Re: [GOLDSTAR] Re: [PATCH] setup: allow running as non-admin

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Nov  9 16:43, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen sent the following at Saturday, November 09, 2013 5:20 AM
> >Maybe I'm dense but I don't quite understand it. Under 32 bit, a tool
> >called "setup-foo" will be recognized as an installer binary. Therefore
> >the "helpful" UAC installer recognition will try to start setup-x86 as
> >an installer with admin permissions, asking for consent (default for
> >admin accounts) or admin credentials (default for non-admin accounts).
> >
> >How was it possible at all to start 32 bit setup as normal user, without
> >getting the elevation prompt?
> >
> >Or, hmm...
> >
> >[do you hear me thinking?]
> >
> >...does the UAC installer recognition only kick in for an UAC crippled
> >admin account but not for a normal user account?
> >
> >[...testing...]
> >
> >I just started an older setup-x86 on Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 using
> >a non-admin user account, and in both cases I have been asked for
> >administrator credentials.
> >
> >Which means, I still don't understand how anybody ran setup from
> >http://cygwin.com/setup-x86.exe as a normal user account without being
> >asked for admin creds.
> >
> >Unless the admins of these machines have switched off the installer
> >recognition. In that case non-admins could simply start setup-x86 from
> >the net and now they can't anymore. Do we still want to support this?
> 
> If support is dropped, the Cygwin home page should explain what
> non-admins need to do to install 32 bit Cygwin.
> 
> The solution on this list has long been "download and rename to
> foo.exe".  That could be done for all by renaming
> http://cygwin.com/setup-x86.exe to http://cygwin.com/getcygwin32.exe.
> 
> I've often wondered whether there is a reason why this hasn't been
> done before.  If there is, I'd be interested in learning why, for
> my education.  Is there a benefit to having an installer name that
> includes "setup" or "install"?  (If there is, I'll drop the topic.)

The installation as admin for "all users" was always, and should stay,
the default.  All home main users on XP were admins anyway so this
wasn't a problem before.  Under UAC, the installer recognition handled
that so far, on 64 bit the "asAdmin" manifest.

Shaddy's change makes the setup-xxx name useless since the binary
elevates itself, but in fact this change eliminates the name discussion
entirely.  UAC installer recognition doesn't kick in anymore given the
"asInvoker" mainfest.  It doesn't matter anymore if the binary is called
setup or blurb, it will behave identically.

What changed is the way how normal users can install for "just them".
No name tweak but an option instead.  Given what you wrote, an
installation as normal user right from the net was not possible before,
so just the method to do it changed slightly.  By documenting it
somewhere, we should be all set, shouldn't we?


Corinna

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

Attachment: pgpt7dPidjwk3.pgp
Description: PGP signature