Yeah, windows came from a different era where if you're seeing a new exe, it's because you put a disk in the drive and explicitly navigated to it. Speaking of which, this isn't even the first time that convenience ended up opening up a wide security hole because they handled CDs differently and added an autoplay feature that would check the disk for autorun.exe and just run it if autorun was enabled. I started disabling it after word about sony's rootkits got out but have been appalled to see it enabled by default still ever since then.

I was one of the few that appreciated UAC when it was there and kept it on one of the stricter settings. I'd rather my PC ask than assume, but people bitched about it so they weakened it and eventually just got rid of it entirely I think?

Though a permissions setup would be even better. I didn't like that UAC was an all or nothing prompt, plus it didn't give any details about what a program wanted to do. Are you asking because this program is trying to create a new directory in program files or because it wants to replace system32 dlls with its own versions?

It's an area even Linux can improve in (though probably depends on flavour). I like the android permissions model, where there's various actions and you can allow or deny categories (though GrapheneOS does it even better by also sandboxing everything). I'd love to see something like that for my desktop, where apps are free to save files but can't touch files that aren't their own unless an explicit share is set up, where I might want one app to have network access and no disk access and another to have the opposite. I'd love to be at a state where I could just run any executable from the internet because I know that my OS won't let it fuck anything up other than its own address space. Hell, could even dedicate a core to monitoring apps to detect if one breaks out of its sandbox without my explicit permission (while the OS also doesn't use that to enforce the desires of other developers over my own).