openssh unix dev - Jan 2019 - [PATCH] Cygwin: Change service name to cygsshd

Microsoft hijacked the sshd service name without asking.
---
 contrib/cygwin/ssh-host-config | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/contrib/cygwin/ssh-host-config b/contrib/cygwin/ssh-host-config
index 2903125f8592..52916d14ba94 100644
--- a/contrib/cygwin/ssh-host-config
+++ b/contrib/cygwin/ssh-host-config
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ LOCALSTATEDIR=/var
 
 sshd_config_configured=no
 port_number=22
-service_name=sshd
+service_name=cygsshd
 strictmodes=yes
 cygwin_value=""
 user_account-- 
2.20.1

On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:07 PM Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> Microsoft hijacked the sshd service name without asking.
How many people use the SSH daemon from Cygwin, versus using only the
client? I did some work with the daemon with rsync and tar, trying to
link it to Linux backup systems. It was unreliable due to anti-virus
interfering with warning when upgraded, and the workarounds being
eliminated from the anti-virus software. As a server, it also had
problsm doing scp, sftp, or rsync reliably due to Windows file
locking, so it wasn't as effective or useful as one might nope.

In other words, is this a big loss if Microsoft accidentally kills
Cygwin sshd ? Is Microsoft going to use port 22? If there is a
conflict, will CygWin defer to Microsoft as the vendor and use an
alternate port?

Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com>

On Jan 26 18:12, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:07 PM Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at
redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Microsoft hijacked the sshd service name without asking.
> 
> How many people use the SSH daemon from Cygwin, versus using only the
> client? I did some work with the daemon with rsync and tar, trying to
> link it to Linux backup systems. It was unreliable due to anti-virus
> interfering with warning when upgraded, and the workarounds being
> eliminated from the anti-virus software. As a server, it also had
> problsm doing scp, sftp, or rsync reliably due to Windows file
> locking, so it wasn't as effective or useful as one might nope.
In other words, you made wrong assumptions and blame the Cygwin server
for that?  Do you honestly expect the Win32 OpenSSH from Microsoft
doesn't have the exact same problems in the exact same situation?  After
all, Windows file locking is at is is (it's not used by Cygwin
processes, btw., which use POSIX or BSD advisory file locking).
> In other words, is this a big loss if Microsoft accidentally kills
> Cygwin sshd ?
Yes.  Cygwin is a complete POSIX environment and the sshd server is
a part of it for more than 16 years.  I'm not opposed to the Win32
OpenSSH from Microsoft, it's a nice thing in fact.  But it doesn't
invalidate the usefulness of Cygwin's sshd.
> Is Microsoft going to use port 22? If there is a
> conflict, will CygWin defer to Microsoft as the vendor and use an
> alternate port?
The people I know from the Cygwin ML disabled Win32 sshd and started the
Cygwin sshd service instead.  And ultimately port 22 is just a default
port.  There's sshd_config.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-dev/attachments/20190127/73e428d4/attachment.asc>