Linux on Windows Exposes a New Attack Surface (eweek.com) 228
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
The Linux in Windows 10 isn't running inside of a hypervisor; it's "running on the raw hardware, getting all the benefits of performance and system access, as well as expanding the potential attack surface." eWeek reports on a new threat discovered by Alex Ionescu, the chief architect at cybersecurity company Crowdstrike, which begins with the fact that "The Windows file system is also mapped to Linux, such that Linux will get access to the same files and directories."
Ionescu says "There are a number of ways that Windows applications could inject code, modify memory and add new threats to a Linux application running on Windows." According to eWeek, "The modified Linux code in turn could then call Windows APIs and get access to system calls to perform malicious actions that might not be mitigated." Ionescu describes it as "a two-headed beast that can do a little Linux and can also be used to attack the Windows side of the system."
Ionescu says "There are a number of ways that Windows applications could inject code, modify memory and add new threats to a Linux application running on Windows." According to eWeek, "The modified Linux code in turn could then call Windows APIs and get access to system calls to perform malicious actions that might not be mitigated." Ionescu describes it as "a two-headed beast that can do a little Linux and can also be used to attack the Windows side of the system."
Big, fat, NO FREAKIN' DUH! (Score:5, Informative)
If the Linux personality has the same level of access to the kernel as the Windows personality, then this is a natural consequence. It's the same as if MS added a dozen new win32/64 APIs that could be exploited by apps with appropriate privileges. New code, new bugs. Total non-story.
Re: (Score:3)
Next story we're gonna get is, "If you install a database or 3rd party program, the attack vector gets larger!"
Re: Big, fat, NO FREAKIN' DUH! (Score:5, Informative)
It's not fucking Linux unless it runs the Linux kernel.
Re: Big, fat, NO FREAKIN' DUH! (Score:5, Informative)
It is really a GNU subsystem for Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's really just another attempt by microsoft to sour the reputation of linux.
Re: Big, fat, NO FREAKIN' DUH! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's not GNU either. It's an implementation of Linux kernel system calls. It only becomes GNU-ish after installation of Ubuntu libraries.
It's not a Linux kernel, it's not an emulator, it's an alternative implementation of Linux system calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Big, fat, NO FREAKIN' DUH! (Score:4, Insightful)
it's not a POSIX interface, it runs native Linux (not BSD, not OS X, not other POSIX OS) AMD64 binaries
Not the whole POSIX. (Score:5, Informative)
So is it essentially a new POSIX interface?
No it's not the whole POSIX interface (that used to exist and be called something along the lines like "Unix Services for Windows", but got in practice over taken in popularity by Cygwin - a translation layer between POSIX source code and regular Win32 interface).
WSL implements only a very small subset of Linux kernel's API calls.
Just barely enough to get some Ubuntu user space running, so you can still use Windows to write and test your code before deploying to some Linux cloud.
(instead of using Mac OS X or a real Linux desktop or a VM like everybody else.
There currently nearly no filesystem support (except for the special drivers that Microsoft has written to support passing Windows's local drivers under Linux).
There is very limited network support (you can run apache and even SSH. But forget about NFS)
There's no media at all (no X. no audio. no USBHID/libinput. nowayland/DRM/Mesa hardware/Whatever. no nothing. Its main purpose is to test linux code before deploying to the cluster, so don't expect anything fancy).
No even fabric dummy drivers (that's a bit limiting for the intended purpose...)
Nothing from the Linux kernel internals (no scheduler, etc.)
So maybe with some extensive hacking you could write a zombie node that can take part in some mass spamming or DDOS.
(Basically, anything that you could implement as a not so fancy network daemon under any other OS).
But that's about it. Don't except to circumvent some Windows protection by calling into WSL, it has no access to anything low-level.
(e.g.: Forget about trying to reflash the firmware using some linux sysadmins tools under WSL, or making some advanced stealth keylogger)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, but with the stupid "Bash On Ubuntu On Windows" name.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, but with the stupid "Bash On Ubuntu On Windows" name.
Acronym is "BOUOW", pronounced "bow-wow".
Re: (Score:3)
They also call the underlying technology "Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL)", while performing the exact opposite (it is a Linux Subsystem for Windows).
I guess it is what you must expect from a company placing all 64-bit files in System32 and 32-bit files in SysWOW64. And where x64 is greater than x86. x86-64 was too long so they removed a few characters.
Re: (Score:3)
ANY program you install that even remotely thinks about accepting input in any way is a potential attack vector. Why do you think anyone who has even a passing interest in his computer's security is up in arms about all the "free" crapware programs delivered with a new laptop?
Re:Big, fat, NO FREAKIN' DUH! (Score:5, Informative)
Linus (or rather, the linux foundation) should sue for slander for anyone calling it "linux under windows."
Re:Big, fat, NO FREAKIN' DUH! (Score:5, Funny)
I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Windows, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Windows. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another possible alternative for a fully functioning system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as (sort of) defined by POSIX. This so-called Linux distribution is really a distribution of GNU/Windows!
Re:Big, fat, NO FREAKIN' DUH! (Score:4, Insightful)
Therefore, it really ought to be "GNU/NT" (pronounced "guh-nunt", because that amuses me for some reason.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only freetards insist on calling it GNU/anything. Bet you won't be calling it Oracle/Gnu/Linux if it has mysql or openoffice or Java installed. Same as you won't call it Adobe/windows if it has photoshop installed.
So, isn't OS X/macOS much closer to a "Linux hybrid" than this is? I know that macOS is not built on a Linux Kernel; but as far as being something other than just the smoke-and-mirrors thing that this appears to be, isn't macOS MUCH closer to the "heart of Linux" than this "Inverse WINE" clusterfuck?
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you have a usable system without a database or image editor. A kernel with no userspace isn't useful.
Re: (Score:2)
"GNU rootkit for Windows"
Has a nice ring to it.
Re: (Score:3)
"GNU rootkit for Windows"
Has a nice ring to it.
No kidding! LOL. Anyhow, the Linux subsystem is not enabled by default (at least mine wasn't) after the Anniversary Update and you have to jump through a couple of hoops to get it going. Hopefully will be a non-issue and whomever DOES enable that will take the appropriate precautions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone who wants to learn more about this can read up on the Windows Subsystem for Linux [microsoft.com]. Quoting from the linked overview:
WSL executes unmodified Linux ELF64 binaries by virtualizing a Linux kernel interface on top of the Windows NT kernel. [...] The Windows Subsystem for Linux includes kernel mode drivers (lxss.sys and lxcore.sys) that are responsible for handling Linux system call requests in coordination with the Windows NT kernel. The drivers do not contain code from the Linux kernel but are instead a clean room implementation of Linux-compatible kernel interfaces.
-PCP
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Linus (or rather, the linux foundation) should sue for slander for anyone calling it "linux under windows."
Maybe we should call it NotGnuDows ?
Re:Big, fat, NO FREAKIN' DUH! (Score:5, Funny)
You traded systemd for Windows. Are you still dancing? Or is that just you trying to get your feet away from the hot red coals?
Re: (Score:2)
...and makes it REALLY hard for you to find out without any extra tools what exactly it loaded and with what parameters?
Re: (Score:2)
Non-story?
It somewhat endangers straight-up Linux users. Exploitation of software flaws in Ubuntu LTS will be more sought after by hackers and criminals, as that allows to reach a population of Windows "power users" who might or might not be careless (gamers who started with Windows 95 or XP and think they have computer skills because they buy expensive hardware and plug it together. But well, no reason more knowledgeable users can't get owned)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And what is even more, having Linux user-space components running on top of a translation layer is not new either. Cygwin has been doing it for ages.
Re:Big, fat, NO FREAKIN' DUH! (Score:4, Informative)
Ummm no, this is explicitly /not/ what Cygwin does. Cygwin provides a Unix-style /API/, not a Linux /ABI/. You can't run an unmodified Linux binary under Cygwin, you get to recompile your source.
Re: (Score:2)
And that matters why? You have the same translation layer, just in a slightly different place vertically.
Re: (Score:2)
A GOOD example would be coLinux which came out years ago and genuinely allowed a Linux dist like Debian to run in Windows at full speed. It wasn't a VM but used a modified kernel that ran over a low level driver. As far as the dist was concerned it was Linux but it was running over Windows.
Hack WIndows, then Linux to access Windows? (Score:2)
This seems circular:
Is this some privilege escalation scenario for the original "Windows applications" against its own system via Linux subsystem?
Isn't that a bigger problem with the subsystem implementation?
Re: (Score:2)
This seems circular:
It's totally circular..... you compromise the windows bits, then use the compromised Windows bits to compromise the Linux bits, then use the compromised Linux bits to compromise the Windows bits.
Why wouldn't you just use the initially-compromised Windows bits to wreak your evil and be done with it, then?
Unless your evil is corrupting the Linux-based application and making the Linux application serve bad data..... but that's not
sir[rosomg eother/ riw jbiw///
Re: (Score:2)
If you're running code locally, why is it even a compromise? Isn't it allowed to delete your stuff, if that is what it does?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're running code locally, why is it even a compromise? Isn't it allowed to delete your stuff, if that is what it does?
I would think the danger is privilege escalation: since Windows now includes some basic sandboxing and system protection from apps in user space, if such an app were able to use the Linux-y part of Windows to run code with system access, then hilarity would ensue.
Re: (Score:3)
touch: cannot touch ‘./test’: Permission denied
Doesn't seem to be a problem from that angle at least. Sounds like FUD.
Re: (Score:3)
You're a regular user and don't have write access to the Windows directory - I don't think that's the problem.
More likely problems are:
- What is "root" mapped to? In windows, an Administrator account does not have full privileges - you need a local or remote system account for that.
- How about setuid and setgid executables? setgid in particular can be problematic, given that Windows doesn't have a concept of both a user owner and a group owner - there's just an owner, and any number of acls.
- Are setfattr
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3)
So, a self-contained system inside a larger system isn't a subsystem?
Implementing such a thing in userland is, in fact, a valid way to make a subsystem. Linux's own dynamic loader is a userspace program (the Linux kernel doesn't know how to load dynamic shared objects); and some systems (e.g. Minix, L4) implement their entire native execution environments and even hardware drivers in userspace.
Besides that,
The Windows Subsystem for Linux includes kernel mode drivers (lxss.sys and lxcore.sys) that are responsible for handling Linux system call requests in coordination with the Windows NT kernel. The drivers do not contain code from the Linux kernel but are instead a clean room implementation of Linux-compatible kernel interfaces. On native Linux, when a syscall is made from a user mode executable it is handled by the Linux kernel. On WSL, when a syscall is made from the same executable the Windows NT kernel forwards the request to lxcore.sys. Where possible, lxcore.sys translates the Linux syscall to the equivalent Windows NT call which in turn does the heavy lifting. Where there is no reasonable mapping the Windows kernel mode driver must service the request directly.
WSL uses a kernel-level interface to perform the actions required to satisfy POSIX and Linux syst
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BarbaraHudson is a known-super-bitch. Her posting history consists of personal attacks on everyone else in a desperate attempt to cover her own insecurities. The same goes for her facebook page, except occasionally she feeds stray cats and talks about how everyone else is assholes because she's the little angel taking care of the poor animals.
She crossed me once in the worst way--by spouting stupidity and incorrect information--so I'm temporarily amusing myself by reminding everyone she's a cunt every
Re: (Score:2)
She crossed me once in the worst way--by spouting stupidity and incorrect information--so I'm temporarily amusing myself by reminding everyone she's a cunt every time she gets a little cunty.
To me, you just sound like a Microsoft Shill who is all butthurt because BarbaraHudson called this so-called "LinuxonWindows" (LoW) out for the cruel joke that it is.
Clickbait (Score:4, Insightful)
What kind of "new threat" is this? All he's saying is that running code on a machine can have affect its state.
Re: (Score:2)
9 commas, and maybe one used correctly? Just remove that key from your keyboard - you don't deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
9 commas, and maybe one used correctly? Just remove that key from your keyboard - you don't deserve it.
Perhaps English isn't the AC's first language, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
They did a good job making native English errors with it then. Quite a few of the languages that have a comma use it the same way as English.
*yawn* (Score:5, Insightful)
The Server Application in Windows 10 isn't running inside of a hypervisor; it's "running on the OS, getting all the benefits of performance and system access, as well as expanding the potential attack surface." eWeek reports on a new threat discovered by Alex Ionescu, the chief architect at cybersecurity company Crowdstrike, which begins with the fact that "The Windows file system is also mapped to the Server Application, such that the Server Application will get access to [...] files and directories."
Ionescu says "There are a number of ways that Windows applications could inject code, modify memory and add new threats to the Server Application running on Windows." According to eWeek, "The modified Server Application code in turn could then call Windows APIs and get access to system calls to perform malicious actions that might not be mitigated."
I'll Tell you what else increase your attack surface: Turning the computer on.
Didn't RTFA (naturally!), but the summary fails to convince me that this is more than incrementally worse than running...well...MOST applications that do anything useful on Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll Tell you what else increase your attack surface: Turning the computer on. Didn't RTFA (naturally!), but the summary fails to convince me that this is more than incrementally worse than running...well...MOST applications that do anything useful on Windows.
True enough; but there "Increments" come in all sizes, shapes and forms.
If history has anything to inform us with here, it is that Microsoft is REALLY bad at securing inter-process communication. (e.g. Windows Shatter Attack?). And this looks to be one HONKIN' huge inter-process conduit...
Re: *yawn* (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: *yawn* (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably some mapping of the user SID to a UID is my guess. After all, the UID is just a user representation, and internally it gets translated into a normal Windows SID that the kernel uses for all actions.
Honestly, it's a load of hyperbole. The Linus subsystem is not running Linux. It's running the Windows kernel, and the kernel is enforcing all the standard security mechanisms it always had. If you can't write to a file in Windows, you certainly can't on Linux subsystem. (All of Windows' security is enforced in the kernel anyways).
The Linux subsystem is only a bit more than the standard subsystem mechanism on NT - you know, the ones that could run Win32, OS/2 and POSIX apps? Each one of those is a separate subsystem, and because of that, there were pesky limitations (POSIX applications can't interact with Win32, because the only commonality is... the kernel).
What Windows 10 can do is run Linux userspace binaries by emulating the Linux syscall interface. It's no different than the FreeBSD mechanism that existed for years.
Hell, if you want to get technical, call it GNU/NTOSKRNL. That's all it is. It can run Linux binaries on Windows, in this case, Ubuntu 14.04.
Re: (Score:2)
GNU/NTOSKRNL is only logical if installing any GNU-licensed software on a Windows system suddenly turns the system to a GNU/Windows system. GNU/Linux is at least somewhat logical as everything vital in the system _is_ GNU licensed and the GNU project software is an important part of the user experience.
Re: (Score:2)
GNU/Linux is not named after the GPL license. At all. It just happens to be the same people involved in drafting it.
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not named after the license. But "At all" seems a bit strong as GPL = GNU Public License and the GPL is the base of FSF activities including the GNU userland which is where the GNU/Linux name comes from.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like one of those people that calls "Microsoft Office" Windows.
Nice Try. Let me correct you. (Score:3)
a two-headed beast that can do a little Linux and can also be used to attack the Linux side of the system.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
a two-headed beast that can do a little Linux and can also be used to attack the Linux side of the system.
Privilege escalation is not a new thing. If you trust any Microsoft container solution to be unbreakable, you deserve exactly what you get.
Crazy Talk (Score:3, Funny)
Don't run root (Score:4, Interesting)
Just like Linux you need to have special privileges to change anything important with the ACL lists of NTFS just like ext3.
I highly doubt malware will target this. I mean besides those using SQL insertion exploits for server databases no one targets Linux on the desktop. No one is going to be running a server with this anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
And now someone is going to do it just because you said nobody would. It's the Linux way.
Re: (Score:3)
What they can, and will, target is privileged credentials in the user's home directory. Linux users, for example, sometimes keep SSH private keys or GPG keys in their home directory. Those now become vulnerable to Windows tools that are poorly secured and allow filesystem access to well defined home directory locations.
Conversely, many careless Windows users run their personal user account with Administrator privileges on their Windows machine, to make certain types of work easier. This makes Linux hosted a
Re: (Score:2)
Linux users, for example, sometimes keep SSH private keys or GPG keys in their home directory. Those now become vulnerable to Windows tools that are poorly secured and allow filesystem access to well defined home directory locations
How is this different from any other secure file you might have on your computer? If the malware has file system access and permission to read the files that you have access to, then it has access to the files....
I have private keys in the form of PuTTY .ppk files on my Windows box. I also have private keys in the form of id_rsa on my Linux boxen. Those files exist in places that I have access to... so would malware, if it got installed.
I am trying to understand why this is somehow more of a security risk (
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be too sure about not running servers on this. Plenty of places really really want to have a standard build of windows on all their servers without exception. Plenty of developers want their stuff to run on a well understood LAMP stack that isn't a complete and utter pain in the arse to install and update. WSL lets everyone be happy - not sure it can run background services properly yet, but there is certainly a use-case for it running servers. Now whether such a machine is vulnerable to this kin
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of places really really want to have a standard build of windows on all their servers without exception.
Oh, I am SURE the Computer Priesthood will absolutely LOVE this! All the insecurity of Windows with all the Obscurity of Linux, rolled into one hard-to-troubleshoot package; yay!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt malware will target this.
Funniest thing I've read all day!
Attack the Windows side of the system? (Score:2, Insightful)
We've pretty much written Windows off years ago.
Windows applications could inject code, modify memory and add new threats to a Linux application running on Windows.
Windows has been able to do that to itself for years. No Linux needed.
How big a target will this be? (Score:2)
I'm not sure if many people will install this functionality to begin with aside from developers, the target may be too small to justify
Re: (Score:2)
THIS. The linux-compatible subsystem is NOT installed by default, and a user has to go through a lot of non-easy hoops to get it installed. That is, it's not simply a matter of opening the Windows Store and clicking on a colorful icon of a skimpy-dressed female holding cash in one hand and a machine-gun in the other. There are a plurality of steps [howtogeek.com], all boring, any one of which would likely cause your typical sucker-user to lose interest.
However vulnerable this turns out to be ("hey, handsome, are you MAN
While in the Real World, WSL is contained (Score:5, Informative)
Windows Subsystem for Linux processes cannot directly interact with either the win32 subsystem or processes.
Windows Subsystem for Linux Overview [microsoft.com] [img] :: https://msdnshared.blob.core.windows.net/media/2016/04/LXSS-diagram-1024x472.jpg [windows.net] or WSL System Calls [microsoft.com] & [img] :: https://msdnshared.blob.core.windows.net/media/2016/06/syscall_graphic.png [windows.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, was looking for this. You can't even launch Windows PE binaries.
Running software on a computer (Score:2)
Or am I missing something?
And the award goes to... (Score:2)
Captain Obvious award for Alex Ionescu, the chief architect at cybersecurity company Crowdstrike. Congratulations!
Shill (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Network access too, right? It wouldn't surprise me if there are default Windows network services that allow the Linux subsystem to effectively execute Win32 programs this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Alex Ionescu is (was?) a ReactOS 'developer'. He has a beef against Microsoft.
Every sane person on the planet has at least one major, legitimate beef against Microsoft. If you don't, you're either very young, idiotic, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Alex is a great guy and pretty brilliant; he's slightly-wrong in this case, as Linux binaries can't call Windows system functions (no Win32 API). The attack surface does include accessing the Windows file system, but not triggering Windows programs.
He's not the kind of raging psycho typified by RMS or Theo de Raadt, at least.
Why doesn't anybody get their facts straight? (Score:4, Informative)
After googling around a bit. stories about running a bash shell on windows pop up.
It isn't "running Linux" on windows. That would imply that there is a Linux kernel running that actually manages hardware. This impression of "running on hardware" is enhanced by the slashdot summary.
None of this. Windows is simply providing those Linux system calls that allows commandline apps to run. A story then mentioned that servers would not run. That's odd: When "bash" runs and say applications like ping, ssh and telnet, you'd have to go to great lengths to prevent another app like "apache" from running.
But if what I hear is true, this is only useful for the most basic of things, no graphical capabilities. I might be an old fart that uses the commandline a lot, but that becomes useful in combination with a bunch of graphical tools that display what I need to know on a graphical screen.
As to security: the implied trick of running a linux kernel that also has access to the windows block devices is very prone to bugs and security issues. But all that is not the case: It's just another program running in an operating system, using a slightly different set of API calls. If the emulated Linux system calls end up calling windows-internal stuff AFTER the "permissions checking" that normal windows calls would do then you have a problem. It tells a lot about how badly windows is layered.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's how server applications aren't supported: they use system calls or variants of system calls that aren't implemented. Microsoft have made sure that bash, git and nodejs all work fine. But they haven't implemented all the APIs that, for example, Oracle or Docker use. I found I could run xterm no problem but not Haskell's ghc or stack. They will probably add more features over time but it's hard to say how far they'll get or when. The project originated in the Astoria Android emulator, so the APIs that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if what I hear is true, this is only useful for the most basic of things, no graphical capabilities
I know someone else has already said it differently, but X is a networked display protocol, so I assume any X server for Windows could work.
That's OK (Score:2)
That's Ok I have my windows 10 running in a sandboxed virtual machine under debian.
Re: (Score:2)
But, can it be run in a sandwiched virtual machine with mayonnaise?
get rid of windows, keep linux (Score:2)
Both Linux and Windows accessing hardware directly (Score:2)
Both Linux and Windows accessing hardware directly so that Linux performs well.
What's the logical next step?
So Linux apps can make win32 calls? (Score:2)
That should make porting WINE easy!
Seriously speaking, it seems the short of it is that WSL should be disabled if AppLocker is desired. I suspect that wouldn't upset too many folks, as I imagine the intersection of audience that uses AppLocker and the audience that would use WSL is non-existent. AppLocker is a pretty extreme lockdown to inflict on your users, and I can't imagine those admins wanting to use Linux applications.
WSL can be disabled, so I don't think this is as large a deal as the article want
This is not "Linux on Windows" (Score:3)
Linux is a kernel. The Linux kernel is not used in this emulation layer, instead it emulates Linux system calls on the Windows kernel. So, there is very little if any Linux in this scheme. Its not Linux.
I don't think this is a wise use of Canonical's resources, a better use would have been greatly enhancing and accelerating Wine development with a goal of getting it to 99% app compatability within 2 years and as well funding a project to provide a driver compatability layer to allow Windows drivers to run on Linux. This would make it easier for people to make a complete move to Linux and to bring their apps and hardware with them, rather than creating a reason for people to stay on Windows.
Why why why? (Score:2)
Okay, I can see running Windows under Linux, but why run Linux under Windows? It seems like that's the worst of both worlds.
The only reason to upgrade from Win7 (Score:2)
I only bothered upgrading my HP workstations to Windows 10 (for free) is so that I can install windows 10 on a hard drive and run Ubuntu GNU/Windows.
Re: Mein Gott im Himmel! (Score:2)
They have a hypervisor. It is called Hyper-V if you care and supported Ubuntu for awhile now.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a hypervisor. It is called Hyper-V if you care and supported Ubuntu for awhile now.
Yep, and it has since it was called VirtualPC before they bought it from Connectix.
The question is, why, oh, why didn't they just USE VPC/Hyper-V to do this, rather than create some creaky, leaky SHIM?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 20 years to close all the holes in Windows (Score:2)
Apt-get upgrade works just fine in my windows 10 bash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd recommend switching to MSYS2 since it can handle updates via the pacman command and does everything Cygwin can do
Re: (Score:2)
The same approach they engineered around 20 years ago, with NT version 3.5, if not earlier? Darn them. Darn them to heck!