Hi,
* Premysl Hruby <dfe...@gmail.com> [2010-01-19 12:21]:
> On (19/01/10 12:05), Nico Golde wrote:
> > * Andres Perera <andres...@gmail.com> [2010-01-18 22:16]:
> > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:23 PM, anonymous <aim0s...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > > >> 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.
> > > >
> > > > Just checked: I was always using exec in xinitrc. And I can still
> > > > killall slock.
> > > 
> > > I'm also using exec dwm in xinitrc, as are most people that use startx or 
> > > xinit.
> > > 
> > > That doesn't solve anything.
> > 
> > Huh? What is the issue then? The original mail stated the problem is 
> > putting 
> > the shell into background by ctrl-z and then killing slock which clearly 
> > doesn't work if you exec into startx.
> 
> Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or not
> using exec in xinitrc/xsession!

So what else is it? Being able to switch to the console is no security issue.
Being able to interact with a shell where there shouldn't be one, is.

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

Attachment: pgpxBCnihKSSJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to