samba - Sep 2004 - smbpasswd with password on the command line

I've upgraded my samba server to 3.0.6 and without any warning the 
command smbpasswd no longer accepts passing the user password on the 
command line!

This was a very bad thing for me since the scripts I use to generate all 
my users account stopped working :-(

Anyone had the same problem? Any suggestions before rewriting everything....

Pedro Silva

On Sunday 26 September 2004 21:00, Pedro Silva wrote:
> I've upgraded my samba server to 3.0.6 and without any warning the
> command smbpasswd no longer accepts passing the user password on the
> command line!
>
> This was a very bad thing for me since the scripts I use to generate all
> my users account stopped working :-(
>
> Anyone had the same problem? Any suggestions before rewriting
> everything....
>
> Pedro Silva
Hi

 Just use 
  (echo <password>;echo <password>)| smbpasswd -s -a
<username>

 seen it somewhere
 hope it help's


Hugo

On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 09:00:28PM +0100, Pedro Silva
wrote:
> I've upgraded my samba server to 3.0.6 and without any warning the 
> command smbpasswd no longer accepts passing the user password on the 
> command line!
> 
> This was a very bad thing for me since the scripts I use to generate all 
> my users account stopped working :-(
> 
> Anyone had the same problem? Any suggestions before rewriting
everything....
Sorry, that was intentional. Allowing password on a command
line is a horrible security risk and it worked by accident,
until I fixed it.

The correct (supported) way is to use -s (read from stdin) and
to pass the password via stdin.

Jeremy.

Pedro Silva wrote:
> I've upgraded my samba server to 3.0.6 and without any warning the 
> command smbpasswd no longer accepts passing the user password on the 
> command line!
>
> This was a very bad thing for me since the scripts I use to generate 
> all my users account stopped working :-(
>
> Anyone had the same problem? Any suggestions before rewriting 
> everything....
>
> Pedro Silva
We have had a few customers complain of a similar problem and I posted 
the question here a while ago.  If I remember correctly the answer 
(simplified) is that this was an intentional coding change put in for 
security purposes.

Christian