>If security is paramount in the decision of removing rights of a mapped drive when elevating credentials, why would you still have access to the share it points to (or any other share for that matter), the same logic you guys are applying to the mapped drive should be applied to the share and the elevated user should have lost access to it, otherwise it makes no freaking sense. Something else you all are missing about shares is that they can be mapped using different credentials, so the current user does not necessary need to have access to the UNC.

Look, Hugo, you have "Microsoft", "security" and "logic" in the same sentence and you still expect it to make sense?

That's the strategy - if it doesn't work via mapped, nobody sane would expect the same location to be available via UNC, and that's the beauty of it. It's so illogical that it would confuse every terrorist out there.