[Samba] smbpasswd with password on the command line

[Pedro Silva]

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

[Hugo Brites]

Post by Pedro Silva
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

[Jeremy Allison]

Post by Pedro Silva
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.

[Christian Merrill]

Post by Pedro Silva
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