ntsec odds and ends (cygcheck augmentation?)
Pierre A. Humblet
Wed Feb 5 18:23:00 GMT 2003
At 12:31 PM 2/5/2003 -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>IMHO, "No entry" is a better name for such a situation ([ug]id==-1). It
>could then be documented in the FAQ. Just my 2¢...
That's something else. ls -l print 65535 when the sid cannot be mapped
to a uid/gid, which is NEVER the case for the current user. By the way, it
will now print ???????? (because 65535 would become 4294967295 (truncated
to 8 characters) when we move to uid32).
We can change the ??????? to whatever people wish (it's in variables
When the user is not in passwd, ls -l would print a special string in the
group field. I would like something more precise than "No entry".
To a new user "No entry" is not very alarming, nor very informative.
mkpasswd is proper to Cygwin, how can we best communicate its existence?
By the way, when we move to a new setup.exe, without passwd-grp.bat and
with a new passwd-gr.sh, the passwd problem will disappear but the HOME
issue will remain.
>How about just "Warning: HOME set to 'C:\', check your /etc/passwd or the
>value of HOME in the Windows environment"? An advanced user (or one who
>simply wants to set his home to 'C:\') should be able to just comment out
>this warning from /etc/profile, right?
Right, that's the idea. When everything is fine the user should delete the
diagnostic code. Note however that we should check for more than c:\
More information about the Cygwin-patches