Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3E5FCBA5.6CA0B099@ieee.org> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:50:45 -0500 From: "Pierre A. Humblet" X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygwin=ntsec:[no]strict References: <3E5F7B1D DOT 935B69A7 AT ieee DOT org> <20030228164519 DOT GA9304 AT redhat DOT com> <3E5F9829 DOT 6540A7F0 AT ieee DOT org> <20030228174133 DOT GD10456 AT redhat DOT com> <3E5FABB4 DOT C9A339B3 AT ieee DOT org> <20030228201235 DOT GA13311 AT redhat DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher Faylor wrote: > >Chris, > > > >Please make sure id runs with ntsec even if cygcheck > >runs with CYGWIN=nontsec. > > Ok. Thanks. I never would have thought of this. > > Does it make sense to run it both with and without ntsec or is only ntsec > interesting? Normally the information with ntsec is a superset of the other. However if the user has populated the gr_mem fields in /etc/group, they will only appear with nontsec. That information is used when setuid (to cover the case where the PDC is not available), so, yes, it could be interesting. Thanks. I never would have thought of this. Pierre