On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:02:04PM -0700, Monte Hayward wrote:
>I've read this thread, but the "create root" scripts did not work.
>cygcheck_svr.txt attached. Does someone have an idea what I might be
>missing? Details below. Thanks kindly.
Wrong mailing list. Use the main cygwin list for bug rep
I've read this thread, but the "create root" scripts did not work.
cygcheck_svr.txt attached. Does someone have an idea what I might be
missing? Details below. Thanks kindly.
Problem:
Perl MCPAN -shell results in "Permission denied" messages.
My setup:
C:\cygwin\
C:\unix\home\monte\
Solutions I
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >> 4) I get an "Error in addUserRights (LsaAddAccountRights returned
> > >>0xc060=STATUS_NO_SUCH_PRIVILEGE)!" on a w2k box (I have
> > >>full, local, admin rights. Is this OK? (or have I lost the
> > >>plot again :|
> > >
> > > Deta
Morrison, John wrote on Thursday, November 27, 2003 4:08 PM:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 01:24:15PM -, Morrison, John wrote:
>>> OK, took some lunch time ;)
>>>
>>> Hows this for passwd-grp.sh
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> #!/bin/sh
>>>
>>>
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 01:24:15PM -, Morrison, John wrote:
>> OK, took some lunch time ;)
>>
>> Hows this for passwd-grp.sh
>>
>> -
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>>
>> if [ ! -e /etc/passwd -a ! -L /etc/passwd ] ; then
>> /bin/mkpasswd -l -
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 01:24:15PM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> OK, took some lunch time ;)
>
> Hows this for passwd-grp.sh
>
> -
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> if [ ! -e /etc/passwd -a ! -L /etc/passwd ] ; then
> /bin/mkpasswd -l -c > /etc/passwd
> fi
>
> if [ ! -e /
OK, took some lunch time ;)
Hows this for passwd-grp.sh
-
#!/bin/sh
if [ ! -e /etc/passwd -a ! -L /etc/passwd ] ; then
/bin/mkpasswd -l -c > /etc/passwd
fi
if [ ! -e /etc/group -a ! -L /etc/group ] ; then
/bin/mkgroup -l -c > /etc/group
fi
cp -f /etc/pa
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 12:53:01PM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > There is! The passwd tool in the current snapshots already have the
> > option -e to switch expiry off. If you have another look into the
> > script, you'll see that I check the version number of passwd,
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:37:11AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:24:55AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:58:52AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> I do
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:37:11AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:24:55AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:58:52AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> >>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I don't know exactly
> but
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:24:55AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:58:52AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
I don't know exactly
but it's possible that W2K doesn't have these SeDenyWhatever user
rights.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:24:55AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:58:52AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > I don't know exactly
> > > but it's possible that W2K doesn't have these SeDenyWhatever user
> > > rights.
> >
> > editrights -a
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:58:52AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I don't know exactly
> > but it's possible that W2K doesn't have these SeDenyWhatever user
> > rights.
>
> editrights -a SeDenyRemoteInteractiveLogonRight -u root
>
> was the one that failed. Would i
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:05:02AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:33:24AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> any chance you can poke the base-passwd script soon, to check for
> a user
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:05:02AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:33:24AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> >> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> any chance you can poke the base-passwd script soon, to check for a
> >>> user and a group with SID S-1-1-
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:33:24AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> any chance you can poke the base-passwd script soon, to check for a
>>> user and a group with SID S-1-1-0 in the existing /etc/passwd and
>>> /etc/group files and remove them sil
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:14:29AM +0800, Dean Scarff wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I currently have an entry in /etc/passwd:
> root:unused_by_nt/2000/xp:500:513:U-SCARFF-BOX\root,S-1-5-21-1606980848-1563985344-1060284298-500:/home/root:/bin/bash
>
> This is a side-effect of using mkpasswd wi
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:33:24AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > any chance you can poke the base-passwd script soon, to check for a
> > user and a group with SID S-1-1-0 in the existing /etc/passwd and
> > /etc/group files and remove them silently?
> >
> > Also it wou
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> John,
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 03:44:44PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:29:08PM -, Morrison, John wrote:
>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Eh, no. I was thinking about a postinstall script, which checks
for Everyone (S-1-0-0) in
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
The remaining problem is the special handling of root. I guess it's
best to create the /etc/group entry already in mkgroup. For mkpasswd
it might be best, to add a special handling like this: If a Windows
user "root" exists, give it the uid 0.
any chance you can poke t
John,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 03:44:44PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:29:08PM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Eh, no. I was thinking about a postinstall script, which checks for
> > > Everyone (S-1-0-0) in /etc/passwd and /etc/group an
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:32:06AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > Another question is this:
> >
> > Should we actually depend on creating an NT account called "root"?
> > This might be already in use by a bunch of users and sysadmins
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> [snip]
> Another question is this:
>
> Should we actually depend on creating an NT account called "root"?
> This might be already in use by a bunch of users and sysadmins just
> for fun. Probably we do more often collide with that than we like.
>
> W
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:21:21PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> What about using a less common name like, say "cygwin_root" or
> "cygsrv_root" or so.
... which would get the name "root" in /etc/passwd, nevertheless,
like this:
root:unused_by_nt/2000/xp:0:0:Cygwin root
account,U-WINBOX\cygwin
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 03:44:44PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:29:08PM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Eh, no. I was thinking about a postinstall script, which checks for
> > > Everyone (S-1-0-0) in /etc/passwd and /etc/group and remov
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:54:17AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> At 12:33 PM 11/12/2003 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >I don't understand the "that was done with Windows 2003 in mind".
> >Setting the uid to 18 in exim seems counterproductive in that environment.
>
> The problem I was addres
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:29:08PM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Eh, no. I was thinking about a postinstall script, which checks for
> > Everyone (S-1-0-0) in /etc/passwd and /etc/group and removes these
> > entries silently. The same script could add the "root" entry
At 12:33 PM 11/12/2003 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:37:33AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> At 10:56 AM 11/12/2003 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:22:50PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> >> It autodetects if it is privileged and, if
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:25:21AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:22:50PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
At 05:58 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> What about generating a root group with mkgroup -l by defau
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:34:37PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Eh, no. I was thinking about a postinstall script, which checks for
> Everyone (S-1-0-0) in /etc/passwd and /etc/group and removes these
Sorry, it's S-1-1-0. S-1-0-0 is the NULL SID.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:25:21AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:22:50PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >> At 05:58 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> >>> What about generating a root group with mkgroup -l by default?
> >>>
> >>> root:S-1-
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:37:33AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> At 10:56 AM 11/12/2003 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:22:50PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >> It autodetects if it is privileged and, if so, setgid(544) & setuid(18)
> >> to normalize its environ
At 10:56 AM 11/12/2003 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:22:50PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> This indeterminacy might cause headaches during the transition period,
>> it's hard to foresee all ramifications.
>
>I'm running my system for at least a year with two group
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:22:50PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> At 05:58 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>>> What about generating a root group with mkgroup -l by default?
>>>
>>> root:S-1-5-32-544:0:
>>>
>>> The question is then, should it *also* generate an admi
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:22:50PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> At 05:58 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> >What about generating a root group with mkgroup -l by default?
> >
> > root:S-1-5-32-544:0:
> >
> >The question is then, should it *also* generate an administrators entry
> >
> > Admin
At 05:58 PM 11/11/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>
>What about generating a root group with mkgroup -l by default?
>
> root:S-1-5-32-544:0:
>
>The question is then, should it *also* generate an administrators entry
>
> Administrators:S-1-5-32-544:544:
>
>or should it generate the "root" entry *instead* o
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 06:17:57PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:02:55PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > definitely have this problem are openssh, inetutils, and apache, and
> > I'm most likely missing some.
>
> openssh and inetutils both have no problem with that
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:02:55PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> It would be a good idea to compile a list of such packages, and give a
> heads-up to all maintainers before the switch happens. The packages that
It would be good if the maintainers would *read* this list so they know
what's goi
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:46:48PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >My idea is basically the following:
> >
> >- On all NT systems, create a user account called "root" which is
> > member of the administrators group.
> >[snip]
> >Comments? If we
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:52:48AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:46:48PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >My idea is basically the following:
> >
> >- On all NT systems, create a user account called "root" which is
> > member of the administrators group.
> >[snip]
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:46:48PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>My idea is basically the following:
>
>- On all NT systems, create a user account called "root" which is
> member of the administrators group.
>[snip]
>Comments? If we agree to do as above (or similar), I would gladly
>appreciate,
41 matches
Mail list logo
