Re: [PATCH] cygcheck bug when listing services

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:41:24PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> That needs a comment in the code.
> >
> >Fair enough:
> >[snip]
> >+  /* Add two nulls to avoid confusing strtok() when the trailing 
> >separator
> >+ is missing */
>
> How about a testcase which shows that the MSVCRT strtok needs two
> trailing NUL bytes to work around problems when there is no trailing
> separator?  I would find that much more interesting than a comment which
> simply asserts that behavior.

Fair enough.  The double-null issue was a red herring, apparently -- a
simple recompile fixed the problem.  In fact, the cygcheck from the latest
snapshot doesn't exhibit this behavior.  Patch withdrawn.
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck bug when listing services (Was Re: Parallel writes to a single FIFO do not queue, and deadlock cygwin)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:41:24PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:40:01AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> > Running cygcheck under strace shows that after listing all the available
>> > services, it invokes "cygrunsrv --query grunsrv.exe --list", which results
>> > in the above message.  I think this may be because the output of
>> > "cygrunsrv --list" doesn't contain a trailing '\n', and so strtok gets
>> > confused.  The following patch (against a slightly older cygcheck) fixes
>> > it for me, but I haven't had the time to test it extensively:
>> > [snip]
>> > -  buf[nchars] = 0;
>> > +  buf[nchars] = buf[nchars+1] = 0;
>>
>> That needs a comment in the code.
>
>Fair enough:
>
>Index: cygcheck.cc
>===
>RCS file: /cvs/src/src/winsup/utils/cygcheck.cc,v
>retrieving revision 1.77
>diff -u -p -r1.77 cygcheck.cc
>--- cygcheck.cc 17 Aug 2005 00:52:43 -  1.77
>+++ cygcheck.cc 7 Dec 2005 01:38:07 -
>@@ -950,8 +950,10 @@ dump_sysinfo_services ()
>   else
> {
>   /* read the output of --list, and then run --query for each service */
>-  size_t nchars = fread ((void *) buf, 1, sizeof (buf) - 1, f);
>-  buf[nchars] = 0;
>+  size_t nchars = fread ((void *) buf, 1, sizeof (buf) - 2, f);
>+  /* Add two nulls to avoid confusing strtok() when the trailing separator
>+ is missing */
>+  buf[nchars] = buf[nchars+1] = 0;
>   pclose (f);
>
>   if (nchars > 0)
>
>I'll even add a ChangeLog of sorts :-)
>
>2005-12-06  Igor Pechtchanski  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>   * cygcheck.cc (dump_sysinfo_services): Add an extra NUL to mollify
>   strtok() when the trailing newline is missing.

How about a testcase which shows that the MSVCRT strtok needs two
trailing NUL bytes to work around problems when there is no trailing
separator?  I would find that much more interesting than a comment which
simply asserts that behavior.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck bug when listing services (Was Re: Parallel writes to a single FIFO do not queue, and deadlock cygwin)

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:40:01AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > Running cygcheck under strace shows that after listing all the available
> > services, it invokes "cygrunsrv --query grunsrv.exe --list", which results
> > in the above message.  I think this may be because the output of
> > "cygrunsrv --list" doesn't contain a trailing '\n', and so strtok gets
> > confused.  The following patch (against a slightly older cygcheck) fixes
> > it for me, but I haven't had the time to test it extensively:
> > [snip]
> > -  buf[nchars] = 0;
> > +  buf[nchars] = buf[nchars+1] = 0;
>
> That needs a comment in the code.

Fair enough:

Index: cygcheck.cc
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/winsup/utils/cygcheck.cc,v
retrieving revision 1.77
diff -u -p -r1.77 cygcheck.cc
--- cygcheck.cc 17 Aug 2005 00:52:43 -  1.77
+++ cygcheck.cc 7 Dec 2005 01:38:07 -
@@ -950,8 +950,10 @@ dump_sysinfo_services ()
   else
 {
   /* read the output of --list, and then run --query for each service */
-  size_t nchars = fread ((void *) buf, 1, sizeof (buf) - 1, f);
-  buf[nchars] = 0;
+  size_t nchars = fread ((void *) buf, 1, sizeof (buf) - 2, f);
+  /* Add two nulls to avoid confusing strtok() when the trailing separator
+ is missing */
+  buf[nchars] = buf[nchars+1] = 0;
   pclose (f);

   if (nchars > 0)

I'll even add a ChangeLog of sorts :-)

2005-12-06  Igor Pechtchanski  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* cygcheck.cc (dump_sysinfo_services): Add an extra NUL to mollify
strtok() when the trailing newline is missing.

HTH,
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gdb error...

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 04:59:22PM -0800, Sumit Naiksatam wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am a cygwin newbie. I am trying to use gdb and I get the following error:
>
>GNU gdb 6.3.50_2004-12-28-cvs (cygwin-special)
>Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
>welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions.
>Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
>There is absolutely no warranty for GDB.  Type "show warranty" for details.
>This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-cygwin"...
>warning: A handler for the OS ABI "GNU/Linux" is not built into this 
>configuration
^^
>of GDB.  Attempting to continue with the default i386 settings.
>
>
>(gdb) run
>Starting program: /home/Sumit/code/working/phd/siber/siber-new-network/siber
>Error creating process 
>/home/Sumit/code/working/phd/siber/siber-new-network/siber, (error 193)
>
>Could anyone help me to fix this? I have appended below the cygcheck output 
>for my system.

You seem to be trying to debug a linux binary on windows.

That won't work.  See the first few paragraphs of the cygwin web page for why.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

gdb error...

[Sumit Naiksatam]

Hello,

I am a cygwin newbie. I am trying to use gdb and I get the following error:

GNU gdb 6.3.50_2004-12-28-cvs (cygwin-special)
Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions.
Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB.  Type "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-cygwin"...
warning: A handler for the OS ABI "GNU/Linux" is not built into this 
configuration
of GDB.  Attempting to continue with the default i386 settings.


(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/Sumit/code/working/phd/siber/siber-new-network/siber
Error creating process 
/home/Sumit/code/working/phd/siber/siber-new-network/siber, (error 193)

Could anyone help me to fix this? I have appended below the cygcheck output for 
my system.

Thanks,
~Sumit.


Cygwin Configuration Diagnostics
Current System Time: Tue Dec 06 16:31:42 2005

Windows XP Home Edition Ver 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2

Path:   C:\cygwin\usr\local\bin
C:\cygwin\bin
C:\cygwin\bin
C:\cygwin\usr\X11R6\bin
c:\WINDOWS\system32
c:\WINDOWS
c:\WINDOWS\System32\Wbem
c:\Program Files\ATI Technologies\ATI Control Panel

Output from C:\cygwin\bin\id.exe (nontsec)
UID: 1006(Sumit)GID: 513(None)
0(root) 513(None)   544(Administrators) 545(Users)

Output from C:\cygwin\bin\id.exe (ntsec)
UID: 1006(Sumit)GID: 513(None)
0(root) 513(None)   544(Administrators) 545(Users)

SysDir: C:\WINDOWS\system32
WinDir: C:\WINDOWS

Here's some environment variables that may affect cygwin:
HOME = `/home/Sumit'
PWD = `/home/Sumit/code/working/phd/siber/siber-new-network'
USER = `Sumit'
MAKE_MODE = `unix'

Here's the rest of your environment variables:
!:: = `::\'
!C: = `C:\cygwin\bin'
ALLUSERSPROFILE = `C:\Documents and Settings\All Users'
APPDATA = `C:\Documents and Settings\Sumit\Application Data'
CLIENTNAME = `Console'
COMMONPROGRAMFILES = `C:\Program Files\Common Files'
COMPUTERNAME = `GANESHA-L'
COMSPEC = `C:\WINDOWS\system32\cmd.exe'
FP_NO_HOST_CHECK = `NO'
HOMEDRIVE = `C:'
HOMEPATH = `\Documents and Settings\Sumit'
LOGONSERVER = `\\GANESHA-L'
NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS = `1'
OS = `Windows_NT'
PATHEXT = `.COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD;.VBS;.VBE;.JS;.JSE;.WSF;.WSH'
PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE = `x86'
PROCESSOR_IDENTIFIER = `x86 Family 6 Model 13 Stepping 6, GenuineIntel'
PROCESSOR_LEVEL = `6'
PROCESSOR_REVISION = `0d06'
PROGRAMFILES = `C:\Program Files'
PROMPT = `$P$G'
SESSIONNAME = `Console'
SONICCENTRAL = `C:\Program Files\Common Files\Sonic Shared\Sonic Central\'
SYSTEMDRIVE = `C:'
SYSTEMROOT = `C:\WINDOWS'
USERDOMAIN = `GANESHA-L'
USERNAME = `Sumit'
USERPROFILE = `C:\Documents and Settings\Sumit'
WINDIR = `C:\WINDOWS'
TERM = `cygwin'
HOSTTYPE = `i386'
VENDOR = `intel'
OSTYPE = `posix'
MACHTYPE = `i386'
SHLVL = `1'
LOGNAME = `Sumit'
GROUP = `None'
HOST = `Ganesha-L'
MANPATH = `:/usr/ssl/man'
TZ = `PST8PDT7,M4.1.0/2,M10.5.0/2'
POSIXLY_CORRECT = `1'

Scanning registry for keys with `Cygnus' in them...
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Cygnus Solutions
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Cygnus Solutions\Cygwin
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Cygnus Solutions\Cygwin\mounts v2
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Cygnus Solutions\Cygwin\Program Options
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Cygnus Solutions
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Cygnus Solutions\Cygwin
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Cygnus Solutions\Cygwin\mounts v2
  (default) = `/cygdrive'
  cygdrive flags = 0x0022
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Cygnus Solutions\Cygwin\mounts v2\/
  (default) = `C:\cygwin'
  flags = 0x000a
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Cygnus Solutions\Cygwin\mounts v2\/usr/bin
  (default) = `C:\cygwin/bin'
  flags = 0x000a
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Cygnus Solutions\Cygwin\mounts v2\/usr/lib
  (default) = `C:\cygwin/lib'
  flags = 0x000a
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Cygnus Solutions\Cygwin\Program Options

Listing available drives...
Drv Type  Size   Used Flags  Name
c:  hd  NTFS 53591Mb  54% CP CS UN PA FC 
d:  cd  CDFS18Mb 100%CS UN   DSL_502T

fd = floppy,  hd = hard drive,   cd = CD-ROM
net= Network Share,   ram= RAM drive,unk= Unknown
CP = Case Preserving, CS = Case Sensitive,   UN = Unicode
PA = Persistent ACLS, FC = File Compression, VC = Volume Compression

Mount entries: these map POSIX directories to your NT drives.
-NT-   -POSIX--Type-  -Flags-
C:\cygwin  /  system  binmode
C:\cygwin/bin  /usr/bin   system  binmode
C:\cygwin/lib  /usr/lib   system  binmode
.  /cygdrive  system  binmode,cygdrive

Looking to see where common programs can be found, if at all...
Found: C:\cygwin\bin\awk.exe
Found: C:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe
Found: C:\cygwin\bin\cat.exe
Found: C:\cygwin\bin\cp.exe
Found: C:\cygwin\bin\cpp.exe
Found: C:\cygwin\bin\find.exe
Found: C:\cygwin\bin\gc

Re: cygcheck bug when listing services (Was Re: Parallel writes to a single FIFO do not queue, and deadlock cygwin)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:40:01AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> Running cygcheck under strace shows that after listing all the available
> services, it invokes "cygrunsrv --query grunsrv.exe --list", which results
> in the above message.  I think this may be because the output of
> "cygrunsrv --list" doesn't contain a trailing '\n', and so strtok gets
> confused.  The following patch (against a slightly older cygcheck) fixes
> it for me, but I haven't had the time to test it extensively:
> 
> Index: cygcheck.cc
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/winsup/utils/cygcheck.cc,v
> retrieving revision 1.77
> diff -u -p -r1.77 cygcheck.cc
> --- cygcheck.cc 17 Aug 2005 00:52:43 -  1.77
> +++ cygcheck.cc 5 Dec 2005 14:37:58 -
> @@ -950,8 +950,8 @@ dump_sysinfo_services ()
>else
>  {
>/* read the output of --list, and then run --query for each service */
> -  size_t nchars = fread ((void *) buf, 1, sizeof (buf) - 1, f);
> -  buf[nchars] = 0;
> +  size_t nchars = fread ((void *) buf, 1, sizeof (buf) - 2, f);
> +  buf[nchars] = buf[nchars+1] = 0;

That needs a comment in the code.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: command-line archiver that understands Windows ACLs?

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:21:54PM -0800, Mark McWiggins wrote:
> I'm working with a company that deploys tar files from Unix to Windows 
> where the
> Windows administrators set their directories up with various ACLs.
> 
> Cygwin's default TAR program destroys these ACLs when files are unpacked 
> into
> these directories.

What do you mean "destroys"?  tar changes the ACLs on the directories?
Or just creates files that don't inherit their directory's ACLs?
If the latter, does setting CYGWIN=nontsec help?

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: octave-forge dependency?

[Charles Wilson]

James R. Phillips wrote:

The octave-forge legend command requires tetex-bin.  This came up in:

http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/help-octave/2005/4239


Ok, thanks, that makes sense. I had a feeling the texinfo/makeinfo 
subthread was a red herring.


I'll uninstall octave and all the, err, unwanted stuff, it forced into 
my installation and keep using matlab instead.


The problem is, if both miktex and tetex are installed on my machine:

If I put miktex in the front of PATH, the configury of some of the 
packages I maintain detects tetex -- but at runtime gets miktex 
executables, and barfs.  This happened in some of the automake testsuites.


If I don't put miktex in the front of my path, then the configury stuff 
is happy (finds tetex, uses tetex), but *I'm* not happy because *I* want 
to call miktex binaries from my cygwin interactive shell.


My solution was to NOT install tetex; thus configury happy (no findee 
tetex) and I'm happy.


But apparently I can't use octave.

--
Chuck

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Williams, Gerald S \(Jerry\)]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>> But I don't really know where to start (which tool should I use for
>> it?) 
> 
> Umm, "crypt"?

Or better yet, ccrypt. Check its manpage.

gsw


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: command-line archiver that understands Windows ACLs?

[Jim Drash]

 If you pack something using Solaris, then you unpack it with
"Solaris" attributes.  You can easily write a script that does what
you need: unpacks, then sets the attributes to want.


On 12/6/05, Mark McWiggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cygwin is installed as part of a proposed deployment solution that's
> competing with MSI (*shudder*),
> so it's indeed a Cygwin problem. The current archiver on the Unix
> (Solaris) side happens to be
> tar, but anything that could be packed under Solaris and unpacked with a
> Cygwin command line
> in such a way to preserve Windows ACLs is what is needed to help slay
> the MSI dragon.
>
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:21:54PM -0800, Mark McWiggins wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm working with a company that deploys tar files from Unix to Windows
> >>where the Windows administrators set their directories up with various
> >>ACLs.
> >>
> >>Cygwin's default TAR program destroys these ACLs when files are
> >>unpacked into these directories.
> >>
> >>Is there a command-line program that can unpack a tar file in such a
> >>way as to leave the ACLs alone?  WinZip can do this, but its
> >>command-line addon only handles ZIP files.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Unless you really need to use cygwin for other things, it sounds very
> >much like you are asking for a non-cygwin way to deal with tar files.
> >
> >This really isn't a list for discussing non-cygwin solutions to
> >problems.  I see that a google search for "tar windows" unearths quite a
> >few options so you should be able to find some no-cygwin program which
> >solves your problem fairly easily.
> >
> >--
> >Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> >Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> >Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> >FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Mark McWiggins
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 425-369-8286 (home/cell/vm -- let ring)
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: octave-forge dependency?

[James R. Phillips]

The octave-forge legend command requires tetex-bin.  This came up in:

http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/help-octave/2005/4239

I promised to fix it, and I did.

Everyone who complains about long downloads should get broadband ;)

Everyone who complains about many files should get a bigger hard drive ;)

Actually I'm pleased others are actually using this stuff.  Still waiting for
an installation report from someone who has compiled optimized blas libraries
using the ATLAS subdirectory in the LAPACK source package.

FWIW, the 12-04 and 12-05 cygwin1.dll snapshots seem to cause octave-2.1.72-1
to hang on exit, but only if some significant computations and plots are done. 
Just starting and then exiting doesn't trigger the problem.  This is a
regression relative to the 11-30 snapshot.


jrp


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Jim Drash]

Can you make it harder? Yes. I can think of lots of ways to make it
harder.  The easiest is to prompt them for the userid and passwords
that they need when they need them and don't store them at all.


On 12/6/05, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Drash schrieb:
> > If someone can get physical access to the disk, then there is not a
> > single thing you can do to stop someone who is:
> >
> > 1) Knowledgeable
> > 2) Determined
> > 3) has time
> > 4) is a criminal
>
> But I could certainly stop someone who is *not* knowledgeable nor
> determined, and his "criminal cracking" gnowledge ends when he presses
> Enter after typing "grep -r password /".
>
> Why do you think mail clients, web browsers and other software don't
> store the passwords in plain?
>
>
>
> --
> Tomek
> http://wpkg.org
> WPKG - software deployment and upgrades with Samba
>
>

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: command-line archiver that understands Windows ACLs?

[Mark McWiggins]

Cygwin is installed as part of a proposed deployment solution that's 
competing with MSI (*shudder*),
so it's indeed a Cygwin problem. The current archiver on the Unix 
(Solaris) side happens to be
tar, but anything that could be packed under Solaris and unpacked with a 
Cygwin command line
in such a way to preserve Windows ACLs is what is needed to help slay 
the MSI dragon.


Christopher Faylor wrote:


On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:21:54PM -0800, Mark McWiggins wrote:
 


I'm working with a company that deploys tar files from Unix to Windows
where the Windows administrators set their directories up with various
ACLs.

Cygwin's default TAR program destroys these ACLs when files are
unpacked into these directories.

Is there a command-line program that can unpack a tar file in such a
way as to leave the ACLs alone?  WinZip can do this, but its
command-line addon only handles ZIP files.
   



Unless you really need to use cygwin for other things, it sounds very
much like you are asking for a non-cygwin way to deal with tar files.

This really isn't a list for discussing non-cygwin solutions to
problems.  I see that a google search for "tar windows" unearths quite a
few options so you should be able to find some no-cygwin program which
solves your problem fairly easily.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

 




--
Mark McWiggins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
425-369-8286 (home/cell/vm -- let ring)


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Wayne Willcox]

I view disk data encryption sort of like locking your car doors.  If they want
your car all they really need is a pickup truck and a car tow kit. If someone
really wants to get to your data they will.  The question is how badly do
they want that data?  How much effort will the expend to get it?  Lastly
if you catch them and take them to court can you prove that you did everything
resonable to try and prevent the thift?


On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 10:27:46PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Jim Drash schrieb:
> > If someone can get physical access to the disk, then there is not a
> > single thing you can do to stop someone who is:
> > 
> > 1) Knowledgeable
> > 2) Determined
> > 3) has time
> > 4) is a criminal
> 
> But I could certainly stop someone who is *not* knowledgeable nor 
> determined, and his "criminal cracking" gnowledge ends when he presses 
> Enter after typing "grep -r password /".
> 
> Why do you think mail clients, web browsers and other software don't 
> store the passwords in plain?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tomek
> http://wpkg.org
> WPKG - software deployment and upgrades with Samba
> 
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

-- 
Slowly and surely the unix crept up on the Nintendo user ...
Wayne Willcox  I will not eat green eggs and ham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I will not eat them Sam I Am!!
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion.
-- Chinese proverb

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: command-line archiver that understands Windows ACLs?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:21:54PM -0800, Mark McWiggins wrote:
>I'm working with a company that deploys tar files from Unix to Windows
>where the Windows administrators set their directories up with various
>ACLs.
>
>Cygwin's default TAR program destroys these ACLs when files are
>unpacked into these directories.
>
>Is there a command-line program that can unpack a tar file in such a
>way as to leave the ACLs alone?  WinZip can do this, but its
>command-line addon only handles ZIP files.

Unless you really need to use cygwin for other things, it sounds very
much like you are asking for a non-cygwin way to deal with tar files.

This really isn't a list for discussing non-cygwin solutions to
problems.  I see that a google search for "tar windows" unearths quite a
few options so you should be able to find some no-cygwin program which
solves your problem fairly easily.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Jim Drash schrieb:

If someone can get physical access to the disk, then there is not a
single thing you can do to stop someone who is:

1) Knowledgeable
2) Determined
3) has time
4) is a criminal


But I could certainly stop someone who is *not* knowledgeable nor 
determined, and his "criminal cracking" gnowledge ends when he presses 
Enter after typing "grep -r password /".


Why do you think mail clients, web browsers and other software don't 
store the passwords in plain?




--
Tomek
http://wpkg.org
WPKG - software deployment and upgrades with Samba


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

command-line archiver that understands Windows ACLs?

[Mark McWiggins]

I'm working with a company that deploys tar files from Unix to Windows 
where the

Windows administrators set their directories up with various ACLs.

Cygwin's default TAR program destroys these ACLs when files are unpacked 
into

these directories.

Is there a command-line program that can unpack a tar file in such a way 
as to leave
the ACLs alone? WinZip can do this, but its command-line addon only 
handles ZIP

files.

Thanks much.

--
Mark McWiggins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
425-369-8286 (home/cell/vm -- let ring)


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Jim Drash]

If someone can get physical access to the disk, then there is not a
single thing you can do to stop someone who is:

1) Knowledgeable
2) Determined
3) has time
4) is a criminal

Nothing can stop them, The best you can do is slow them down, know
that it is happening maybe while it is happening or worst case shortly
thereafter.

Security is not a "thing" it is a process that balances risk / reward,
cost / benefit

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: 1.5.18-1 gcc path weirdness

[cyg_question]

> Could it be possible that you are running the Jun 7 version of 
> gcc.exe when you are thinking that you are running the gcc 
> pointed to by the symlink? As a WAG I think you might be and 
> bash/cygwin is trying to figure out which command to ** actually ** use.

Excellent!  I just tried deleting gcc.exe and symlinking that name to
the i686-pc-cygwin-gcc.exe executable, and now it works fine.

Thank you for your help.

Steve Wootton






--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: 1.5.18-1 gcc path weirdness

[Alan Miles]

All,

Sorry this isn't from my regular mailer ...


- Message from x on Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:33:22 -0600 -
To: 
Subject:Re: 1.5.18-1 gcc path weirdness

What does ls -l /usr/bin/*gcc* show you?



From bash, it looks like:



[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/bin
$ ls -l /usr/bin/*gcc*
-rwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 93717 Jun  7 17:02 /usr/bin/gcc.exe
-rwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 16183 Jun  7 16:13 /usr/bin/gccbug
-rwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 93717 Dec  5 16:25 
/usr/bin/i686-pc-cygwin-gcc-3.4.4.exe
lrwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 7 Dec  5 16:25 
/usr/bin/i686-pc-cygwin-gcc.exe -> gcc.exe


All I don't know if anyone noticed the


-rwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 93717 Jun  7 17:02 /usr/bin/gcc.exe


and

-rwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 93717 Dec  5 16:25 
/usr/bin/i686-pc-cygwin-gcc-3.4.4.exe
lrwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 7 Dec  5 16:25 
/usr/bin/i686-pc-cygwin-gcc.exe -> gcc.exe


lines..

Could it be possible that you are running the Jun 7 version of gcc.exe when 
you are thinking that you are running the gcc pointed to by the symlink? As 
a WAG I think you might be and bash/cygwin is trying to figure out which 
command to ** actually ** use.


Alan

_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:

> Wayne Willcox schrieb:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 02:58:15PM -0500, Jim Drash wrote:
> >
> > > Don't put the user names or passwords in the script put them in a file
> > > only readable by SYSTEM
>
> > that would not solve the requirement of protecting the passwords
> > if the disk was stolen.  The scripts are supposedly already
> > readable by system and admin only.
> >
>
> That's exactly what I mean (they are already readable by SYSTEM and admins
> only).
>
> If the disk is stolen, it would add some extra time before the password is
> compromised.
>
> Someone gave a clue here:
>
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-12/msg00181.html
>
> "instead of storing them plaintext, why don't you try encoding them via
> cryptographic hashes - md5, sha1, tiger and the like."
>
> But I don't really know where to start (which tool should I use for it?)

Umm, "crypt"?  As in

stored_password=42wlq4L2SDUdw
echo -n "Enter your password: "; stty -echo; read password; stty echo
if [ x"`crypt 42 "$password"`" = x"$stored_password" ]; then
  echo "Access granted"
else
  echo "Invalid password"
fi

(the '42' above is the "salt" -- see "man crypt").
HTH,
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Brian Dessent]

Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:

> That's exactly what I mean (they are already readable by SYSTEM and
> admins only).
> 
> If the disk is stolen, it would add some extra time before the password
> is compromised.
> 
> Someone gave a clue here:
> 
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-12/msg00181.html
> 
> "instead of storing them plaintext, why don't you try encoding them via
> cryptographic hashes - md5, sha1, tiger and the like."
> 
> But I don't really know where to start (which tool should I use for it?)

Let's step back a minute.

If your script is storing passwords so that it can *supply* them to
windows, then you can't store hashes.  That only works if your script
accepts passwords itself and then verifies them *itself* against the
stored hashes.

Now, assuming you need to store passwords in plaintext:

Without some sort of external storage, there is absolutely nothing you
can do to prevent someone that stole the drive from being able to read
the plaintext passwords.  You can encrypt them up the wazoo, it doesn't
matter.  To encrypt you have to use a key of some kind, and unless you
store that key in a location off of the hard drive, then all the
attacker has to do is take the key and use it to decrypt.  
Put another way, the attacker can do whatever the PC does to access the
passwords.  So if the PC can access the passwords without data from
elsewhere, so can the thief.

So, unless you're planning on setting up something where a passphrase
not stored on the disk is entered on the keyboard, retrieved from a
floppy, etc. then you're wasting your time.

If you just want to encrypt to say that you've encrypted, then there are
tons of utilities to do this.  Try "man openssl" or "man enc" for
starters.  But again, if you store the encrypted file next along with
the key on the disk then you've accomplished absolutely nothing from a
security standpoint.  (This is assuming you use a key without a
passphrase.  But if you do that you are essentially no longer storing
the key on the disk, since it will require some keyboard input to
function.)

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Wayne Willcox schrieb:


On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 02:58:15PM -0500, Jim Drash wrote:


Don't put the user names or passwords in the script put them in a file
only readable by SYSTEM


> that would not solve the requirement of protecting the passwords
> if the disk was stolen.  The scripts are supposedly already
> readable by system and admin only.
>

That's exactly what I mean (they are already readable by SYSTEM and 
admins only).


If the disk is stolen, it would add some extra time before the password 
is compromised.


Someone gave a clue here:

http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-12/msg00181.html

"instead of storing them plaintext, why don't you try encoding them via
cryptographic hashes - md5, sha1, tiger and the like."

But I don't really know where to start (which tool should I use for it?)


--
Tomek
http://wpkg.org
WPKG - software deployment and upgrades with Samba

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Wayne Willcox]

that would not solve the requirement of protecting the passwords
if the disk was stolen.  The scripts are supposedly already
readable by system and admin only.

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 02:58:15PM -0500, Jim Drash wrote:
> Don't put the user names or passwords in the script put them in a file
> only readable by SYSTEM
> 
> 
> On 12/6/05, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Svend Sorensen schrieb:
> > > On 12/4/05, nidhog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>On 12/4/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> > >>>
> > I have a little open-source project, which eases Windows administration
> > a bit.
> > 
> > In some of the scripts, I use usernames and passwords (to get to a
> > password-protected network share etc.).
> > Because they are scripts, username and password is in plain.
> > 
> > Although the script files are only readable by SYSTEM and
> > Administrators, if a disk is stolen, someone could easily get the
> > passwords by doing simple "grep -r password ./*".
> > 
> > Do you know some tool which could "encode" scripts?
> > >>
> > >>instead of storing them plaintext, why don't you try encoding them via
> > >>cryptographic hashes - md5, sha1, tiger and the like.
> > >
> > >
> > > How is the script going to get the plaintext password if all it has is
> > > a one way hash?
> >
> > I don't really care, perhaps it won't be any one way hash anyway.
> >
> > It is to be a measure to prevent an accidental viewing of
> > usernames/passwords rather than some "military grade" tool which takes
> > 100 years to break on a supercomputer.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomek
> > http://wpkg.org
> > WPKG - software deployment and upgrades with Samba
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> > Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> > FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

-- 
Slowly and surely the unix crept up on the Nintendo user ...
Wayne Willcox  I will not eat green eggs and ham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I will not eat them Sam I Am!!
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion.
-- Chinese proverb

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Jim Drash]

Don't put the user names or passwords in the script put them in a file
only readable by SYSTEM


On 12/6/05, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Svend Sorensen schrieb:
> > On 12/4/05, nidhog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>On 12/4/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> >>>
> I have a little open-source project, which eases Windows administration
> a bit.
> 
> In some of the scripts, I use usernames and passwords (to get to a
> password-protected network share etc.).
> Because they are scripts, username and password is in plain.
> 
> Although the script files are only readable by SYSTEM and
> Administrators, if a disk is stolen, someone could easily get the
> passwords by doing simple "grep -r password ./*".
> 
> Do you know some tool which could "encode" scripts?
> >>
> >>instead of storing them plaintext, why don't you try encoding them via
> >>cryptographic hashes - md5, sha1, tiger and the like.
> >
> >
> > How is the script going to get the plaintext password if all it has is
> > a one way hash?
>
> I don't really care, perhaps it won't be any one way hash anyway.
>
> It is to be a measure to prevent an accidental viewing of
> usernames/passwords rather than some "military grade" tool which takes
> 100 years to break on a supercomputer.
>
>
> --
> Tomek
> http://wpkg.org
> WPKG - software deployment and upgrades with Samba
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:36:07PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>Svend Sorensen schrieb:
>>On 12/4/05, nidhog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/4/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>>>wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:

>I have a little open-source project, which eases Windows administration
>a bit.
>
>In some of the scripts, I use usernames and passwords (to get to a
>password-protected network share etc.).
>Because they are scripts, username and password is in plain.
>
>Although the script files are only readable by SYSTEM and
>Administrators, if a disk is stolen, someone could easily get the
>passwords by doing simple "grep -r password ./*".
>
>Do you know some tool which could "encode" scripts?
>>>
>>>instead of storing them plaintext, why don't you try encoding them via
>>>cryptographic hashes - md5, sha1, tiger and the like.
>>
>>
>>How is the script going to get the plaintext password if all it has is
>>a one way hash?
>
>I don't really care, perhaps it won't be any one way hash anyway.
>
>It is to be a measure to prevent an accidental viewing of 
>usernames/passwords rather than some "military grade" tool which takes 
>100 years to break on a supercomputer.

So, in that case, someone has already made a suggestion:

http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-12/msg00181.html

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Size difference reported by /proc/partitions and lseek(SEEK_END) on block device

[Loh, Joe]

Hello folks,
We have created the following test case to illustrate the behavior that
we observed.  Hopefully someone out there can shed some light into the
subject matter.This behavior is observed running "CYGWIN_NT-5.2
P3PANDA 1.5.18(0.132/4/2) 2005-07-02 20:30 i686 unknown unknown Cygwin".

The block device size is different between the values reported in
/proc/partitions and lseek(SEEK_END).  We have included a small 'C'
program that simply uses lseek to size the block device.  Is this
expected of?  If so, what accounts for the descrepancy?  We have another
system with a 40G drives that doesn't show such discrepancy.  We are
able to address the LBA beyond the range reported in /proc/partitions
using 'dd'.  So, it's definitely addressable, but we ran into yet a
different issue as we approach the end of the block device using 'dd'.
We have open a different thread to address the 'dd' isssue under "Error
reported dd'ing close of end of block device with skip"

Here's the 'C' program listing:

#define _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64

#include 
#include 
#include 
#include 
#include 

int main (int argc, char* const argv[])
{
  int vFd;
  off_t vSz;
  if (argv[1] == NULL) {
printf("SYNTAX: %s \n",argv[0]);
exit(1);
  }

  vFd = open(argv[1],O_RDONLY);
  if (vFd < 0) {
perror("open");
exit(1);
  }
  vSz = lseek(vFd, (off_t)0, SEEK_END);
  if (vSz < 0) {
perror("lseek");
exit(1);
  }
  close(vFd);
  printf("%s size: %llu bytes (%llu of 1024-bytes
blocks)\n",argv[1],vSz,(vSz/1024));
  exit(0);
}

Comparing the results from the lseek sizing with the /proc/partitions.
We got the following results:

$ cat /proc/partitions
major minor  #blocks  name

8 0  78124095 sda
8 1  15358108 sda1
8 2104422 sda2
8 3  16386300 sda3

Results from lseek(SEEK_END):

/dev/sda size: 800 bytes (78125000 of 1024-bytes blocks)

Here's the output from strace:

**
Program name: C:\cygwin\home\Administrator\lseekend.exe (pid 376, ppid
1)
App version:  1005.18, api: 0.132
DLL version:  1005.18, api: 0.132
DLL build:2005-07-02 20:30
OS version:   Windows NT-5.2
Heap size:402653184
Date/Time:2005-12-06 13:41:02
**
   63 451 [main] lseekend 376 set_myself: myself->dwProcessId 376
   72 523 [main] lseekend 376 time: 1133898062 = time (0)
  7951318 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x420238:
!C:=C:\cygwin\bin
  1531471 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x420250:
ALLUSERSPROFILE=C:\Documents and Settings\All Users
   981569 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x420288:
APPDATA=C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data
   951664 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x4202D0:
CLIENTNAME=ASTOR
   911755 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x4202E8:
CLUSTERLOG=C:\WINDOWS\Cluster\cluster.log
   921847 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x420318:
COLORFGBG=0;default;15
   951942 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x420338:
COLORTERM=rxvt-xpm
   932035 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x420350:
COMMONPROGRAMFILES=C:\Program Files\Common Files
   942129 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x420388:
COMPUTERNAME=P3PANDA
   942223 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x4203A8:
COMSPEC=C:\WINDOWS\system32\cmd.exe
   942317 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x4203D0:
CVS_RSH=/bin/ssh
   952412 [main] lseekend 376 set_file_api_mode: File APIs set to
OEM
   622474 [main] lseekend 376 parse_options: codepage (called func)
   942568 [main] lseekend 376 parse_options: tty 1001
   932661 [main] lseekend 376 parse_options: binmode 65536
   952756 [main] lseekend 376 parse_options: title 1
   912847 [main] lseekend 376 parse_options: returning
   482895 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x4203E8:
CYGWIN=codepage:oem tty binmode title
   952990 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x420460: DISPLAY=:0
   923082 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x420470: EDITOR=vi
   963178 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x420480:
FP_NO_HOST_CHECK=NO
  1003278 [main] lseekend 376 getwinenv: can't set native for HOME=
since no environ yet
  1043382 [main] lseekend 376 mount_info::conv_to_posix_path:
conv_to_posix_path (C:\cygwin\home\Administrator, no-keep-rel,
no-add-slash)
   593441 [main] lseekend 376 normalize_win32_path:
C:\cygwin\home\Administrator = normalize_win32_path
(C:\cygwin\home\Administrator)
   613502 [main] lseekend 376 mount_info::conv_to_posix_path:
/home/Administrator = conv_to_posix_path (C:\cygwin\home\Administrator)
  1433645 [main] lseekend 376 win_env::add_cache: posix
/home/Administrator
   473692 [main] lseekend 376 win_env::add_cache: native
HOME=C:\cygwin\home\Administrator
   493741 [main] lseekend 376 posify: env var converted to
HOME=/home/Administrator
   973838 [main] lseekend 376 environ_init: 0x4204C0:
HOME=/home/Administrator
   943932 [main] lseekend 376 enviro

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Svend Sorensen schrieb:

On 12/4/05, nidhog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 12/4/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:


I have a little open-source project, which eases Windows administration
a bit.

In some of the scripts, I use usernames and passwords (to get to a
password-protected network share etc.).
Because they are scripts, username and password is in plain.

Although the script files are only readable by SYSTEM and
Administrators, if a disk is stolen, someone could easily get the
passwords by doing simple "grep -r password ./*".

Do you know some tool which could "encode" scripts?


instead of storing them plaintext, why don't you try encoding them via
cryptographic hashes - md5, sha1, tiger and the like.



How is the script going to get the plaintext password if all it has is
a one way hash?


I don't really care, perhaps it won't be any one way hash anyway.

It is to be a measure to prevent an accidental viewing of 
usernames/passwords rather than some "military grade" tool which takes 
100 years to break on a supercomputer.



--
Tomek
http://wpkg.org
WPKG - software deployment and upgrades with Samba

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: rysnc hangs when backing up multiple /cygdrive/* dirs

[H.S.]

Jim Kleckner wrote:
> H.S. wrote:
> ...
> 
>>
>> I don't know why, but it is working now. I exluded the .lnk files and
>> backup the d drive folder separately first. Then I included other
>> directories to backed up. Now I am backing up only '/cygdrive/d/sukh
>> /cygdrive/c/Documents\ and\ Settings' and it seems tobe working great.
>> Well, not 100% great, I am posting that problem in a different post
>> shortly.
> 
> 
> There is a deadlock when "pulling".  Try "pushing".
> 
> See http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-09/msg00263.html
> and lots of discussion about this via Google.
> 
> Jim
> 


I think something else may be the problem. How does rsync handle the
Windows Shortcuts? And how does it handle the tmp files with weird
filename (MS Word tmp files are named like ~$adfuoiuwer.tmp, e.g.)?

When I got rid of the shortcuts on a user's desktop and all MS Word tmp
files in her folders, rsync began to work.

Please see my other post (Re: permissions problem cygwin<-->Linux) about
what steps I took and rsync began to work.

->HS


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: encoding scripts (so that user can't see passwords easily)?

[Svend Sorensen]

On 12/4/05, nidhog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/4/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> > >I have a little open-source project, which eases Windows administration
> > >a bit.
> > >
> > >In some of the scripts, I use usernames and passwords (to get to a
> > >password-protected network share etc.).
> > >Because they are scripts, username and password is in plain.
> > >
> > >Although the script files are only readable by SYSTEM and
> > >Administrators, if a disk is stolen, someone could easily get the
> > >passwords by doing simple "grep -r password ./*".
> > >
> > >Do you know some tool which could "encode" scripts?
>
> instead of storing them plaintext, why don't you try encoding them via
> cryptographic hashes - md5, sha1, tiger and the like.

How is the script going to get the plaintext password if all it has is
a one way hash?

> while it's still vulnerable to bruteforce if they get your hashed
> passwords, you can mitigate the risk by requiring longer/more complex
> passwords.
>
> at least it's not as easy as grep'ping for the plaintext password left
> alone naked all out in the open.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: rysnc hangs when backing up multiple /cygdrive/* dirs

[Jim Kleckner]

H.S. wrote:
...


I don't know why, but it is working now. I exluded the .lnk files and
backup the d drive folder separately first. Then I included other
directories to backed up. Now I am backing up only '/cygdrive/d/sukh
/cygdrive/c/Documents\ and\ Settings' and it seems tobe working great.
Well, not 100% great, I am posting that problem in a different post shortly.


There is a deadlock when "pulling".  Try "pushing".

See http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-09/msg00263.html
and lots of discussion about this via Google.

Jim

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gcj file input problem, "available" incorrect

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Martin Gusenbauer wrote:

> I found your (old) question on cygwin.com, but no answer. Do you have
> any solution yet? In came over a similar problem yesterday, available of
> system.in always returns 0, but only if compiled on gcj and run as exe
> on xp.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
>
>
> ---
> Martin Gusenbauer   Tel.: 0 7262 / 53 0 17
> Haydnstraße 13  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> A-4320 Perg http://home.pages.at/gusenbauer
> ---

Martin, .  I'm forwarding your
question to the appropriate Cygwin mailing list.  Please follow-up there.

I don't use gcj, so I'm afraid I won't be of much help in this case.  If
you can reduce this to a small self-contained reproducible test case, I'm
sure the gcc maintainer will be interested in looking at it.  If you plan
to go through with the test case, please also read and follow the Cygwin
problem reporting guidelines at .
HTH,
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA
--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: 1.5.18-1 gcc path weirdness

[cyg_question]

> > I notice that your PATH setting in cygcheck has some strange things 
> > at the end, like a directory of just "Z" and ".\" three times.  Is 
> > there a chance that there is some kind of improper string at the end?
> 
> I'll check that.  I've got some obsolete tools in my path, so it's time
> for me to do some Windows housecleaning anyway.

I'm not sure where the "Z:." at the end of my Windows path is 
coming from... I'm still looking for that.  Meanwhile, I tried just
setting a short path directly, but it didn't help.

$ pwd
/home/swootton

$ PATH='/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin'

$ echo $PATH
/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin

$ which gcc
/usr/bin/gcc

$ type gcc
gcc is hashed (/usr/bin/gcc)

$ gcc
bash: /usr/bin/gcc: No such file or directory

$ i686-pc-cygwin-gcc
bash: /usr/bin/i686-pc-cygwin-gcc: No such file or directory

$ i686-pc-cygwin-gcc-3.4.4
i686-pc-cygwin-gcc-3.4.4: no input files

$ ls -ltar /usr/bin/*gcc*
-rwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 16183 Jun  7 16:13 /usr/bin/gccbug
-rwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 93717 Jun  7 17:02 /usr/bin/gcc.exe
-rwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 93717 Dec  5 16:25 
/usr/bin/i686-pc-cygwin-gcc-3.4.4.exe
lrwxrwxrwx  1 swootton Users 7 Dec  5 16:25 /usr/bin/i686-pc-cygwin-gcc.exe
-> gcc.exe

I still don't get it.  I must be missing something obvious.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: octave-forge dependency?

[John W. Eaton]

On  6-Dec-2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:

| On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:14:13AM -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:
| >On  6-Dec-2005, Charles Wilson wrote:
| >>Why does package octave-forge depend on tetex-bin?  As far as I can
| >>tell, octave-forge contains .oct and .m files, and few text and info
| >>files -- nothing there should need TeX.  I use MikTeX so I don't want
| >>to have cygwin-TeX installed, but this octave-forge dependency pulls in
| >>the whole mess for no good reason...
| >
| >Octave uses makeinfo to format docstrings.
| 
| makeinfo is in the texinfo package not the TeX package.

Sorry, I answered a bit hastily.  I don't see a reason for the
octave-forge package to have a direct dependency on tetex-bin.  But
doesn't the texinfo package depend on tetex in some way?  I guess not:

@ texinfo
sdesc: "Documentation system for on-line information and printed output"
category: Text Doc
requires: cygwin libiconv2 libintl3 libncurses8 _update-info-dir
version: 4.8-1
install: release/texinfo/texinfo-4.8-1.tar.bz2 695242 
41433bef576c2bccc7136ec6677f6457
source: release/texinfo/texinfo-4.8-1-src.tar.bz2 1474048 
ae84f762aae32d3356cfd8639ff608f8
[prev]
version: 4.7-2
install: release/texinfo/texinfo-4.7-2.tar.bz2 690192 
b0b7a4d4fb51cfe3d1b8b7db85463d1f
source: release/texinfo/texinfo-4.7-2-src.tar.bz2 1356848 
5529d19c02bd71abc13479e3ebaa8325

though I'm not sure why it doesn't.  Isn't TeX needed to make this
package fully functional?

jwe

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: 1.5.18-1 gcc path weirdness

[cyg_question]

> What does "type gcc" report?

$ type gcc
gcc is /usr/bin/gcc

$ which gcc
/usr/bin/gcc

> I notice that your PATH setting in cygcheck has some strange things at
> the end, like a directory of just "Z" and ".\" three times.  Is there a
> chance that there is some kind of improper string at the end?

I'll check that.  I've got some obsolete tools in my path, so it's time for me 
to do some Windows housecleaning anyway.

Best regards,

Steve Wootton

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/