Security → Vista and security software

Why are various software mfgrs making their software run an always on service, just for Vista?

AVG AS and a-squared both have a BS service running at all times now just so the program will start? WTF?

So, we all get to have extra non-productive services just so our On Demand scanners will start because the Vista users' machines won't run software right? Gee! Thanks!

No, it's because they're finally getting a clue.

The NT design model for "privileged operations that must be executed by unprivileged users" is to code the privileged part as a service, code the unprivileged part as a plain old app, and have a properly-validated API between the two. It's been like that since the first version of the OS.

I assume the vendors have now, after 14 years of using the OS, figured out that not all users have admin privileges.

I suppose if it's only used for on-demand scanning, it doesn't need to be "always on"; the software could have a manual-start service and could allow non-priv'd users to start it; but that might involve someone reading the programming documentation.

On the other hand, I think the so-called "overhead" of having a service program is largely in the head of the beholder.

Because they had to rethink their application design (or to start to think at all) to make it execute privileged actions without triggering UAC prompts on Vista. Previously the applications you mentioned had to run in the context of an admin/power user to do their "magic".Who cares, if the service isn't used the memory occupied by it will be paged very soon. Set the service to manual startup if you don't want it to slow down system startup (as if anyone would notice the extra 10 milliseconds required). If you scan your system that often with on-demand scanners the extra service(s) running shouldn't really hurt that much in the 30 minutes you'll be able to use your system while your wait for the 4 hour "quick" scans to finish.

Set to manual.. and even when you manually start the service, AVG AS pops up a window asking me to reinstall the program.

You see, that doesn't work.

As soon as I set it back to Auto and restart the machine, AVG AS will start by clicking on it(because the service is automatically started with Windows).

All this, because Vista'a UAC has a hissy fit? Brilliant!

Ok, so I/we allow these things to happen... where do *YOU* draw the line?
20? 50? new services that are just there so whatever software can run?

Remember, before these "New" versions, when you closed the app, it CLOSED! No service was left running.

EDIT: I probably should mention, I don't run Vista... I use XP.
These "New" versions were "Updated" so that they would do this for Vista users.

You forgot to mention the new and improved AdAware 2007 which still is not certified with Vista!

Meh, I kicked AdAware to the curb a while ago... don't really care about Vista, sorry!

Now, when Vista's needs start screwing my XP and my softwares... I DO care.

That's already happened to me.
The 11.x versions of WinPatrol are all designed as 'Vista compatible'. I have used the program for a long time, upgrading to the latest version many times, with nary a hitch or a glitch. The minute I installed 11.0, there was a problem-- and it took the dev, Bill P., until this latest 11.4 to get these new installer/whatever issues worked out, at least as far as my XP OS was concerned.

Definitely a wake-up call, though. I'm now much more leery and hesitant of installing the latest 'Vista-compatible' version of any software.

I heard that!
Y'all know me... I do software!
Now, I have to worry about installing all the new stuff because I don't want 200+ "services" running just so I can have my softwares available.

Yeah, it's ok, huh?

See pic!

Imagine, having 290 oddball services running just so the programs will start. That would be the stupidest thing I ever heard!

LOL! And I heard that! (Though I do also recall a time when someone, shall we say 'very highly regarded at Microsoft Corp.', said that he couldn't possibly imagine how a person could use up a whopping 64MB of RAM, didn't he?)

Besides, I think (hope) we're talking mostly about security programs here. I doubt anybody will be running 290 of those-- especially given the fabulous nature of Vista's inherent security, eh?
In fact, how many A/V programs will even run on Vista right now? I don't think there are many.

But howie1 's a big Vista guy, and runs quite a bit of software too, I believe. Maybe he'll chime in here and let us know how many services he's got going?
You know how he loves posting those Vista screenshots anyway. (As I love seeing them! Ya gotta admit-- regardless of anything else, the visual stuff in Vista is certainly quite impressive!)

This thread is about security softwares mainly, but I would imagine that it will also reach into other arenas of software as well.

No, I do not have 290 security apps installed, but soon, if something isn't done about this, we will have a hairy mess!

That, or we will have very little software actually installed.

Well, *I* like having quiet software installed and available to me at a simple click, I *DO NOT* think a service should be needed to have this ability - it was never needed before.

All thanks to Vista?

yeah Vista's visual stuff is impressive

but the OP system itself leaves a lot to be desired right now...i am praying SP1 fixes those issues and makes it a more reliable OP system.

I had no problems stopping AVG services in Vista. It still fires up when I want it to. Maybe XP is a different story.

Ok, try that in XP. I want nothing to do with Vista, and the software that I use should not be damaged just so it will work with Vista.

I've got no use for services running 24/7 when I only use that particular program for 10 minutes a week, either. But this is hardly new with Vista-- except maybe for the "required" part.
Most software we install wants to stick something in our startup folders, doesn't it? We've just learned that that's how it is, and have taken steps to say 'no', or to remove or disable those services.
I've always felt it was quite arrogant of certain companies and developers to act as though the only reason I bought my computer was so that I could install & run their program 24 hours a day.

Eeeeasy killer. I was just trying to say that it was strange that I have no problems with it and Vista.
I believe you dude. I agree with you if thats case. That being that it screws with XP user's so it's compatible with XP.

I have no problems with programs being listed in startup, adding service(s) that run 24/7 for rarely used programs is unacceptable.

I can kill the startups and the programs will still run AND STOP when I say so.
These "Vista Compatible" apps that require a service just so they will start - because of Vista needing a service to start them... uhm, no.

Kill the service, program no wanna start. Well, I don't want to take ~10 steps to run a AS scanner?
I also don't want an un-needed service running all week when I have no plans on running that program.
Ok, now multiply this times 2... 3... 5... ? different scanners.

It starts looking REAL freakin stupid!

Ok, now... what about some malware that may wish to use one of these new services at a front or masquerading as this service? Well, that wouldn't be good, would it?

What about all the other softwares that mat decide to also light up a service just so the app will start?

Ok, what about some baddie deciding to use one of these services as a front or masquerading as one of these?

Yeah, this is ok, huh?

Can anyone explain how any of this is better for security?
For any of us?

My previous point exactly. Indeed. That would get old quick, imo.Not I, sir. I'll leave that one to those of a more expansive intellect than this simple (and simple-minded) country bumpkin.
Hell, it takes all I've got just to keep from falling off the turnip truck!

*Edit-LOL!
Now you're talkin!

...and is ANY software mfgr writing Vista versions and "other" versions?

This is where I am having an issue.
I decide to update XX program, and now it is a Vista Compatable app and it requires a new service running 24/7 just so it will start... once a week?

Even for my Vista using friends... this doesn't sound like a very good idea, ya know?
Don't really know you, but I really don't want something bad to happen to you just the same.

There are malwares out ther that have been known to spoof names of services... having more of these items that can be spoofed(for lack of a better term), *I* don't think is a good thing.

Now, I may have more installed softwares that the average person, I sure as hell don't want a bundle of new services added to what is already running.
CPU cycles or not, memory being paged or not... why sould it happen?
Just because Vista is being anal and running everyone as a user with no priveliges?
So, make it a service and it will now work for a "user" account?
Uhm, isn't that opening another can of worms?

It seems that a few here are forgetting about iexplore.exe vs iexplorer.exe
One is IE, the other is not.

There's a difference between using a service to allow non-admin users to do things, and writing applications that are designed to run in a non-administrator account.

Let me provide some examples. The OP discussed security software. Windows Defender runs a service on Windows Vista that allows it to monitor the system for malware and other potentially unwanted software. The Windows Defender user interface communicates back to the service to perform actions, such as scans, cleanings, etc.

It makes sense for something like Windows Defender to run as a service. There is only one instance of the service running, regardless of how many users are logged in. More important, though, is the fact the service runs within a system context allowing non-administrator users (which you are on Windows Vista) to take actions such as removing found items without the need to elevate or log on with an administrator account. Plus, the service is running even if no user is currently logged in. Protecting the system while users are not logged in is a good security practice.

Another example is fax software. This can utilize a service for its fax reception capabilities, allowing the system to receive faxes without the need for a user to log in (such as, if the power went out and the system restarted in the middle of the night when no one is there to log in).

It makes no sense to have, say, a service for Notepad, or Calculator. In this case, the application is written such that it does not require an administrator account to carry out its functions. A service is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Summarizing, running as a service is not a method to get around needing to write applications to work in non-administrator user accounts. It's a method that can be leveraged when appropriate to allow for something to run at all times or some times, depending on when the service is set to start, and possibly with a higher context, again depending on its settings. Monitoring for malware and allowing non-administrator users to clean such items from their machines by running the monitoring and cleaning aspect as a higher-context service and having the user interface run within the current user context and talk to the service to carry out the user's wishes makes sense.

Of course, I'm not going to claim that running the cleaning/monitoring aspect of an antimalware product shall only be done using a service, or is best served by using a service. There are multiple routes from A to B. I'm only explaining why this particular route is utilized, and why it doesn't make sense to utilize this route for programs not needing it.

Hope this helps,

Aaron

Thank you Aaron!

So, a program like AVG AS having a service running 24/7 even though it is a rarely used, on demand item, is not the best of ideas, right?
Some application that is used for Real Time... I can see running as a service.

A "Once a week" app shouldn't need a service running for the entire week.

Can you see where I am coming from?

Well it is a perspective thing. It is a great idea if you are trying to get people to replace their old systems, or upgrade their current systems with more memory, faster CPUs, and MOB with more cache.

On a more serious note: The amount of resources (or burden) those services, while idle, require of (place on) the system is questionable. One would need to do some before and after measurements of resources and run some application benchmarking tests to check for throughput and responsiveness.

To me the bigger concern would be the clutter or spaghetti effect from having numerous 3rd party services active. Put another way, just one more application available for a bug to rear its ugly head from.

I think everyone understands your point but I also think many might agree that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. That said, if your particular application won't behave properly when you set the service to manual, perhaps you should contact them in order to rectify the problem because the underlying principle to running as a service is a sound one.

I'm not familiar with AVG, so I'm not sure what the exact experience is. I can't comment on AVG regarding their use of services and for what purposes, as I don't work for AVG.

I can understand where you're coming from, but please understand, though, that using a service such as how Windows Defender uses its service is not done for the sake of compatibility but more so for functionality. That's the message I'm trying to drive here.

The point I think everyone is missing, is that while I am mainly referring to a single application, that I am thinking that this may now, or soon, apply to many other applications.

I probably have more processes than anyone else here, fine!
I do NOT see the need for something like an On Demand scanner to need a service running 24/7.

Ok, so this is but a single scanner - but wait! a-squared is doing it as well!
So that's two... OOPS! The new AdAware is doing it too!
Three... do you all not see the domino effect starting here?

I have 88 processes(don't ask). If I wish to have a-squared and AVG AS *installed*, that means two more processes running at all times. Even though, they will only get used on a once-per-week basis.

Uh huh.
So, SOMEONE answer this - Where is the line drawn?

Do *we* allow 2 new services to run all the time and say that it is ok?

Fine! 2 it is.

Oh wait! What about when some other program gets updated to also be Vista Compatable?

Now it's 3 more processes... and so on.
How many is too many?

I'll keep you all appraised on my process count.
88 and counting.
I'll reinstall AVG AS and a2... 90?

WHEEE!!!!

BTW, I have voiced my concerns over at wilders... and so have others. Doesn't look like anyone wants to comment there either.

That's fine Aaron! Thanks!
I don't use WD though.

I have an issue with the new versions of various softwares now requiring a service to start so that people can use them in Vista - and the spill over to me as an XP user - where a service is not needed(or at least never has been needed to date).

While some may not see this as a problem, some of us do!
I just hope this doesn't escalate to unreal proportions.

Food for thought.

Vendors starting to make their applications useable in multi-user environments or following the "least privilegies required" approach has nothing to do with Vista compatibility. UAC in Vista (finally) is annoying enough to make vendors rethink their application design but a service isn't always the way to go. Most applications simply don't require elevated rights to run properly.

The reasons Aaron gave for Windows Defender are valid for other security related software as well. It makes sense to utilize a service for such applications. If you experience any problems with AVG you should contact the vendor, manual service startup should work for the scenario you describe but it's up to the vendor to properly support this.

Yes, thanks!

But as I have asked... where do we draw the line?

All of this is because of Vista not allowing ??? to run as it is in it's current state. So, vendors are taking the services approach to make the software work in Vista... Key word here is "Vista".

I'm up to 90 processes... is that ok? Is it ok for 100? 150?

Not to worry though, my machines can run here at idle with 0 - 1% CPU load even with 90 processes.

Just getting kinda hard to take a screen shot of the Task Manager when I can't stretch it any further.

It's also just silly to have these softwares having to run like this because of vendors wanting to get the Vista crowd.

No matter how anyone here spins it, it *IS* because of Vista Compatability - or the want thereof.

Reread this thread. The services approach is so Vista users can use ??? software because of limited priveliges.

*I* don't need services, I am Admin!
*I* use XP, and this crud is spilling over into *MY* lap.

You see? LOL!
Sorry if I question things and don't just lay down and take what is thrown at me...

Yes! I have emailed AVG about this... we shall see.

Anyine remember this? (See Pic)
Is it a part of Vista?
Is it even an option?
Sure would make things cleaner and uncluttered if it were..

You are claiming that in order to achieve compatibility with Windows Vista and User Account Control (UAC), a service *must* be employed.

This is not accurate.

A very long explanation of UAC:

Microsoft TechNet
Understanding and Configuring User Account Control in Windows Vista
»technet2.microsoft.com/W ··· 033.mspx

No, I am going by what others have posted.
That because of the lowered priveliges native to Vista "users" that some applications refuse to run.

Is this true or not?

Someone also posted that UAC was involved - AGAIN - I do not know!
I don't use Vista!

So, what is needed for the various applications to run as a user in Vista?

Is it a service like with WD?

You see, I keep asking and all I get is spin(present company excepted).

I have lost alot of respect for some of the regulars here.

You, Aaron, I respect greatly!

Some of the others here seem to have an agenda from one POV or another.

There *is* a solution-- don't install anything 'Vista compatible'.

Now, that might not be a viable alternative for XP users as time passes, I don't know. And it might not be the solution you, I, or anybody else wants to employ. But, at least for now, simply running the last 'non-Vista compatible' edition of any software, be it security-related or not, is in fact an option.

Granted, that's not the question you're posing nor the solution you're probably looking for, Dave.
But hey-- it beats a jab in the eye with a sharp stick!