Normal/expected behavior or should I submit a cygdump?

Normal/expected behavior or should I submit a cygdump?

[Linda Walsh]

when I create my password and group files with mkpasswd and mkgroup,
they put me in a group "513" -- and call it group 'None'.  Yet I am
 in Users, and Admins -- and have no group none listed in my group list.

However, I've just recently noticed that 513 is the end of the well known
SID (RID?) builtin for Domain Users -- and my machine is attached to
a domain (though cygwin doesn't seem to be able to read them for some
reason (likely some server misconfiguration)...but.  But if it is known
that '513' is associated with Domain Users, why does cygwin put in 'None'?

Is this just my machine or is this expected/normal behavior??

I'll submit a dump if it is just me...(a cygcheck dump, that is...)...

-l

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Normal/expected behavior or should I submit a cygdump?

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

On 09/15/2009 04:47 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> when I create my password and group files with mkpasswd and mkgroup,
> they put me in a group "513" -- and call it group 'None'.  Yet I am
>   in Users, and Admins -- and have no group none listed in my group list.

513/None shows up in my '/etc/group' file.  Try running 'mkgroup -l -d'.

> However, I've just recently noticed that 513 is the end of the well known
> SID (RID?) builtin for Domain Users -- and my machine is attached to
> a domain (though cygwin doesn't seem to be able to read them for some
> reason (likely some server misconfiguration)...but.  But if it is known
> that '513' is associated with Domain Users, why does cygwin put in 'None'?

10513 is "Domain Users".

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Normal behavior -- fixed - domain users showing up; remote ACLS working on SMB shares

[Linda Walsh]

Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 09/15/2009 04:47 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> when I create my password and group files with mkpasswd and mkgroup,
>> they put me in a group "513" -- and call it group 'None'.  Yet I am
>>   in Users, and Admins -- and have no group none listed in my group list.
> 
> 513/None shows up in my '/etc/group' file.  Try running 'mkgroup -l -d'.
> 
>> However, I've just recently noticed that 513 is the end of the well known
>> SID (RID?) builtin for Domain Users -- and my machine is attached to
>> a domain (though cygwin doesn't seem to be able to read them for some
>> reason (likely some server misconfiguration)...but.  But if it is known
>> that '513' is associated with Domain Users, why does cygwin put in
>> 'None'?
> 
> 10513 is "Domain Users".
===
I got this from the windows site 9btw for well known SID's):
500 - Administrator S-1-5-21----500
501 - Guest         S-1-5-21----501
512 - Domain Admins S-1-5-21----512
513 - Domain Users  S-1-5-21----513
514 - Domain Guest  S-1-5-21----514
---and locally:
544 - Admins
545 - users      
546 - Guests
547 - Power Users
---

	My domain wasn't returning groups and users
correctly anywmore...not sure when it broke...but it's working
again so now I get my domain groups populated.

Theoretically, "domain users" and Domain Admin"are supposed 
to be added to a local machine when it is joined to a group.
Mine must have somehow gotten deleted...or I'm sure cygwin
would have printed them out...;-)....

Thanks for the response....it reminded me to recheck 
this and notice that with all my working (not done) on my
server, things are getting better.

(even have NT ACLS being properly stored on my remote file
systems (on my linux server running Samba -- stores the ACLS in 
XFS extended attributes!)...  Heck! they even have a "Recycle bin" now!

yippee!


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple