator

 

[darkpark]

generally, i never use the built in administrator account. i only use it for troubleshooting.
i just make a new account and give it admin rights. if the account that i'm using gets corrupted than i use the administrator account to log in so that i can delete my account and create a new one.

 

[versello]

In a business environment, using the administrator account is stupid.

In a home-environment, if you're technologically-challenged, then using the administrator account is also stupid.

I personally create a new account with admin rights and use that.

 

[Phoenix86]

Playing devil's advocate, why not use "administrator"?

 

[tommo]

Playing devil's advocate, why not use "administrator"?

I'd say they think the administrator account might be compromised.

 

[Malk-a-mite]

Playing devil's advocate, why not use "administrator"?

From a security standpoint:
You need a username and password to comprimise the system, if the administrator account is available you now only need to figure out the password. So way make the attacker's job easier?

Granted I'm in favor of the *nix approach of doing your work in the user level account and only moving to Admin/Root when you need to.

 

[SJConsultant]

Playing devil's advocate, why not use "administrator"?

I think Phoenix's point is that using an admin account vs administrator does little in reducing attacks since any malicious software can freely attack/affect the system in either case.

Using a limited user account does reduce the damage since a majority of malicious software needs some kind of administrative access to fully deliver it's intended payload.

However it seems there is an increasing amount of malicious software that can install and run in limited user accounts.

 

[djnes]

I personally create a new account with full admin rights, simply to have a second admin account in case of one account becoming corrupted. I use the created acount primarily.

The only reason this was ever suggested is to protect people from doing damage on their own PCs. If you know a little bit about using your own PC, your safe with the admin account. Some of us prefer having full access, and many games and hardware require admin rights to install.

 

[Phoenix86]

I'd say they think the administrator account might be compromised.

How? Your not explaining why "administrator" is less secure than "whatever" or worse yet "admin".

From a security standpoint:
You need a username and password to comprimise the system, if the administrator account is available you now only need to figure out the password. So way make the attacker's job easier?

Granted I'm in favor of the *nix approach of doing your work in the user level account and only moving to Admin/Root when you need to.

I understand the basics.

As far as brute force attacks, there are policies and settings to limit that built in/configurable. Brute force does no good if you have a 3 attempt/15 minute wait. So again, what good does knowing the account name get you?

 

[nessus]

As far as brute force attacks, there are policies and settings to limit that built in/configurable. Brute force does no good if you have a 3 attempt/15 minute wait. So again, what good does knowing the account name get you?

1. Saves you if your password is easily guessable.

2. Also, if a local user has enough smarts or access to the machine to save the security accounts file and have at it with l0phtcrack, the administrator account is the one everybody tries to break.

3. With a friendly neighborhood linux based password reset disk or CD, your machine is cracked within 3 minutes of powerup.

The first thing I do when I build a machine is to log in as the administrator, delete the account description, rename the administrator account, give it a complex password, and set the requirement for the password to be changed at next logon (you can't use an automated brute force attack versus an account that must change its password at all, even if the right password is guessed, they still have to have physical access to the box to change the password and actually use the account). Then I set up an domain based admin account for my own use, and a dummy administrator account with only guest rights.

Without a domain, I'd rename the guest account to administrator and vice versa, switching the account descriptions as well. Then create an account for myself with admin rights. No one ever tries to hack the guest account.

But, I'm really security paranoid. Computer security is only as good as physical security. If someone else can push the power button and can insert bootable media into the box, you will eventually be owned. At least make it take them a while.

 

[Direwolf20]

Playing devil's advocate, why not use "administrator"?

When my girlfriend thought she was being cute, because she learned how to set a password on my personal account on XP, it was nice having the admin account (she didn't even know it existed). I just logged in with that and changed my account's password when she wasn't looking. She was like "Heeyyy! Not fair! How'd you do that?!"

Hehe.

Also, when my cousin's local account got corrupted, due to malware/spyware/goofiness, logged into the admin account and created a new account for him.

I think the benefits of using another account with admin rights is that the admin account is there as a backup, incase something funky happens with your current account. If the admin account wa the only one you used, and something happened to THAT, then you would have to reformat.

 

[Mauli]

under windows xp i am really convinced that it does not make any differnece at all. In terms of praticallity, yes, maybe, becuase as one poster said already, it is always advisable to have a another admin rights account so you can restore or redo a corrupted account. Security wise, I feel that the administrator account doesn't have any super superior rights, at least me as a normal home user, i have not encoutered it yet. I may be wrong.

with a unix system that is a whole different story. Never use the admin account unlress you really need to. There is a humangous difference between root and ordinary user. But thats not what you were asking for, sorry went off topic. Kind of.

 

[Phoenix86]

1. Saves you if your password is easily guessable.

2. Also, if a local user has enough smarts or access to the machine to save the security accounts file and have at it with l0phtcrack, the administrator account is the one everybody tries to break.

3. With a friendly neighborhood linux based password reset disk or CD, your machine is cracked within 3 minutes of powerup.

1. Don't use easy passwords, that's has nothing to do with the name of the account. I agree on having a second account with admin rights for redundancy, what the OP is asking is why is "administrator" bad as that second account's name.

2. If I have local physical access, you FUCKED. Period. Physical access is the highest level of security. I can get a list of all accounts, reset them all and figure out which one has admin right. The name of the account is irrelevant at the physical access level. That's why all data centers are behind lock and key, and the list of people with access is short and narrow.

3. See 2.

...you can't use an automated brute force attack versus an account that must change its password at all, even if the right password is guessed, they still have to have physical access to the box to change the password and actually use the account).

See above for physical access and brute force attacks.

No one ever tries to hack the guest account.

Negative Ghost Rider the pattern is full.

Guest acct is probably the #2 attacked account after administrator.

Direwolf, see above, second acct is cool. The name of that acct is the question.

So... I'm still sitting here playing devil's advocate, and no one is telling me why "administrator" is bad.

 

[Malk-a-mite]

So... I'm still sitting here playing devil's advocate, and no one is telling me why "administrator" is bad.

You've been told - you just don't like or believe the answers...
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Protecting-Administrator-Account.html

 

[Phoenix86]

You've been told - you just don't like or believe the answers...
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Protecting-Administrator-Account.html

From that article...

"Change the name – If you keep the name the same as the default, this provides ½ of the information that an attacker needs to log on as the account. Many companies will change the name to fit within the naming scheme of the other users. So, Joe Smith might be the Administrator account to obfuscate the account to novice hackers and end users.

Reset the description – Since the description of the Administrator account states that it is the default Administrator account, changing this (or removing it) will help protect it."

However, even the author knows that the name is irrelevant.

"What this provides is an easy target for attackers. Since the SID always ends with 500, they can target the account simply by enumerating the SIDs from Active Directory or the local SAM. This might sound difficult, but tools such as SID2USER and USER2SID have already taken much of the difficulties out of this task for you."

That's not making much of a case and almost seems like placebo security to me, but there's more...

"Create a “false” Administrator account – There are many attackers that are just looking for the name Administrator. So, if you create an account that has no privileges and is even disabled, the attacker will not have a chance to gain access to your network under this account."

Interesting, gotta admit that's cute.

The rest of the article isn't relevant to the name. If there is any reason not to use the name, that's good enough. I really though it would be much more important then this though.

 

[hulksterjoe]

I think you guys are missing his point.. .. who gives a crap what the account is called... an admin account is an admin account is an admin account... Use administrator to your hearts content but protect is like you would any other account with good policies and passwords.. and then set up another account with admin rights under a different name in case problems arise...maybe a hacker is more likely to try administrator but if the policies and such are good then who cares..


EDIT< damn I didnt hit f5><

 

[rcolbert]

Two different environments, corporate versus home.

In the corporate environment I don't think there's any argument. No one should use the built-in administrator account except in very rare cases. Look no further than Sarbanes-Oxley for reasons why. Many Windows shops that are mindful of security will assign 2 user accounts for people who have administrative priviliges, one regular user and one admin account. That prevents folks from opening a browser on their desktop to participate in a discussion such as this inadvertantly giving their browser Enterprise Admin rights to the entire company. Scary thought.

In the home environment however, I think the girlfriend story is the best reason: To leave yourself a backdoor in just in case you screw up your regular user account for whatever reason. Also, there are a lot of name-specific personalizations from the user account that may flow to applications like MS Office. It may be more convenient to have those applications behave naturally and inherit your user information rather than to either personalize the real administrator account or manually enter user information. In another case recently someone wanted to copy their user profile for various reasons and the administrator account was a good neutral third party to facilitate this.

Either way, it's a decent devil's advocate question at the rights and permissions level because most home users who post here will create their user accounts as administrative. There is no practical security difference from that standpoint. Not using the administrator account simply gives you a few more options on how to deal with various day to day issues.

 

[Mister Natural]

All machines I set up (home and business) have 2 admin accounts just in case one gets screwy. The default, plus another. Immediately after setting up I rename the default admin account in security policies. Of course passwords are in order on all accounts.
All users in the office however only get power user or other restricted access.
I personally always use an admin account both at work and home. But I do consider myself fairly well educated in preventing malicious stuff from occurring when using a computer. It might bite me in the ass sometime, but it hasn't yet.
When I set up a computer for a home user it's only natural to set them up as admin. I don't want folow up calls on why they can't install something. If they screw it up, well it's me who they'll call to fix it of course, for a fee. That's where a backup admin account could come in handy.

There are good reasons for setting up limited access accounts on a computer. If you have other users on the system in your immediate area and you're going to be the one fixing the problems if they arise. Or if you're willing to admit that you're not too knowledgable or even paranoid when being online (nothing wrong with that).