| Excerpt | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
In Microsoft, 2019(1), Microsoft proposes a bi-dimensional partial typology of Windows Local Accounts. A number of empirical entities are typed, which gives us the following table:
Default | Non-Default | |
|---|---|---|
System | X | |
Non-System |
|
...
Default | Non-Default | |
|---|---|---|
System | X | |
Non-System |
...
when an account that is an integral part of the OS is deployed by Microsoft after OS installation as part of an upgrade,
when an account that is an integral part of the OS is deployed as part of the installation of a complementary Windows Component after OS installation,
when an account that is an integral part of the OS is deployed by a third party (e.g.: a device driver, that is defined as a trusted part of the OS that can execute within it with System account credentials, Russinovich et al., 2017),
when a custom account is created as part of a custom script during OS installation.
- Propose here a more precise definition of default that allows the arbitrage of the given counterexamples.
Nevertheless, arbitrages can be made to classify accounts in these grey areas. In consequence, for operational purposes, we may state that the default vs non-default dimension satisfies in general the properties of exhaustivity and mutual exclusivity. That is to say, a Windows Local Account is either an integral part of the OS or it doesn’t and the default vs non-default dimension may be considered an unidimensional typology (cf. Bailey, 1994, p.3).
The System vs. Non-System Dimension
- Complete this section.
Per Microsoft, 2019(1), System accounts are used by the OS and its services.
A Revised Typology
- Check correlation of given types
- Check consistency between definitions and the hierarchical classification of accounts proposed by MS