Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Evans <gse AT antisleep DOT com>
X-X-Sender: gse AT oontz DOT dissonant DOT org
To: Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: accessing shared drives when logged in via ssh 
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209101048040.980-100000@oontz.dissonant.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> This is expected behavior if sshd is running as LocalSystem and you used
> publickey authentication when you logged in.  On my Win2k box, I can
> access shares if I use password authentication.  

No way -- really?  I'll have to try it.  

That behavior seems pretty surprising to me; why should the type of
authentication end you up with any more or less priveleges?  And for that
matter, why would *password* auth be treated as "more secure" than
publickey?


> Alternatively, you can run the sshd process as a specific user.  If you
> then use pubkey authentication (and are logging in as the user running
> sshd), you'll also have share access.

hm.  I suppose I could do that though it "feels" wrong since there are, 
in face, multiple user accounts on this machine.  

Sigh -- sometimes the line between Cygwin and Windows still confuses me.
Especially when there's no "su" that I know of.

Thanks for the tip, Dave...


scott




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/