Am 12.09.2014 06:13, schrieb Eric Blake:
On 09/11/2014 09:16 PM, Denis Mühle wrote:
Hello,
today i've updated my cygwin and now i have a big problem. the su
command was removed.
https://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2014-08/msg00245.html
i need su to start my services as seperate user,
because
Hello,
today i've updated my cygwin and now i have a big problem. the su
command was removed.
https://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2014-08/msg00245.html
i need su to start my services as seperate user,
because i have a webinterface to manage my services for both Linux and
Windows and it needs
On 2014-09-11 22:16, Denis Mühle wrote:
i need su to start my services as seperate user,
because i have a webinterface to manage my services for both Linux and
Windows and it needs the su command.
- will the su command come back to cygwin?
I don't know. The coreutils 'su' was removed
On 09/11/2014 09:16 PM, Denis Mühle wrote:
Hello,
today i've updated my cygwin and now i have a big problem. the su
command was removed.
https://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2014-08/msg00245.html
i need su to start my services as seperate user,
because i have a webinterface to manage my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why rewrite 'su' to do those types of tricks, when 'ssh' already exists?
Uhhh - how about script portability??
(Which is why I predict su will someday be made to do this. When??
Simple,
When somebody does it ) [ I ain't demand'in nothin from nobody ]
: (bcc: Brian Kelly/WTC1/Empire)
Subject:Re: About the 'su' command
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why rewrite 'su' to do those types of tricks, when 'ssh' already
exists?
Uhhh - how about script portability??
(Which is why I predict su will someday be made to do this. When??
Simple
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I missing something?
In my not-so-humble opinion, script portibility means copy script to box,
maybe chmod it to make it executable - and GO!! I'm guessing that su
will be part of the future default capability of cygwin.
So do we, but it
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@cygwin.com on 06/29/2003 07:34:57
PM
Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Brian Kelly/WTC1/Empire)
Subject:Re: About the 'su' command
Is this, or could this be made, part of the standard Cygwin docs and/or
FAQ?
Very nice explanation, Bill
It is. See http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html#NTSEC-SETUID.
Igor
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Is this, or could this be made, part of the standard Cygwin docs and/or
FAQ?
Very nice explanation, Bill.
Peace.
on Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 08:51:24AM -0400, Bill C.
)
Subject:Re: About the 'su' command
Is this, or could this be made, part of the standard Cygwin docs and/or
FAQ?
Very nice explanation, Bill.
Peace.
on Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 08:51:24AM -0400, Bill C. Riemers
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The second says the command wont work unless I have
. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]@cygwin.com on 06/29/2003 07:34:57 PM
Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Brian Kelly/WTC1/Empire)
Subject:Re: About the 'su' command
Is this, or could this be made, part of the standard Cygwin docs and/or
FAQ?
Very nice
|
|^ |
\ \//
\___/
Igor Pechtchanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/30/2003 08:45:48 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: About the 'su' command
Brian,
That's the reason behind the cygdaemon
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 08:51:24AM -0400, Bill C. Riemers wrote:
Now you ask, Well then, why can ssh do pipes. Very simple, 'ssh' sticks
around after starting the child process starts passing data from open file
descriptors though sockets.
Is this, or could this be made, part of the standard Cygwin docs and/or
FAQ?
Very nice explanation, Bill.
Peace.
on Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 08:51:24AM -0400, Bill C. Riemers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The second says the command wont work unless I have appropriate
privileges.
Do you know
The second says the command wont work unless I have appropriate
privileges.
Do you know someone on an XP station that has more powers than the
Administrator or an Administrators member ?
On most Unix systems, if you create a user with UID 65535 you will find that
user is unable to run 'suid'
Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you know someone on an XP station that has more powers than the
Administrator or an Administrators member ?
Certainly. SYSTEM. But I'd highly recommend using ssh instead of
su. That way you don't have to create a user
Ross Presser wrote:
Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you know someone on an XP station that has more powers than the
Administrator or an Administrators member ?
Certainly. SYSTEM. But I'd highly recommend using ssh instead of
su. That way you don't have to
Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
Hi all developers,
I want to make some report bout the 'su' command.
- The FAQ entry about it seems deprecated (or at least not completely
true)
This command is shown as removed from the distribution, but according
to http://www.cygwin.com/packages, it is included in sh
Really? Here's two useful and informative messages I found on the
first
page of hits from google:
(I used the mailing list serach engine :) but of course google pOwEr )
www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-04/msg00051.html
Reading the first one and its thread doesnt give a valuable reason to
Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
Really? Here's two useful and informative messages I found on the
first
page of hits from google:
(I used the mailing list serach engine :) but of course google pOwEr )
First mistake. ;-)
www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-04/msg00051.html
Reading the first one and
Do you mean here that the only user who can do 'su' at the moment is
SYSTEM ??
Certainly. SYSTEM. But I'd highly recommend using ssh instead of
su. That way you don't have to create a user with privileges that
opens a security hole just so you can su. Of course, you can do
so if you
Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
Do you mean here that the only user who can do 'su' at the moment is
SYSTEM ??
Certainly. SYSTEM. But I'd highly recommend using ssh instead of
su. That way you don't have to create a user with privileges that
opens a security hole just so you can su. Of course, you
Hi all developers,
I want to make some report bout the 'su' command.
- The FAQ entry about it seems deprecated (or at least not completely
true)
This command is shown as removed from the distribution, but according
to http://www.cygwin.com/packages, it is included in sh-utils-2.0.15-3
(current
I have just tried this on Windows XP as Administrator. I tried to su to
a normal user but got:
su: cannot run /bin/bash: Permission denied
When you installed cygwin did you install it for All Users or Just Me?
If the latter you need to run-through set-up, no need to re-install just run
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 01:54:23AM -, Chris January wrote:
'su' is not implemented in cygwin (yet). The closest you
can get now is
setting up sshd and using 'ssh user@localhost'. There was
some talk of
one of the new packages having that functionality, but you'd
have to
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Chris January wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 01:54:23AM -, Chris January wrote:
'su' is not implemented in cygwin (yet). The closest you can
get now is setting up sshd and using 'ssh user@localhost'.
There was some talk of one of the new packages
I have just tried this on Windows XP as Administrator. I tried to su to
a normal user but got:
su: cannot run /bin/bash: Permission denied
Try chmod 644 /bin/bash. You probably installed Cygwin for Just
Obviously this is stupid as it would make it unexecutable...
Permissions on my
Hello,
It seems that the su command doesn't work, although it is in the
man/info pages.
Any clue ?
--
. .
. .:::. ### \|/` ___ '
:(o o): . (o o) (o o) - (O o) -
ooO--(_)--Ooo-ooO--(_)--Ooo-ooO--(_)--Ooo-ooO--(_)--Ooo-
--
Unsubscribe
Igor Pechtchanski a écrit:
'su' is not implemented in cygwin (yet). The closest you can get now is
setting up sshd and using 'ssh user@localhost'. There was some talk of
one of the new packages having that functionality, but you'd have to read
the mailing list archives to verify that.
Igor
29 matches
Mail list logo
