Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe

Hi,
* Nico Golde <nico_AT_ngolde.de> [2010-01-18 20:03]:
> * Premysl Hruby <dfenze_AT_gmail.com> [2010-01-17 16:53]:
> > On (17/01/10 16:24), Gregor Best wrote:
> > > Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:24:11 +0100
> > > From: Gregor Best <gbe_AT_ring0.de>
> > > To: dev_AT_suckless.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> > > List-Id: dev mail list <dev.suckless.org>
> > > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:17:16PM +0100, Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not safe at all!
> > > >
> > > > I launched slock in my DWM session. I just have to press CTRL+ALT+F1
> > > > and press CTRL+z (to send startx in background an get the hand on the
> > > > shell) and type "killall slock" to unlock the session...
> > >
> > > Same thing with every other screen locker. The only "solution" is to
> > > remove the ChangeVT* mappings from the xmodmap.
> > >
> >
> > Not really, simply using 'startx & exit' instead of plain 'startx' is
> > sufficient.
>
> This thread is hilarious, I find it pretty funny that on a mailing list of the
> suckless project people are suggesting all kinds of weird things to solve this
> instead just using exec /usr/bin/dwm in ~/.xinitrc rather than /usr/bin/dwm.
> Seriously, WTF?!

errm not exec dwm but startx, yeah sorry...
here is what i use actually in my zshrc:
if [ "$(tty)" = "/dev/tty1" ]; then
        exec startx
fi

Cheers
Nico

-- 
Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - nion@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0xA0A0AAAA
For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.