I have this issue, that I have to put this in every time I push or pull. I think this is new. Any ideas?
You are probably using the https url. Switch over to ssh and make sure your keys are setup fine ( and if you have empty pass phrase ) you should not have to enter the username and password.
Did you had this problem before? It most probably means you got something wrong in your public key setup. Make sure to not set a pass phrase while generating your public key. Also, make sure that you first try to login to GitHub using
ssh -T git#github.com
This should work without any passphrase. If it doesn't, check again the setup instructions for the operating system you are using.
Switch from https to ssh - instructions from GitHub's help docs are here.
Related
I am trying to avoid typing the password every time I want to pull or push from a gitlab repository. Therefore I followed https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ssh/ but still, now every time I want to pull something it still asks me to provide the password for my remote gitlab repository.
Any clue on how to fix this issue?
Are you sure you are using the SSH link for your repository? It is like: git#gitlab.com:YOUR-USER/YOUR PROJECT.git
I have added a key also.
I tried adding username and password in url as: root:password#ssh://10.10.14.119//home/pk/user_app.git.
I tried making file containing login and password and added that from windows 10 cmd prompt.
Nothing is working. Its asking password for every push and pull
Thanks all for your responses.
Finally I got the answer.
I used the global key (id_rsa.ppk) of my git server and its working very well now.
We have a 'master' Mercurial server on our network that we use for a local staging box. Our team does all of our pushes and pulls to/from this one box. I'm having trouble with the implementation I'm using, but I'm also second guessing whether what I want to do is even a good idea...
We also want to start using BitBucket, but only as a secondary server. I'd like to use a hook to automatically push to Bitbucket, but I can't get it working right...
Here's the HGRC from the 'master' repo:
[hooks]
changegroup =
changegroup.update = hg update
changegroup.bitbucket = hg push ssh://hg#bitbucket.org/account/repo
If I manually fire off the above push, everything works perfectly. However, as a hook it fails:
warning: changegroup.bitbucket hook exited with status 255
I followed this guide to get SSH working: Set up SSH for Git and Mercurial on Mac OSX/Linux
I get my keys generated, I run ssh-agent, and I ssh-add the key. But ssh-agent doesn't seem to be doing anything, and as soon as I exit the SSH session it seems to leave memory. Additionally, when I test it out with ssh -Tv hg#bitbucket.org it prompts me for my password. I thought the whole point of this was for it not to do that?
But taking a step back, maybe this is a terrible idea to being with. If I give my public key to Bitbucket wouldn't that theoretically mean if someone got a hold of it, they could SSH in to my box without a password?
And if so, what alternative do I have to forward commits to bitbucket? I'd rather not use HTTPS because it would require putting our bitbucket password as plain/text in the .hg/hgrc file...
Maybe there's some more obvious way to do this that I'm missing? For the developers, I'd rather keep things the way they are now (everyone push to master) instead of reconfiguring everyone's developer box to have a private key and to push to bitbucket instead...
As always, thanks for any help you guys can provide.
Woah, there are a lot of questions there. I'll hit a few of 'em:
But ssh-agent doesn't seem to be doing anything, and as soon as I exit the SSH session it seems to leave memory.
You're correct. ssh-agent is for interactive sessions, not for automation. In most usages when you log out it's killed, but even if that weren't the case it wouldn't be working as you imagine because when someone does that hg push they're running a new, non-interactive session that wouldn't have access to the ssh-agent anyway
Additionally, when I test it out with ssh -Tv hg#bitbucket.org it prompts me for my password.
Testing it out like that isn't valid. That's saying "I want to log into an interactive session at bitbucket with the username hg", but that's not what they authorize you to do. If you send them your public key they let you login as the user hg only for the purposes of doing hg non-interactive commands.
Additionally, when I test it out with ssh -Tv hg#bitbucket.org it prompts me for my password.
No, public keys are meant to be public -- you can list anyone's on github for example. The public key just says "anyone who has the private key that matches this is authorized to...", so any site that wants your private key are crooks, but any site that wants you public key is just offering you a way to use something better than a password.
One thing you may be missing about hooks is "who" the hook runs as. When people are pushing to your "centralish" repo over ssh that the hook is being run as their unix user, and if they're pushing over http the hook is being run as the web server's user.
If you had:
a private ssh key with no password on it
the public key matching that private key setup on bitbucket
the unix user running the hook using that private key for access to bitbucket.org
then what you're trying to do would work.
I know that we shuld do
ssh user#target
but where do we specify the password ?
Hmm thanks for all your replies.
My requirement is I have to start up some servers on different machines. All servers should be started with one shell script. Well, entering password every time seems little bad but I guess I will have to resort to that option. One reason why I don't want to save the public keys is I may not connect to same machines every time. It is easy to go back and modify the script to change target addresses though.
The best way to do this is by generating a private/public key pair, and storing your public key on the remote server. This is a secure way to login w/o typing in a password each time.
Read more here
This cannot be done with a simple ssh command, for security reasons. If you want to use the password route with ssh, the following link shows some scripts to get around this, if you are insistent:
Scripts to automate password entry
The ssh command will prompt for your password. It is unsafe to specify passwords on the commandline, as the full command that is executed is typically world-visible (e.g. ps aux) and also gets saved in plain text in your command history file. Any well written program (including ssh) will prompt for the password when necessary, and will disable teletype echoing so that it isn't visible on the terminal.
If you are attempting to execute ssh from cron or from the background, use ssh-agent.
The way I have done this in the past is just to set up a pair of authentication keys.
That way, you can log in without ever having to specify a password and it works in shell scripts. There is a good tutorial here:
http://linuxproblem.org/art_9.html
SSH Keys are the standard/suggested solution. The keys must be setup for the user that the script will run as.
For that script user, see if you have any keys setup in ~/.ssh/ (Key files will end with a .pub extension)
If you don't have any keys setup you can run:
ssh-keygen -t rsa
which will generate ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub (the -t option has other types as well)
You can then copy the contents of this file to ~(remote-user)/.ssh/authorized_keys on the remote machine.
As the script user, you can test that it works by:
ssh remote-user#remote-machine
You should be logged in without a password prompt.
Along the same lines, now when your script is run from that user, it can auto SSH to the remote machine.
If you really want to use password authentication , you can try expect. See here for an example
How can I use expect to send a password to an ssh connection.
say the password was p#ssword
and the ssh command was
ssh me#127.0.0.1
What would I do with expect to a make it input the password when it says
me#127.0.0.1's password:
?
The proper action of using an SSH key pair isn't an option because I would have to use ssh (scp) to put the key on the server, which would ask for a password.
I always used the "proper" solution, but I used expect in other situations.
Here I found following suggestion:
#!/usr/local/bin/expect
spawn sftp -b cmdFile user#yourserver.com
expect "password:"
send "shhh!\n";
interact
Would it not be easier to use public key authentication and use a key with no passphrase?
As the user on the source machine do this to make an RSA key
ssh-keygen -t rsa
Now copy ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub to the target machine and append it to the authorized_keys file of the target user
Your quickest way forward (unless you want to become a Tcl expert, which would be... unusual... in 2009) is probably to use autoexpect. Here's the man page:
http://expect.nist.gov/example/autoexpect.man.html
In short, fire up autoexpect, run your ssh session, finish up what you need to do, stop autoexpecting and then beat your keyboard over the resulting mess until it works :) I'm assuming you don't need anything more than a quick hack to get your keys sorted out and then, well it sounds like you know the score already with that.
And there's this question which already contains an example close to what you seek.
Cygwin has autoexpect just not in the bin package. run setup.exe and search for expect and check the source checkbox. you will see the resulting tree in /usr/src and in there there is a expect/expect/examples directory. in there lives a copy of the autoexpect script.
Key solution will not work... because the keys have to be readable only by the person running ssh. On xp you cannot create key structure with the correct permissions. So ssh will not read them. This may have changed, but last i checked it still not not work.
I'm pretty sure it is not possible to do what you're trying to do. Most *nix applications that prompt for a password read from the TTY directly, not stdin, so you can't pipe the password in. You can, as others have mentioned, configure SSH to not prompt for a password, as explained here.
After I was downvoted for no apparent reason, I went and did a little more research on the expect command and discovered that it has a send_tty command that sends to /dev/tty instead of stdin, which might actually do what you want... I was previously unaware of this feature. I still recommend putting the key on the server, however.