Re: Possible flaw in XFree?

From: Nick Lange (nicklangeat_private)
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 18:20:26 PDT

  • Next message: strangeat_private: "Re: Possible flaw in XFree?" 

     I would suggest taking this up with the developers of X and Xlock, perhaps
the addition of a state within Xfree86 of "locked" that would disallow the
VDG/Zap [c-a-backspace] which xlock could set when started?
 On a secured computer I would have disabled the VDG/Zap feature anyways,
because technically it *shouldn't* crash, therefore implying that you don't
need it enabled.
My .02cents,
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: "William N. Zanatta" <williamat_private>
To: <vuln-devat_private>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Possible flaw in XFree?


>    Firstly, thank you for the answers. But...
>
>    You have explained how to start X without letting my console opened
> and that Ctrl-Alt-Backspace is a feature. I already know that. The
> problem I see is: once the X session is locked, it is suposed to LOCK
> the system and don't let anyone just press Ctrl-Alt-Backspace and take
> it down. Also it shouldn't let people switch to console by Ctrl-Alt-Fx.
> If it can't have such behavior, using xlock and stuffs like that isn't
> justified.
>
>    Got it?? I'm not discussing on whether to run X by xdm, or by
> console, or even disabling 'DontZap'. I'm talking about one doing things
> when it shouldn't.
>
>    william
>
> --
> Perl combines all of the worst aspects of BASIC, C and line noise.
>                  -- Keith Packard
>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 28 2002 - 16:29:02 PDT