On Dec 14 16:23, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote: > > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-12/msg00154.html > > Thanks. > > > I'm wondering if it's such a bright idea to use a NULL password based on > > a check for a certain domain. That's practically guaranteed to break > > at one point again. > > I don’t think Microsoft is going to drop "NT SERVICE\" in any near future > (they've just had the feature introduced!). This is the only domain that > needs to be treated specially (for now).
That's not how I understand the documentation: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd548356.aspx Virtual accounts use the NT SERVICE domain, but managed accounts seem to be subsumed under your normal AD domain name. > > !pass || pass[0] == '\0' > > MSDN says that password-less accounts must provide an empty string > (and it does not mention NULL). More cumbersome logic can involve > checking for both the special domain and empty/NULL password (as above), > resulting in NULL lpPassword only when both checks have been met. > > > what about something like `-w NULL'? > > I would not vote for this. This precludes that the string "NULL" cannot > be used as an otherwise regular password. Apart from the fact that NULL is a terrible password, I'd still be more comfortable to allow a NULL password as a user defined option on the command line. If not -W NULL, what about '-w -' or a long-only option like --null-pwd? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
