|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | Security: if DPMS power off time shorter than screensaver time: no lock screen | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] SUSE Linux 10.1 | Reporter: | Danny Al-Gaaf <dalgaaf> |
| Component: | X.Org | Assignee: | Stefan Dirsch <sndirsch> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | Stefan Dirsch <sndirsch> |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | CC: | kde-maintainers, security-team |
| Version: | Alpha 4 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | Other | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | Other | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
|
Description
Danny Al-Gaaf
2005-12-21 14:34:04 UTC
hmm, because the screensaver is DPMS sensitive, e.g. it won't activate the saver when there is DPMS running (or stop it when it's already running). Which is ok for a screensaver, but obviously not for a locker. So the screensaver needs to be started independent of DPMS if it's a locker - but then stopped immeditately. Fixed in KDE SVN. The problem was actually DPMS for some reason breaking the reporting of idle time by the screensaver X extension. Hmm. Why exactly is this very unusual setup a blocker? This is for me a blocker, because this is a security bug. If you trust the current settings you expect that your screen lock and nobody can access your desktop. Btw. THX for the fix. well, still sounds like an underlying X.org bug to me. But this is no longer a blocker. Actually, after creating a testcase to demostrate the X problem it turned out that the X screensaver extension eventually decides to report correct idle time after some delay, so it was the DPMS checking code in KDE blocking the locker. I've fixed that already too, in KDE SVN. So unless somebody feels like doing an update or something for the case of a user more or less misconfiguring their system, I consider this closed, will be fixed with SL10.1. agreed |