how to use xauth to run graphical application via other user on linux The Next CEO of Stack...
If I blow insulation everywhere in my attic except the door trap, will heat escape through it?
Can a single photon have an energy density?
Trouble understanding the speech of overseas colleagues
WOW air has ceased operation, can I get my tickets refunded?
Why doesn't a table tennis ball float on the surface? How do we calculate buoyancy here?
What's the point of interval inversion?
Anatomically Correct Strange Women In Ponds Distributing Swords
Why didn't Khan get resurrected in the Genesis Explosion?
Was a professor correct to chastise me for writing "Prof. X" rather than "Professor X"?
Should I tutor a student who I know has cheated on their homework?
Is a stroke of luck acceptable after a series of unfavorable events?
What size rim is OK?
How to start emacs in "nothing" mode (`fundamental-mode`)
A pseudo-riley?
Term for the "extreme-extension" version of a straw man fallacy?
MAZDA 3 2006 (UK) - poor acceleration then takes off at 3250 revs
How to be diplomatic in refusing to write code that breaches the privacy of our users
What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"
Return the Closest Prime Number
Is it okay to store user locations?
Increase performance creating Mandelbrot set in python
Any way to transfer all permissions from one role to another?
How can I open an app using Terminal?
What can we do to stop prior company from asking us questions?
how to use xauth to run graphical application via other user on linux
The Next CEO of Stack Overflowsudo to other user doesn't preserve DISPLAY variableHow to run a server on port 80 as a normal user on Linux?Accessing SSH_AUTH_SOCK from another non-root userHow to configure PHP CLI on linux ubuntu to run as www-data?su between regular user accounts fails with “su: incorrect password”How can I implement ansible with per-host passwords, securely?Setting default permissions on newly created files/foldersLimit number of concurrent users switching to root account?How to set the minimum acl permissions for an user who is included in two or more user groups with different permissions in linux?setup apache www directory for multiple users over sftpGetting info about a weird directory
My regular user account is, let's say, user1. I created separate user2 for some x application that i would like to run while being logged into x as user1 but in a way that will prevent it from read/write access to user1 data. I thought that i could use xauth and sudo/su to user2 from user1 to run this application. How do i do this? I'm not sure how to configure xauth.
linux sudo
add a comment |
My regular user account is, let's say, user1. I created separate user2 for some x application that i would like to run while being logged into x as user1 but in a way that will prevent it from read/write access to user1 data. I thought that i could use xauth and sudo/su to user2 from user1 to run this application. How do i do this? I'm not sure how to configure xauth.
linux sudo
add a comment |
My regular user account is, let's say, user1. I created separate user2 for some x application that i would like to run while being logged into x as user1 but in a way that will prevent it from read/write access to user1 data. I thought that i could use xauth and sudo/su to user2 from user1 to run this application. How do i do this? I'm not sure how to configure xauth.
linux sudo
My regular user account is, let's say, user1. I created separate user2 for some x application that i would like to run while being logged into x as user1 but in a way that will prevent it from read/write access to user1 data. I thought that i could use xauth and sudo/su to user2 from user1 to run this application. How do i do this? I'm not sure how to configure xauth.
linux sudo
linux sudo
asked Aug 6 '09 at 16:19
PhilPhil
75651731
75651731
add a comment |
add a comment |
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
To use xauth selectively, as user1 run:
xauth list|grep `uname -n`
This prints the hexkey authorization entries for you . You could have different displays associated with those hosts as well.
As user2 set your display (assuming default case):
DISPLAY=:0; export DISPLAY
Then run:
xauth add $DISPLAY . hexkey
Note the dot after the $DISPLAY and before the hexkey.
When access is no longer needed, as user2 you can run:
xauth remove $DISPLAY
Problem 1: user2 has no.Xauthorityfile in user2's home directory. Problem 2: Somehow and for some reason I dont' understand, aftersu, XAUTHORITY holds the filepath to user1's. But that file is not readable by user2.
– Otheus
Nov 4 '15 at 12:34
Seems, you forgotunset XAUTHORITYunder user2
– socketpair
Dec 28 '15 at 21:37
is thehexkeyin thexauth addcommand the same as fromxauth listor do I have to create a random new one?
– bonanza
Jul 15 '16 at 6:56
bonanza: it is the the one output from xauth list.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:40
Another way to do this is would be something like... "xauth extract - $DISPLAY | sudo -iu steam xauth merge -". In this case I have XAUTHORITY set in .profile, so the 'sudo -i' gets that set right.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:42
add a comment |
I put in my .zshrc a line with export XAUTHORITY=~/.Xauthority and now I am able to execute sudo -E xcommand. After a lot of googling, for me this was the easiest way.
1
Note that this procedure would not normally require you to usesudo -E(and using-Eis disabled on most default installs) because normally the defaultsudoersconfiguration would allow theXAUTHORITYenvironment variable to be passed to sudo.
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:33
@Guss It doesn't require-E. It can be set as a variable that can be passed, and either Red Hat or Debian suggests it.
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 3 '12 at 20:15
@DanielC.Sobral - that's what I said :-)
– Guss
May 4 '12 at 20:19
@Guss Oh, sorry. I somehow inverted every sentence you wrote. :-)
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 4 '12 at 21:37
Still didn't work for me, on Mac OS X with zsh
– Sridhar-Sarnobat
Aug 22 '17 at 15:52
add a comment |
Assuming debian or ubuntu (should be similar on Red Hat / SUSE).
sudo apt-get install sux
sux user -c 'command'
+1 good answer, no point in reinventing the wheel. Incidentally, sux mostly does what my answer above suggests. It's more powerful and easier to use of course.
– sleske
Aug 7 '09 at 12:13
You may note, that 'sux' indeed is a simple shell script, too..
– Martin Mächler
Feb 2 '13 at 17:18
4
suxis unmaintained (and removed from Debian/Ubuntu's repositories): packages.qa.debian.org/s/sux/news/20140101T172633Z.html
– Rob W
Feb 5 '16 at 20:28
add a comment |
First: Don't use xhost +, it's rather insecure (blanket allow/deny).
Rather use the X-Cookie mechanism:
su user2
cp /home/user1/.Xauthority /home/user2/.Xauthority
export DISPLAY=:0
Alternatively, if you have sux installed, use that (see ehempel's answer).
In both cases user2 will use the secret cookie in .Xauthority to authorize to the X server, and no one else will have access to it.
Notes:
- Depending on your file permissions, you might have to copy .Xauthority in some other way.
- Instead of copying
.Xauthority, you can also usexauthto extract and copy the authorization key (see Randall's answer). If you have multiple keys in the.Xauthorityfile this is more selective; otherwise it is a matter of taste.
yeah,i have root access on that machine
– Phil
Aug 6 '09 at 17:52
This is just manually copying the xauth cookies via root access. This is no different from using xauth as Randall explains in the (current) top answer, except it copies every cookie that 'xauth list' would show. So this is less secure than the top xauth answer which would only add the cookies you pick.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:39
@JohnEikenberry: True, thanks for pointing this out. I updated my answer.
– sleske
Feb 16 '17 at 9:43
add a comment |
This will fix the problem for all users:
cat <<EOF > /etc/profile.d/xauth.sh
#!/sbin/bash
export XAUTHORITY=~/.Xauthority
EOF
This is basically what I've done and it works great, thanks!
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:32
add a comment |
As root:
xhost local:yourusername
Where yourusername is your user name :)
Then do su as your user
xclock should work if it's installed
add a comment |
These are just hacks:
- xauth + (unsecure)
- ssh -X user2@localhost (ugly)
sleske above has, I think, the proper solution.
ssh -Xis a very simple and elegant solution, not depending on any deprecated/unmaintained gtk/kde stuff (which require installing more binaries with SUID bit...).
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:52
add a comment |
I found something that works great for me on KDE
kdesu -u username /path/to/program
On debian part ofkde-cli-tools, and not in$PATHbut in/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexec/kf5/kdesu(obviously depending on architecture).
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:48
add a comment |
This way made in suse/opensuse :
http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7003743
Simply modifying the /etc/pam.d/su, adding the option (bold) :
session optional pam_xauth.so systemuser=1
Then you can switch with su without - :
su user2
and run the app graphically.
add a comment |
Thids is WAY TOO CONVOLUTED for me who just wants to use Synaptic on Bionic Beaver.
I try one solution and that leads me to 20 other "things" that don't work as they should so all you have in the end is a bunch of half measures trying to hold the OS together with bubble gum and shoestrings.
Who are these people that work for nothing and have probably had very little formal traiing training to maintain and upgrade an OS let alone writing good software that's well tested with no knowledge or understanding of of the whole which ultimately becomes a patch to a patch for a patch. With each release it just gets worse.
Same thing happened to Firefox causing them to abandon all those years of effort to become a branch of Chrome. Even Windows isn't all that great but it works well enough to be reliable. If the government hadn't gave them a pass on liability it would be a much better system.
Time to face the fact that unpaid software will never be a good solution in a capitalist world.
New contributor
CityguyUSA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
For GNOME (and without any desktop environment really, I use it with icewm only) gksu:
gksu -u username program
"gksu has been deprecated for years": bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867236
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:45
@Stefan note that this Debian bug is about premise that elevating privileges for whole program is bad idea, and that the program should instead be modified to just execute minimal helpers with elevated privileges instead (using PolicyKit). This question (and my answer) is about reducing privileges, which is another thing altogether and in fact good idea (for example, for random browsing I have shortcut that execute firefox under some less privileged account that my default one, so any exploit there can't touch my data - and gksu(8) is quite fine for that)
– Matija Nalis
Mar 12 '18 at 14:40
All that is fine, but using a deprecated and unmaintained SUID binary is just wrong. This answer might have been useful in the past, but isn't anymore.
– Stefan
Mar 12 '18 at 21:42
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f51005%2fhow-to-use-xauth-to-run-graphical-application-via-other-user-on-linux%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
To use xauth selectively, as user1 run:
xauth list|grep `uname -n`
This prints the hexkey authorization entries for you . You could have different displays associated with those hosts as well.
As user2 set your display (assuming default case):
DISPLAY=:0; export DISPLAY
Then run:
xauth add $DISPLAY . hexkey
Note the dot after the $DISPLAY and before the hexkey.
When access is no longer needed, as user2 you can run:
xauth remove $DISPLAY
Problem 1: user2 has no.Xauthorityfile in user2's home directory. Problem 2: Somehow and for some reason I dont' understand, aftersu, XAUTHORITY holds the filepath to user1's. But that file is not readable by user2.
– Otheus
Nov 4 '15 at 12:34
Seems, you forgotunset XAUTHORITYunder user2
– socketpair
Dec 28 '15 at 21:37
is thehexkeyin thexauth addcommand the same as fromxauth listor do I have to create a random new one?
– bonanza
Jul 15 '16 at 6:56
bonanza: it is the the one output from xauth list.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:40
Another way to do this is would be something like... "xauth extract - $DISPLAY | sudo -iu steam xauth merge -". In this case I have XAUTHORITY set in .profile, so the 'sudo -i' gets that set right.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:42
add a comment |
To use xauth selectively, as user1 run:
xauth list|grep `uname -n`
This prints the hexkey authorization entries for you . You could have different displays associated with those hosts as well.
As user2 set your display (assuming default case):
DISPLAY=:0; export DISPLAY
Then run:
xauth add $DISPLAY . hexkey
Note the dot after the $DISPLAY and before the hexkey.
When access is no longer needed, as user2 you can run:
xauth remove $DISPLAY
Problem 1: user2 has no.Xauthorityfile in user2's home directory. Problem 2: Somehow and for some reason I dont' understand, aftersu, XAUTHORITY holds the filepath to user1's. But that file is not readable by user2.
– Otheus
Nov 4 '15 at 12:34
Seems, you forgotunset XAUTHORITYunder user2
– socketpair
Dec 28 '15 at 21:37
is thehexkeyin thexauth addcommand the same as fromxauth listor do I have to create a random new one?
– bonanza
Jul 15 '16 at 6:56
bonanza: it is the the one output from xauth list.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:40
Another way to do this is would be something like... "xauth extract - $DISPLAY | sudo -iu steam xauth merge -". In this case I have XAUTHORITY set in .profile, so the 'sudo -i' gets that set right.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:42
add a comment |
To use xauth selectively, as user1 run:
xauth list|grep `uname -n`
This prints the hexkey authorization entries for you . You could have different displays associated with those hosts as well.
As user2 set your display (assuming default case):
DISPLAY=:0; export DISPLAY
Then run:
xauth add $DISPLAY . hexkey
Note the dot after the $DISPLAY and before the hexkey.
When access is no longer needed, as user2 you can run:
xauth remove $DISPLAY
To use xauth selectively, as user1 run:
xauth list|grep `uname -n`
This prints the hexkey authorization entries for you . You could have different displays associated with those hosts as well.
As user2 set your display (assuming default case):
DISPLAY=:0; export DISPLAY
Then run:
xauth add $DISPLAY . hexkey
Note the dot after the $DISPLAY and before the hexkey.
When access is no longer needed, as user2 you can run:
xauth remove $DISPLAY
answered Aug 7 '09 at 18:11
RandallRandall
49634
49634
Problem 1: user2 has no.Xauthorityfile in user2's home directory. Problem 2: Somehow and for some reason I dont' understand, aftersu, XAUTHORITY holds the filepath to user1's. But that file is not readable by user2.
– Otheus
Nov 4 '15 at 12:34
Seems, you forgotunset XAUTHORITYunder user2
– socketpair
Dec 28 '15 at 21:37
is thehexkeyin thexauth addcommand the same as fromxauth listor do I have to create a random new one?
– bonanza
Jul 15 '16 at 6:56
bonanza: it is the the one output from xauth list.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:40
Another way to do this is would be something like... "xauth extract - $DISPLAY | sudo -iu steam xauth merge -". In this case I have XAUTHORITY set in .profile, so the 'sudo -i' gets that set right.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:42
add a comment |
Problem 1: user2 has no.Xauthorityfile in user2's home directory. Problem 2: Somehow and for some reason I dont' understand, aftersu, XAUTHORITY holds the filepath to user1's. But that file is not readable by user2.
– Otheus
Nov 4 '15 at 12:34
Seems, you forgotunset XAUTHORITYunder user2
– socketpair
Dec 28 '15 at 21:37
is thehexkeyin thexauth addcommand the same as fromxauth listor do I have to create a random new one?
– bonanza
Jul 15 '16 at 6:56
bonanza: it is the the one output from xauth list.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:40
Another way to do this is would be something like... "xauth extract - $DISPLAY | sudo -iu steam xauth merge -". In this case I have XAUTHORITY set in .profile, so the 'sudo -i' gets that set right.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:42
Problem 1: user2 has no
.Xauthority file in user2's home directory. Problem 2: Somehow and for some reason I dont' understand, after su, XAUTHORITY holds the filepath to user1's. But that file is not readable by user2.– Otheus
Nov 4 '15 at 12:34
Problem 1: user2 has no
.Xauthority file in user2's home directory. Problem 2: Somehow and for some reason I dont' understand, after su, XAUTHORITY holds the filepath to user1's. But that file is not readable by user2.– Otheus
Nov 4 '15 at 12:34
Seems, you forgot
unset XAUTHORITY under user2– socketpair
Dec 28 '15 at 21:37
Seems, you forgot
unset XAUTHORITY under user2– socketpair
Dec 28 '15 at 21:37
is the
hexkey in the xauth add command the same as from xauth list or do I have to create a random new one?– bonanza
Jul 15 '16 at 6:56
is the
hexkey in the xauth add command the same as from xauth list or do I have to create a random new one?– bonanza
Jul 15 '16 at 6:56
bonanza: it is the the one output from xauth list.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:40
bonanza: it is the the one output from xauth list.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:40
Another way to do this is would be something like... "xauth extract - $DISPLAY | sudo -iu steam xauth merge -". In this case I have XAUTHORITY set in .profile, so the 'sudo -i' gets that set right.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:42
Another way to do this is would be something like... "xauth extract - $DISPLAY | sudo -iu steam xauth merge -". In this case I have XAUTHORITY set in .profile, so the 'sudo -i' gets that set right.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:42
add a comment |
I put in my .zshrc a line with export XAUTHORITY=~/.Xauthority and now I am able to execute sudo -E xcommand. After a lot of googling, for me this was the easiest way.
1
Note that this procedure would not normally require you to usesudo -E(and using-Eis disabled on most default installs) because normally the defaultsudoersconfiguration would allow theXAUTHORITYenvironment variable to be passed to sudo.
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:33
@Guss It doesn't require-E. It can be set as a variable that can be passed, and either Red Hat or Debian suggests it.
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 3 '12 at 20:15
@DanielC.Sobral - that's what I said :-)
– Guss
May 4 '12 at 20:19
@Guss Oh, sorry. I somehow inverted every sentence you wrote. :-)
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 4 '12 at 21:37
Still didn't work for me, on Mac OS X with zsh
– Sridhar-Sarnobat
Aug 22 '17 at 15:52
add a comment |
I put in my .zshrc a line with export XAUTHORITY=~/.Xauthority and now I am able to execute sudo -E xcommand. After a lot of googling, for me this was the easiest way.
1
Note that this procedure would not normally require you to usesudo -E(and using-Eis disabled on most default installs) because normally the defaultsudoersconfiguration would allow theXAUTHORITYenvironment variable to be passed to sudo.
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:33
@Guss It doesn't require-E. It can be set as a variable that can be passed, and either Red Hat or Debian suggests it.
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 3 '12 at 20:15
@DanielC.Sobral - that's what I said :-)
– Guss
May 4 '12 at 20:19
@Guss Oh, sorry. I somehow inverted every sentence you wrote. :-)
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 4 '12 at 21:37
Still didn't work for me, on Mac OS X with zsh
– Sridhar-Sarnobat
Aug 22 '17 at 15:52
add a comment |
I put in my .zshrc a line with export XAUTHORITY=~/.Xauthority and now I am able to execute sudo -E xcommand. After a lot of googling, for me this was the easiest way.
I put in my .zshrc a line with export XAUTHORITY=~/.Xauthority and now I am able to execute sudo -E xcommand. After a lot of googling, for me this was the easiest way.
answered Jan 14 '11 at 17:54
kfl62kfl62
23157
23157
1
Note that this procedure would not normally require you to usesudo -E(and using-Eis disabled on most default installs) because normally the defaultsudoersconfiguration would allow theXAUTHORITYenvironment variable to be passed to sudo.
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:33
@Guss It doesn't require-E. It can be set as a variable that can be passed, and either Red Hat or Debian suggests it.
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 3 '12 at 20:15
@DanielC.Sobral - that's what I said :-)
– Guss
May 4 '12 at 20:19
@Guss Oh, sorry. I somehow inverted every sentence you wrote. :-)
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 4 '12 at 21:37
Still didn't work for me, on Mac OS X with zsh
– Sridhar-Sarnobat
Aug 22 '17 at 15:52
add a comment |
1
Note that this procedure would not normally require you to usesudo -E(and using-Eis disabled on most default installs) because normally the defaultsudoersconfiguration would allow theXAUTHORITYenvironment variable to be passed to sudo.
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:33
@Guss It doesn't require-E. It can be set as a variable that can be passed, and either Red Hat or Debian suggests it.
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 3 '12 at 20:15
@DanielC.Sobral - that's what I said :-)
– Guss
May 4 '12 at 20:19
@Guss Oh, sorry. I somehow inverted every sentence you wrote. :-)
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 4 '12 at 21:37
Still didn't work for me, on Mac OS X with zsh
– Sridhar-Sarnobat
Aug 22 '17 at 15:52
1
1
Note that this procedure would not normally require you to use
sudo -E (and using -E is disabled on most default installs) because normally the default sudoers configuration would allow the XAUTHORITY environment variable to be passed to sudo.– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:33
Note that this procedure would not normally require you to use
sudo -E (and using -E is disabled on most default installs) because normally the default sudoers configuration would allow the XAUTHORITY environment variable to be passed to sudo.– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:33
@Guss It doesn't require
-E. It can be set as a variable that can be passed, and either Red Hat or Debian suggests it.– Daniel C. Sobral
May 3 '12 at 20:15
@Guss It doesn't require
-E. It can be set as a variable that can be passed, and either Red Hat or Debian suggests it.– Daniel C. Sobral
May 3 '12 at 20:15
@DanielC.Sobral - that's what I said :-)
– Guss
May 4 '12 at 20:19
@DanielC.Sobral - that's what I said :-)
– Guss
May 4 '12 at 20:19
@Guss Oh, sorry. I somehow inverted every sentence you wrote. :-)
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 4 '12 at 21:37
@Guss Oh, sorry. I somehow inverted every sentence you wrote. :-)
– Daniel C. Sobral
May 4 '12 at 21:37
Still didn't work for me, on Mac OS X with zsh
– Sridhar-Sarnobat
Aug 22 '17 at 15:52
Still didn't work for me, on Mac OS X with zsh
– Sridhar-Sarnobat
Aug 22 '17 at 15:52
add a comment |
Assuming debian or ubuntu (should be similar on Red Hat / SUSE).
sudo apt-get install sux
sux user -c 'command'
+1 good answer, no point in reinventing the wheel. Incidentally, sux mostly does what my answer above suggests. It's more powerful and easier to use of course.
– sleske
Aug 7 '09 at 12:13
You may note, that 'sux' indeed is a simple shell script, too..
– Martin Mächler
Feb 2 '13 at 17:18
4
suxis unmaintained (and removed from Debian/Ubuntu's repositories): packages.qa.debian.org/s/sux/news/20140101T172633Z.html
– Rob W
Feb 5 '16 at 20:28
add a comment |
Assuming debian or ubuntu (should be similar on Red Hat / SUSE).
sudo apt-get install sux
sux user -c 'command'
+1 good answer, no point in reinventing the wheel. Incidentally, sux mostly does what my answer above suggests. It's more powerful and easier to use of course.
– sleske
Aug 7 '09 at 12:13
You may note, that 'sux' indeed is a simple shell script, too..
– Martin Mächler
Feb 2 '13 at 17:18
4
suxis unmaintained (and removed from Debian/Ubuntu's repositories): packages.qa.debian.org/s/sux/news/20140101T172633Z.html
– Rob W
Feb 5 '16 at 20:28
add a comment |
Assuming debian or ubuntu (should be similar on Red Hat / SUSE).
sudo apt-get install sux
sux user -c 'command'
Assuming debian or ubuntu (should be similar on Red Hat / SUSE).
sudo apt-get install sux
sux user -c 'command'
answered Aug 7 '09 at 2:18
ehempelehempel
1474
1474
+1 good answer, no point in reinventing the wheel. Incidentally, sux mostly does what my answer above suggests. It's more powerful and easier to use of course.
– sleske
Aug 7 '09 at 12:13
You may note, that 'sux' indeed is a simple shell script, too..
– Martin Mächler
Feb 2 '13 at 17:18
4
suxis unmaintained (and removed from Debian/Ubuntu's repositories): packages.qa.debian.org/s/sux/news/20140101T172633Z.html
– Rob W
Feb 5 '16 at 20:28
add a comment |
+1 good answer, no point in reinventing the wheel. Incidentally, sux mostly does what my answer above suggests. It's more powerful and easier to use of course.
– sleske
Aug 7 '09 at 12:13
You may note, that 'sux' indeed is a simple shell script, too..
– Martin Mächler
Feb 2 '13 at 17:18
4
suxis unmaintained (and removed from Debian/Ubuntu's repositories): packages.qa.debian.org/s/sux/news/20140101T172633Z.html
– Rob W
Feb 5 '16 at 20:28
+1 good answer, no point in reinventing the wheel. Incidentally, sux mostly does what my answer above suggests. It's more powerful and easier to use of course.
– sleske
Aug 7 '09 at 12:13
+1 good answer, no point in reinventing the wheel. Incidentally, sux mostly does what my answer above suggests. It's more powerful and easier to use of course.
– sleske
Aug 7 '09 at 12:13
You may note, that 'sux' indeed is a simple shell script, too..
– Martin Mächler
Feb 2 '13 at 17:18
You may note, that 'sux' indeed is a simple shell script, too..
– Martin Mächler
Feb 2 '13 at 17:18
4
4
sux is unmaintained (and removed from Debian/Ubuntu's repositories): packages.qa.debian.org/s/sux/news/20140101T172633Z.html– Rob W
Feb 5 '16 at 20:28
sux is unmaintained (and removed from Debian/Ubuntu's repositories): packages.qa.debian.org/s/sux/news/20140101T172633Z.html– Rob W
Feb 5 '16 at 20:28
add a comment |
First: Don't use xhost +, it's rather insecure (blanket allow/deny).
Rather use the X-Cookie mechanism:
su user2
cp /home/user1/.Xauthority /home/user2/.Xauthority
export DISPLAY=:0
Alternatively, if you have sux installed, use that (see ehempel's answer).
In both cases user2 will use the secret cookie in .Xauthority to authorize to the X server, and no one else will have access to it.
Notes:
- Depending on your file permissions, you might have to copy .Xauthority in some other way.
- Instead of copying
.Xauthority, you can also usexauthto extract and copy the authorization key (see Randall's answer). If you have multiple keys in the.Xauthorityfile this is more selective; otherwise it is a matter of taste.
yeah,i have root access on that machine
– Phil
Aug 6 '09 at 17:52
This is just manually copying the xauth cookies via root access. This is no different from using xauth as Randall explains in the (current) top answer, except it copies every cookie that 'xauth list' would show. So this is less secure than the top xauth answer which would only add the cookies you pick.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:39
@JohnEikenberry: True, thanks for pointing this out. I updated my answer.
– sleske
Feb 16 '17 at 9:43
add a comment |
First: Don't use xhost +, it's rather insecure (blanket allow/deny).
Rather use the X-Cookie mechanism:
su user2
cp /home/user1/.Xauthority /home/user2/.Xauthority
export DISPLAY=:0
Alternatively, if you have sux installed, use that (see ehempel's answer).
In both cases user2 will use the secret cookie in .Xauthority to authorize to the X server, and no one else will have access to it.
Notes:
- Depending on your file permissions, you might have to copy .Xauthority in some other way.
- Instead of copying
.Xauthority, you can also usexauthto extract and copy the authorization key (see Randall's answer). If you have multiple keys in the.Xauthorityfile this is more selective; otherwise it is a matter of taste.
yeah,i have root access on that machine
– Phil
Aug 6 '09 at 17:52
This is just manually copying the xauth cookies via root access. This is no different from using xauth as Randall explains in the (current) top answer, except it copies every cookie that 'xauth list' would show. So this is less secure than the top xauth answer which would only add the cookies you pick.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:39
@JohnEikenberry: True, thanks for pointing this out. I updated my answer.
– sleske
Feb 16 '17 at 9:43
add a comment |
First: Don't use xhost +, it's rather insecure (blanket allow/deny).
Rather use the X-Cookie mechanism:
su user2
cp /home/user1/.Xauthority /home/user2/.Xauthority
export DISPLAY=:0
Alternatively, if you have sux installed, use that (see ehempel's answer).
In both cases user2 will use the secret cookie in .Xauthority to authorize to the X server, and no one else will have access to it.
Notes:
- Depending on your file permissions, you might have to copy .Xauthority in some other way.
- Instead of copying
.Xauthority, you can also usexauthto extract and copy the authorization key (see Randall's answer). If you have multiple keys in the.Xauthorityfile this is more selective; otherwise it is a matter of taste.
First: Don't use xhost +, it's rather insecure (blanket allow/deny).
Rather use the X-Cookie mechanism:
su user2
cp /home/user1/.Xauthority /home/user2/.Xauthority
export DISPLAY=:0
Alternatively, if you have sux installed, use that (see ehempel's answer).
In both cases user2 will use the secret cookie in .Xauthority to authorize to the X server, and no one else will have access to it.
Notes:
- Depending on your file permissions, you might have to copy .Xauthority in some other way.
- Instead of copying
.Xauthority, you can also usexauthto extract and copy the authorization key (see Randall's answer). If you have multiple keys in the.Xauthorityfile this is more selective; otherwise it is a matter of taste.
edited Feb 16 '17 at 9:50
answered Aug 6 '09 at 16:35
sleskesleske
8,43232440
8,43232440
yeah,i have root access on that machine
– Phil
Aug 6 '09 at 17:52
This is just manually copying the xauth cookies via root access. This is no different from using xauth as Randall explains in the (current) top answer, except it copies every cookie that 'xauth list' would show. So this is less secure than the top xauth answer which would only add the cookies you pick.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:39
@JohnEikenberry: True, thanks for pointing this out. I updated my answer.
– sleske
Feb 16 '17 at 9:43
add a comment |
yeah,i have root access on that machine
– Phil
Aug 6 '09 at 17:52
This is just manually copying the xauth cookies via root access. This is no different from using xauth as Randall explains in the (current) top answer, except it copies every cookie that 'xauth list' would show. So this is less secure than the top xauth answer which would only add the cookies you pick.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:39
@JohnEikenberry: True, thanks for pointing this out. I updated my answer.
– sleske
Feb 16 '17 at 9:43
yeah,i have root access on that machine
– Phil
Aug 6 '09 at 17:52
yeah,i have root access on that machine
– Phil
Aug 6 '09 at 17:52
This is just manually copying the xauth cookies via root access. This is no different from using xauth as Randall explains in the (current) top answer, except it copies every cookie that 'xauth list' would show. So this is less secure than the top xauth answer which would only add the cookies you pick.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:39
This is just manually copying the xauth cookies via root access. This is no different from using xauth as Randall explains in the (current) top answer, except it copies every cookie that 'xauth list' would show. So this is less secure than the top xauth answer which would only add the cookies you pick.
– John Eikenberry
Jan 4 '17 at 22:39
@JohnEikenberry: True, thanks for pointing this out. I updated my answer.
– sleske
Feb 16 '17 at 9:43
@JohnEikenberry: True, thanks for pointing this out. I updated my answer.
– sleske
Feb 16 '17 at 9:43
add a comment |
This will fix the problem for all users:
cat <<EOF > /etc/profile.d/xauth.sh
#!/sbin/bash
export XAUTHORITY=~/.Xauthority
EOF
This is basically what I've done and it works great, thanks!
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:32
add a comment |
This will fix the problem for all users:
cat <<EOF > /etc/profile.d/xauth.sh
#!/sbin/bash
export XAUTHORITY=~/.Xauthority
EOF
This is basically what I've done and it works great, thanks!
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:32
add a comment |
This will fix the problem for all users:
cat <<EOF > /etc/profile.d/xauth.sh
#!/sbin/bash
export XAUTHORITY=~/.Xauthority
EOF
This will fix the problem for all users:
cat <<EOF > /etc/profile.d/xauth.sh
#!/sbin/bash
export XAUTHORITY=~/.Xauthority
EOF
answered Feb 4 '11 at 18:48
JMSJMS
7111
7111
This is basically what I've done and it works great, thanks!
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:32
add a comment |
This is basically what I've done and it works great, thanks!
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:32
This is basically what I've done and it works great, thanks!
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:32
This is basically what I've done and it works great, thanks!
– Guss
Jul 20 '11 at 14:32
add a comment |
As root:
xhost local:yourusername
Where yourusername is your user name :)
Then do su as your user
xclock should work if it's installed
add a comment |
As root:
xhost local:yourusername
Where yourusername is your user name :)
Then do su as your user
xclock should work if it's installed
add a comment |
As root:
xhost local:yourusername
Where yourusername is your user name :)
Then do su as your user
xclock should work if it's installed
As root:
xhost local:yourusername
Where yourusername is your user name :)
Then do su as your user
xclock should work if it's installed
answered Sep 8 '15 at 9:26
ACVACV
1612
1612
add a comment |
add a comment |
These are just hacks:
- xauth + (unsecure)
- ssh -X user2@localhost (ugly)
sleske above has, I think, the proper solution.
ssh -Xis a very simple and elegant solution, not depending on any deprecated/unmaintained gtk/kde stuff (which require installing more binaries with SUID bit...).
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:52
add a comment |
These are just hacks:
- xauth + (unsecure)
- ssh -X user2@localhost (ugly)
sleske above has, I think, the proper solution.
ssh -Xis a very simple and elegant solution, not depending on any deprecated/unmaintained gtk/kde stuff (which require installing more binaries with SUID bit...).
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:52
add a comment |
These are just hacks:
- xauth + (unsecure)
- ssh -X user2@localhost (ugly)
sleske above has, I think, the proper solution.
These are just hacks:
- xauth + (unsecure)
- ssh -X user2@localhost (ugly)
sleske above has, I think, the proper solution.
answered Aug 6 '09 at 17:55
alexalex
1,27669
1,27669
ssh -Xis a very simple and elegant solution, not depending on any deprecated/unmaintained gtk/kde stuff (which require installing more binaries with SUID bit...).
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:52
add a comment |
ssh -Xis a very simple and elegant solution, not depending on any deprecated/unmaintained gtk/kde stuff (which require installing more binaries with SUID bit...).
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:52
ssh -X is a very simple and elegant solution, not depending on any deprecated/unmaintained gtk/kde stuff (which require installing more binaries with SUID bit...).– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:52
ssh -X is a very simple and elegant solution, not depending on any deprecated/unmaintained gtk/kde stuff (which require installing more binaries with SUID bit...).– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:52
add a comment |
I found something that works great for me on KDE
kdesu -u username /path/to/program
On debian part ofkde-cli-tools, and not in$PATHbut in/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexec/kf5/kdesu(obviously depending on architecture).
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:48
add a comment |
I found something that works great for me on KDE
kdesu -u username /path/to/program
On debian part ofkde-cli-tools, and not in$PATHbut in/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexec/kf5/kdesu(obviously depending on architecture).
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:48
add a comment |
I found something that works great for me on KDE
kdesu -u username /path/to/program
I found something that works great for me on KDE
kdesu -u username /path/to/program
answered Aug 6 '09 at 23:44
PhilPhil
75651731
75651731
On debian part ofkde-cli-tools, and not in$PATHbut in/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexec/kf5/kdesu(obviously depending on architecture).
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:48
add a comment |
On debian part ofkde-cli-tools, and not in$PATHbut in/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexec/kf5/kdesu(obviously depending on architecture).
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:48
On debian part of
kde-cli-tools, and not in $PATH but in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexec/kf5/kdesu (obviously depending on architecture).– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:48
On debian part of
kde-cli-tools, and not in $PATH but in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libexec/kf5/kdesu (obviously depending on architecture).– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:48
add a comment |
This way made in suse/opensuse :
http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7003743
Simply modifying the /etc/pam.d/su, adding the option (bold) :
session optional pam_xauth.so systemuser=1
Then you can switch with su without - :
su user2
and run the app graphically.
add a comment |
This way made in suse/opensuse :
http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7003743
Simply modifying the /etc/pam.d/su, adding the option (bold) :
session optional pam_xauth.so systemuser=1
Then you can switch with su without - :
su user2
and run the app graphically.
add a comment |
This way made in suse/opensuse :
http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7003743
Simply modifying the /etc/pam.d/su, adding the option (bold) :
session optional pam_xauth.so systemuser=1
Then you can switch with su without - :
su user2
and run the app graphically.
This way made in suse/opensuse :
http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7003743
Simply modifying the /etc/pam.d/su, adding the option (bold) :
session optional pam_xauth.so systemuser=1
Then you can switch with su without - :
su user2
and run the app graphically.
answered Jul 25 '13 at 21:26
pojempojem
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thids is WAY TOO CONVOLUTED for me who just wants to use Synaptic on Bionic Beaver.
I try one solution and that leads me to 20 other "things" that don't work as they should so all you have in the end is a bunch of half measures trying to hold the OS together with bubble gum and shoestrings.
Who are these people that work for nothing and have probably had very little formal traiing training to maintain and upgrade an OS let alone writing good software that's well tested with no knowledge or understanding of of the whole which ultimately becomes a patch to a patch for a patch. With each release it just gets worse.
Same thing happened to Firefox causing them to abandon all those years of effort to become a branch of Chrome. Even Windows isn't all that great but it works well enough to be reliable. If the government hadn't gave them a pass on liability it would be a much better system.
Time to face the fact that unpaid software will never be a good solution in a capitalist world.
New contributor
CityguyUSA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Thids is WAY TOO CONVOLUTED for me who just wants to use Synaptic on Bionic Beaver.
I try one solution and that leads me to 20 other "things" that don't work as they should so all you have in the end is a bunch of half measures trying to hold the OS together with bubble gum and shoestrings.
Who are these people that work for nothing and have probably had very little formal traiing training to maintain and upgrade an OS let alone writing good software that's well tested with no knowledge or understanding of of the whole which ultimately becomes a patch to a patch for a patch. With each release it just gets worse.
Same thing happened to Firefox causing them to abandon all those years of effort to become a branch of Chrome. Even Windows isn't all that great but it works well enough to be reliable. If the government hadn't gave them a pass on liability it would be a much better system.
Time to face the fact that unpaid software will never be a good solution in a capitalist world.
New contributor
CityguyUSA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Thids is WAY TOO CONVOLUTED for me who just wants to use Synaptic on Bionic Beaver.
I try one solution and that leads me to 20 other "things" that don't work as they should so all you have in the end is a bunch of half measures trying to hold the OS together with bubble gum and shoestrings.
Who are these people that work for nothing and have probably had very little formal traiing training to maintain and upgrade an OS let alone writing good software that's well tested with no knowledge or understanding of of the whole which ultimately becomes a patch to a patch for a patch. With each release it just gets worse.
Same thing happened to Firefox causing them to abandon all those years of effort to become a branch of Chrome. Even Windows isn't all that great but it works well enough to be reliable. If the government hadn't gave them a pass on liability it would be a much better system.
Time to face the fact that unpaid software will never be a good solution in a capitalist world.
New contributor
CityguyUSA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Thids is WAY TOO CONVOLUTED for me who just wants to use Synaptic on Bionic Beaver.
I try one solution and that leads me to 20 other "things" that don't work as they should so all you have in the end is a bunch of half measures trying to hold the OS together with bubble gum and shoestrings.
Who are these people that work for nothing and have probably had very little formal traiing training to maintain and upgrade an OS let alone writing good software that's well tested with no knowledge or understanding of of the whole which ultimately becomes a patch to a patch for a patch. With each release it just gets worse.
Same thing happened to Firefox causing them to abandon all those years of effort to become a branch of Chrome. Even Windows isn't all that great but it works well enough to be reliable. If the government hadn't gave them a pass on liability it would be a much better system.
Time to face the fact that unpaid software will never be a good solution in a capitalist world.
New contributor
CityguyUSA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
CityguyUSA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 6 mins ago
CityguyUSACityguyUSA
1
1
New contributor
CityguyUSA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
CityguyUSA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
CityguyUSA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
For GNOME (and without any desktop environment really, I use it with icewm only) gksu:
gksu -u username program
"gksu has been deprecated for years": bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867236
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:45
@Stefan note that this Debian bug is about premise that elevating privileges for whole program is bad idea, and that the program should instead be modified to just execute minimal helpers with elevated privileges instead (using PolicyKit). This question (and my answer) is about reducing privileges, which is another thing altogether and in fact good idea (for example, for random browsing I have shortcut that execute firefox under some less privileged account that my default one, so any exploit there can't touch my data - and gksu(8) is quite fine for that)
– Matija Nalis
Mar 12 '18 at 14:40
All that is fine, but using a deprecated and unmaintained SUID binary is just wrong. This answer might have been useful in the past, but isn't anymore.
– Stefan
Mar 12 '18 at 21:42
add a comment |
For GNOME (and without any desktop environment really, I use it with icewm only) gksu:
gksu -u username program
"gksu has been deprecated for years": bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867236
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:45
@Stefan note that this Debian bug is about premise that elevating privileges for whole program is bad idea, and that the program should instead be modified to just execute minimal helpers with elevated privileges instead (using PolicyKit). This question (and my answer) is about reducing privileges, which is another thing altogether and in fact good idea (for example, for random browsing I have shortcut that execute firefox under some less privileged account that my default one, so any exploit there can't touch my data - and gksu(8) is quite fine for that)
– Matija Nalis
Mar 12 '18 at 14:40
All that is fine, but using a deprecated and unmaintained SUID binary is just wrong. This answer might have been useful in the past, but isn't anymore.
– Stefan
Mar 12 '18 at 21:42
add a comment |
For GNOME (and without any desktop environment really, I use it with icewm only) gksu:
gksu -u username program
For GNOME (and without any desktop environment really, I use it with icewm only) gksu:
gksu -u username program
answered Sep 27 '17 at 17:59
Matija NalisMatija Nalis
1,8711628
1,8711628
"gksu has been deprecated for years": bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867236
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:45
@Stefan note that this Debian bug is about premise that elevating privileges for whole program is bad idea, and that the program should instead be modified to just execute minimal helpers with elevated privileges instead (using PolicyKit). This question (and my answer) is about reducing privileges, which is another thing altogether and in fact good idea (for example, for random browsing I have shortcut that execute firefox under some less privileged account that my default one, so any exploit there can't touch my data - and gksu(8) is quite fine for that)
– Matija Nalis
Mar 12 '18 at 14:40
All that is fine, but using a deprecated and unmaintained SUID binary is just wrong. This answer might have been useful in the past, but isn't anymore.
– Stefan
Mar 12 '18 at 21:42
add a comment |
"gksu has been deprecated for years": bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867236
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:45
@Stefan note that this Debian bug is about premise that elevating privileges for whole program is bad idea, and that the program should instead be modified to just execute minimal helpers with elevated privileges instead (using PolicyKit). This question (and my answer) is about reducing privileges, which is another thing altogether and in fact good idea (for example, for random browsing I have shortcut that execute firefox under some less privileged account that my default one, so any exploit there can't touch my data - and gksu(8) is quite fine for that)
– Matija Nalis
Mar 12 '18 at 14:40
All that is fine, but using a deprecated and unmaintained SUID binary is just wrong. This answer might have been useful in the past, but isn't anymore.
– Stefan
Mar 12 '18 at 21:42
"gksu has been deprecated for years": bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867236
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:45
"gksu has been deprecated for years": bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867236
– Stefan
Mar 10 '18 at 20:45
@Stefan note that this Debian bug is about premise that elevating privileges for whole program is bad idea, and that the program should instead be modified to just execute minimal helpers with elevated privileges instead (using PolicyKit). This question (and my answer) is about reducing privileges, which is another thing altogether and in fact good idea (for example, for random browsing I have shortcut that execute firefox under some less privileged account that my default one, so any exploit there can't touch my data - and gksu(8) is quite fine for that)
– Matija Nalis
Mar 12 '18 at 14:40
@Stefan note that this Debian bug is about premise that elevating privileges for whole program is bad idea, and that the program should instead be modified to just execute minimal helpers with elevated privileges instead (using PolicyKit). This question (and my answer) is about reducing privileges, which is another thing altogether and in fact good idea (for example, for random browsing I have shortcut that execute firefox under some less privileged account that my default one, so any exploit there can't touch my data - and gksu(8) is quite fine for that)
– Matija Nalis
Mar 12 '18 at 14:40
All that is fine, but using a deprecated and unmaintained SUID binary is just wrong. This answer might have been useful in the past, but isn't anymore.
– Stefan
Mar 12 '18 at 21:42
All that is fine, but using a deprecated and unmaintained SUID binary is just wrong. This answer might have been useful in the past, but isn't anymore.
– Stefan
Mar 12 '18 at 21:42
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f51005%2fhow-to-use-xauth-to-run-graphical-application-via-other-user-on-linux%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown