Oh, btw., Charles, that's one for you.
On Jun 16 23:01, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 13 11:09, Schutter, Thomas A. wrote:
> > Except that is not what I am seeing. When I run "id" from a console
> > cygwin shell:
> > $ id
> > uid=18718(tschutter) gid=10513(Domain Users)
> > groups=544(Admi
Charles, Ping?
On Jun 16 23:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Oh, btw., Charles, that's one for you.
>
> On Jun 16 23:01, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On May 13 11:09, Schutter, Thomas A. wrote:
> > > So when I am using pubkey authentication, the user token is not a member
> > > of the "Administrators
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Oh, btw., Charles, that's one for you.
On Jun 16 23:01, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On May 13 11:09, Schutter, Thomas A. wrote:
The problem was that the domain sshd_server account has no right to
access the domain controller from the network. Solution: Open the Local
Securi
On Jul 19 12:51, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Oh, btw., Charles, that's one for you.
>> On Jun 16 23:01, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On May 13 11:09, Schutter, Thomas A. wrote:
>>> The problem was that the domain sshd_server account has no right to
>>> access the domain contro
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
However, I sent a second patch in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-06/msg00453.html
The Interactive Logon Right is also necessary for this account.
I don't know why I missed that. I'll roll 0.1.6 soon.
What also doesn't work well is this: In a domain I might want a
c
Charles Wilson wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
However, I sent a second patch in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-06/msg00453.html
The Interactive Logon Right is also necessary for this account.
I don't know why I missed that. I'll roll 0.1.6 soon.
Here's the followup patch I applied (with m
On Jul 19 16:46, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>> However, I sent a second patch in
>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-06/msg00453.html
>> The Interactive Logon Right is also necessary for this account.
>
> I don't know why I missed that. I'll roll 0.1.6 soon.
Thanks.
>> What
On Jul 20 14:27, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 19 16:46, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Should be modified somehow, perhaps (UNTESTED):
> >
> > for username in cyg_server cron_server sshd_server
> > do
> > if egrep "^${username}:" /etc/passwd 1>/dev/null 2>&1 ||
> >net
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Along these lines, yes. I also think that using the cyg_server/
cron_server/sshd_server account should be preferred over SYSTEM on XP
and earlier systems, at least if they are domain member machines. Maybe
simply like this: The test should run on any OS, but if none of
Hi Chuck,
On Aug 4 21:31, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Btw., there's a test for the administrators group in /etc/passwd.
>> This test is not necessary. The only reason to have the admins
>> group in /etc/passwd is to print file ownership correctly. It doesn't
>> have any o
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi Chuck,
On Aug 4 21:31, Charles Wilson wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Btw., there's a test for the administrators group in /etc/passwd.
I don't see this. I see testing /etc/passwd for the (local) Administrator
USER, and testing /etc/group for the Administrators G
On Aug 7 11:25, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Hi Chuck,
>> On Aug 4 21:31, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Btw., there's a test for the administrators group in /etc/passwd.
>
>
>>> I don't see this. I see testing /etc/passwd for the (local) Administrato
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
No, the above lines are checking for the passwd entry for the
administrators group. S-1-5-32-544 is the SID of that group.
The SID for the Administrator user is S-1-5-21-X-Y-Z-500.
D'oh. Right.
Now, about csih_check_access() -- without exact knowledge of
csih_ADMINS
On Aug 7 12:19, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Well, hmm. In theory, admins have backup/restore rights anyway.
>> However, I was just thinking that csih should get rid of points of
>> failure which are not entirely necessary, like the checks for denied
>> user rights. If you
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
We can require Administrators (-544) in /etc/group, and SYSTEM (-18) in
both /etc/group and /etc/passwd, right?
Yes. I'm just wondering if we shouldn't check for the Admins group
only. The token of the SYSTEM user always contains the Admins group and
the cyg_server (or
On Aug 7 12:59, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> We can require Administrators (-544) in /etc/group, and SYSTEM (-18) in
>>> both /etc/group and /etc/passwd, right?
>> Yes. I'm just wondering if we shouldn't check for the Admins group
>> only. The token of the SYSTEM user alw
16 matches
Mail list logo
