Deprecating ntea

Corinna Vinschen
Tue Feb 27 16:14:00 GMT 2007

On Feb 27 10:45, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> The ntea permission bit support isn't there to fool (most) users, it's
> there to fool (arguably broken) applications that assume they are on a
> secure system and check the permissions.  IIRC, Linux does not support
> permission setting on FAT filesystems, so no sensitive data can reside on
> them.  The answer for Unix is WDDTT.

Good stance.

>   The answer for Windows is more
> complex, as many people may not have a choice.

On NT?  Why?  FAT is convertible to NTFS with onboard tools.

> I'm not arguing for keeping ntea, but I am arguing for having *some*
> mechanism to help users run Unix applications on filesystems without
> security support (how many people still use rsh?).  As I see it, ntea as
> it stands now is broken anyway (it doesn't work on FAT32).  However, does

- ntea doesn't work on FAT32/Samba/NFS/whatever.
- ntea is not necessary on NTFS.
- ntea creates an overly large file on FAT
- Installing Windows on FAT is a terrible idea in itself.
- 99% of applications work fine w/o ntea on FAT.
- The rest can be tweaked to not check permissions, or...
- are security related applications which shouldn't run on FAT or with
  ntea instead of ntsec anyway.
- Do you remember the last thread on the cygwin list where somebody
  complained and had to switch ntea on so that the application worked?


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

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list