Re: vlock from x11?
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
>> the reason i'm not using x-based screensavers is that i'm unwilling to
>> disable the ctrl-alt-bs sequence used to stop the x server -- the
>> sequence is too useful when i'm diagnosing problems. that leaves me
>> w/ using things like vlock because the x-based screensavers appear to
>> be pointless w/ the ctrl-alt-bs sequence enabled (has this changed?
>> or is my understanding off?).
>
>Anyone who has access to your console can probably get in if they're
>sufficiently determined (think boot floppy). But I agree that there's
>no reason to make it easy for them. What I do is start X with the
>command "startx&exit". This means that even if someone *does* kill X
>(or tries to suspend it), they'll still be faced with a login prompt,
>rather than a nice shell prompt.
Why not use xdm? It works for me.
On my Thinkpad I have xdm (or more specifically kdm) running displays on vt5
and vt6 so if I am logged in I can lock the screen, change to the other vt,
and let someone play with my machine.
So I use the regular X screen blanker with a timeout...
For when the X server dies I have the SAK enabled in the kernel. CTRL-ALT-BS
isn't good enough, if the X server gets properly wedged then it won't accept
keyboard input.
Russell Coker
Reply to: