This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Deprecating ntea


On Feb 27 10:45, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> The ntea permission bit support isn't there to fool (most) users, it's
> there to fool (arguably broken) applications that assume they are on a
> secure system and check the permissions.  IIRC, Linux does not support
> permission setting on FAT filesystems, so no sensitive data can reside on
> them.  The answer for Unix is WDDTT.

Good stance.

>   The answer for Windows is more
> complex, as many people may not have a choice.

On NT?  Why?  FAT is convertible to NTFS with onboard tools.

> I'm not arguing for keeping ntea, but I am arguing for having *some*
> mechanism to help users run Unix applications on filesystems without
> security support (how many people still use rsh?).  As I see it, ntea as
> it stands now is broken anyway (it doesn't work on FAT32).  However, does

- ntea doesn't work on FAT32/Samba/NFS/whatever.
- ntea is not necessary on NTFS.
- ntea creates an overly large file on FAT
- Installing Windows on FAT is a terrible idea in itself.
- 99% of applications work fine w/o ntea on FAT.
- The rest can be tweaked to not check permissions, or...
- are security related applications which shouldn't run on FAT or with
  ntea instead of ntsec anyway.
- Do you remember the last thread on the cygwin list where somebody
  complained and had to switch ntea on so that the application worked?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]