On 9/14/2011 14:25, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> Question: in my experience sshd will not allow connections to users who
> have no password set, even when password-auth is not used. This happened
> on my wife's laptop, for example, where I ended up having to create a
> dummy user for myself that had a pas
On 14/09/2011 11:08 AM, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
On 9/13/2011 13:38, Larson, Donald (Don) wrote:
I understand "su" does not work – answer use ssh. SSHD cannot start
because user sshd cannot login. I run login sshd type in the
password and then I get the message.
What you're saying is that you want a
On 9/13/2011 13:38, Larson, Donald (Don) wrote:
> I understand "su" does not work – answer use ssh. SSHD cannot start
> because user sshd cannot login. I run login sshd type in the
> password and then I get the message.
What you're saying is that you want a way to log in as another user as
one wou
On 9/13/2011 2:38 PM, Larson, Donald (Don) wrote:
Folks,
I have searched this and I see it has come up several times and I really
don't want to frustrate anyone, but I have read the messages and was not
able to see what the actual answer was.
I understand "su" does not work – answer use ssh. SSH
Folks,
I have searched this and I see it has come up several times and I really don't
want to frustrate anyone, but I have read the messages and was not able to see
what the actual answer was.
I understand "su" does not work – answer use ssh. SSHD cannot start because
user sshd cannot login. I
Andrew,
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 02:32:07PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Jason Tishler wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:34:42AM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> >>Please do not email me directly - keep it only on the list.
> >
> >Hmm...didn't you just do a reply all? Or, was that to make a
Jason Tishler wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:34:42AM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>>Please do not email me directly - keep it only on the list.
>>
>
> Hmm...didn't you just do a reply all? Or, was that to make a point?
You emailed me. I emailed you back. AND I put it back
Andrew,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:34:42AM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Please do not email me directly - keep it only on the list.
Hmm...didn't you just do a reply all? Or, was that to make a point?
Sorry, but hitting "g" is just more natural than hitting "L" for me.
If this is important to
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 12:29:11PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 07:44:22AM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >And rsh is a dangerous service anyway. If you don't want it,
> > >just remove the matching line in /etc/inetd.conf and use
Andrew,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 07:44:22AM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >And rsh is a dangerous service anyway. If you don't want it,
> >just remove the matching line in /etc/inetd.conf and use ssh.
>
> Ah but I *want* rsh. I just want it to work correctly. :-)
Coul
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 07:44:22AM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Ah but I *want* rsh. I just want it to work correctly. :-)
Patches gratefully accepted.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developermailto:[
At 10:44 AM 3/7/2002, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>And rsh is a dangerous service anyway. If you don't want it,
>>just remove the matching line in /etc/inetd.conf and use ssh.
>
>
>Ah but I *want* rsh. I just want it to work correctly. :-)
OK, that's fair. Sounds like you have your work cut out for
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 01:56:07PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>>OK then, seems to me that su might be implementable by using a service
>>that runs as SYSTEM and takes requests to switch user from user A to
>>user B. Possible?
>>
>
> Sure. It's exactly the way th
Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand your example. What's wrong? Hmm, ok, I assume
> you expect a `Permission denied' when trying to ls 400/400, right?
Yes, sorry to be so implicit.
> This is not HE specific, it's default for all NT versions. It's
> a user right
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 02:04:38PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Yes, Cygwin gives a lot more insight in permissions. It seems
> however, that XP (HE) doesn't respect execute permissions on
> directories, in some cases. Moreover, read and execute permissions in
> /cygdrive/c seem to be grant
Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have XP HE and XP Prof versions for testing purposes. The restrictions
> in HE are really tricky. I tried even stuff as moving DLLs and MMC
> snapins from Prof to HE but to no avail.
Ok, so they're really rather different, in distributed system
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:43:02AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > Yes and no. Fact is, the kernel and the libraries are a real
> > NT system. But the system tools don't allow you to do all that
> > stuff.
>
> Ok. So maybe with the right tools (or /proc/registry tweaking), "Home
> Edition"
Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> rights (whatever set of rights that is), or not. Is this another toy
>> operating system after all?
>
> Yes and no. Fact is, the kernel and the libraries are a real
> NT system. But the system tools don't allow you to do all that
> stuff.
Ok. S
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 01:56:07PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> OK then, seems to me that su might be implementable by using a service
> that runs as SYSTEM and takes requests to switch user from user A to
> user B. Possible?
Sure. It's exactly the way the user switch is implemented in 2K/XP
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 09:01:45AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > These user rights are by default only given to SYSTEM regardless
> > of the NT version. XP differs only by requiring less of these
> > user rights in one of the needed system c
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew DeFaria [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:56 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: login: no shell: /bin/bash: Permission denied
>
> Regardless, to me it's still would be a large s
Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> These user rights are by default only given to SYSTEM regardless
> of the NT version. XP differs only by requiring less of these
> user rights in one of the needed system calls.
Ok, but I can't seem to add specific rights to users with this version
Peter Buckley wrote:
>
>> Regardless, to me it's still would be a large security hole if all one
>> needs to do is:
>>
>> $ echo "+" > ~/.rhosts
>>
>> to be able to abuse rsh to do something under somebody else's user ID
>> is it not?
>
> rsh is inherently insecure. Attempts to make it secure
> Regardless, to me it's still would be a large security hole if all one
> needs to do is:
>
> $ echo "+" > ~/.rhosts
>
> to be able to abuse rsh to do something under somebody else's user ID is
> it not?
rsh is inherently insecure. Attempts to make it secure are not
worthwhile (in fact, t
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:12:11AM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>>You imply that somebody has the ability to change user context! If so
>>then who is that somebody (USER)?
>>
>
> I have to tell that each week (day?) again, apparently. It's SYSTEM.
Sorry, I saw th
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:12:11AM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> You imply that somebody has the ability to change user context! If so
> then who is that somebody (USER)?
I have to tell that each week (day?) again, apparently. It's SYSTEM.
> It's my understanding that the only thing(s) that u
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> No, it didn't work. `who' isn't the right way to get your current
> user name, try `id'. Basically, login is doing the following:
>
> execlp(pwd->pw_shell, tbuf, 0);
> fprintf(stderr, "login: no shell: ");
> perror(pwd->pw_shell);
> exit(0);
>
> So, if it co
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 12:53:33PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've wrote about special user rights needed...
>
> Ok, so while using login instead of su is possible in some cases (it
> seems windows xp is not one of them), easiest is using ss
Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. Did you read that article carefully?
Aparrently not, I'm sorry.
> I've wrote about special user rights needed...
Ok, so while using login instead of su is possible in some cases (it
seems windows xp is not one of them), easiest is using ssh.
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:20:48AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Hmm, so much for google. You adviced to use login before,
>
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-03/msg00337.html
>
> have things changed since then?
No. Did you read that article carefully? I've wrote about
special use
can't do it, your account doesn't have the
> permission.
Ok, thanks, you're right:
fred@ABBICCI ~$ login root
Password:
Last login: Tue Mar 5 23:27:42 on tty2
Fanfare!!!
You are successfully logged in to this server!!!
login: no shell: /bin/bash: Permission
e successfully logged in to this server!!!
> fred@ABBICCI ~$ login root
> Password:
> Last login: Tue Mar 5 23:21:09 on tty2
> Fanfare!!!
> You are successfully logged in to this server!!!
> login: no shell: /bin/bash: Permission denied
> fred@AB
Mar 5 23:21:09 on tty2
Fanfare!!!
You are successfully logged in to this server!!!
login: no shell: /bin/bash: Permission denied
fred@ABBICCI ~$ ls -l /bin/bash.exe
-rwxr-xr-x1 Administ Geen 478720 Feb 19 19:14 /bin/bash.exe
fred@ABBICCI ~$ who
root tty2
33 matches
Mail list logo
