On Jan 26 22:00, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 6:30 PM Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > >[...] > Well, yes. I'm a bit concerned that Cygwin users will muck with the > Microsoft sshd to enable the Cygwin daemon they personally expect, and > cause their own IT departments to scream bloody murder when they > realize some developer replaced the approved management daemon on > their laptop. I'm bringing popcorn for that one.That's what my patch recitfies, no? 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/20190127/2e7a7dc4/attachment.asc>
On Jan 27 09:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:> On Jan 26 22:00, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 6:30 PM Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > >[...] > > Well, yes. I'm a bit concerned that Cygwin users will muck with the > > Microsoft sshd to enable the Cygwin daemon they personally expect, and > > cause their own IT departments to scream bloody murder when they > > realize some developer replaced the approved management daemon on > > their laptop. I'm bringing popcorn for that one. > > That's what my patch recitfies, no?Apart from the fact that this discussion makes no sense, considering that my patch does exactly that, renaming our Cygwin sshd service to "cygsshd" so as not to collide with the Microsoft service called "sshd", I'd like to point out *again* that Cygwin provides an sshd for over 16 years, and the service is called "sshd" just as long. Now Microsoft comes along and hijacks the service name for their own sshd without bothering to ask or even inform us at Cygwin. That's very disappointing. To me Cygwin sshd is much more useful than Microsoft's sshd can ever become. It's fully integrated in a POSIXy environment, which is where I spent my work and private computer time in. For other people, MSFTs OpenSSH may be more useful, but here's the deal: We're talking about two pretty different environments. They are just potentially running on the same underlying OS, that's all. They serve different purposes and different needs. If you question Cygwin, you can just as well question WSL. And of course I can't tell you how many people use Cygwin's sshd. How am I supposed to know that? I'm not the one collecting usage data from my user's machines, right? The bottom line is that it looks like the only thing we can do is to move ourselves aside, and that bothers me. But, hey, asking doesn't hurt, right? https://github.com/PowerShell/Win32-OpenSSH/issues/1331 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/f3a23c7a/attachment.asc>
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 4:29 AM Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat.com> wrote:> > On Jan 27 09:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Jan 26 22:00, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 6:30 PM Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >[...] > > > Well, yes. I'm a bit concerned that Cygwin users will muck with the > > > Microsoft sshd to enable the Cygwin daemon they personally expect, and > > > cause their own IT departments to scream bloody murder when they > > > realize some developer replaced the approved management daemon on > > > their laptop. I'm bringing popcorn for that one. > > > > That's what my patch recitfies, no? > > Apart from the fact that this discussion makes no sense, considering > that my patch does exactly that, renaming our Cygwin sshd service to > "cygsshd" so as not to collide with the Microsoft service called "sshd", > I'd like to point out *again* that Cygwin provides an sshd for over > 16 years, and the service is called "sshd" just as long.The patch makes technological sense. I'm wondering how much good it does, based on how many people actually use the sshd from CygWin.> Now Microsoft comes along and hijacks the service name for their own > sshd without bothering to ask or even inform us at Cygwin. That's > very disappointing.It seems foolish to me as well, as a systems engineer and as a systems developer. It does make me question motivations, whether the use of the same service name was chosen for convenience or also chosen to interfere with the possibly existing service.> To me Cygwin sshd is much more useful than Microsoft's sshd can ever > become. It's fully integrated in a POSIXy environment, which is where I > spent my work and private computer time in.That's a fair observation. I suspect that, in a business and security sense, Microsoft wishes to hinder SSH daemons other than theirs. I also suspect that avoiding the installation of Cygwin is one of the business reasons for Microsoft to provide a built-in SSH daemon, so displacing the standard "sshd" service makes sense.