El 20/01/12 15:07, Florian Pritz escribió:
On 20.01.2012 18:38, Sébastien le Preste de Vauban wrote:
El 20/01/12 04:10, Florian Pritz escribió:
On 20.01.2012 02:18, David J. Haines wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Tavian Barnes
wrote:
On 19 January 2012 18:23, Dmitry Korzhevin wro
On 20.01.2012 18:38, Sébastien le Preste de Vauban wrote:
> El 20/01/12 04:10, Florian Pritz escribió:
>> On 20.01.2012 02:18, David J. Haines wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Tavian Barnes
>>> wrote:
On 19 January 2012 18:23, Dmitry Korzhevin wrote:
> a funny bug in the Xorg
El 20/01/12 04:10, Florian Pritz escribió:
On 20.01.2012 02:18, David J. Haines wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Tavian Barnes
wrote:
On 19 January 2012 18:23, Dmitry Korzhevin wrote:
a funny bug in the Xorg server that could allow attackers with physical
access to a machine to bypas
I stand corrected in my "interim" language.
David J. Haines
dhai...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 20.01.2012 02:08, schrieb Tavian Barnes:
>> IMO, it's not an X.Org or configuration bug, it's a bug in all the
>> screen lockers.
>>
>> http://seclists.org
Am 20.01.2012 02:08, schrieb Tavian Barnes:
> IMO, it's not an X.Org or configuration bug, it's a bug in all the
> screen lockers.
>
> http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2012/q1/217
>
This post is horribly wrong.
1) The documentation cited is from Xorg 6.8, which is terribly old.
2) The options cited
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:53 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2012 2:10 AM, "Florian Pritz" wrote:
>>
>> On 20.01.2012 02:18, David J. Haines wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Tavian Barnes
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 19 January 2012 18:23, Dmitry Korzhevin
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> a funn
On Jan 20, 2012 2:10 AM, "Florian Pritz" wrote:
>
> On 20.01.2012 02:18, David J. Haines wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Tavian Barnes
> > wrote:
> >> On 19 January 2012 18:23, Dmitry Korzhevin
wrote:
> >>> a funny bug in the Xorg server that could allow attackers with
physical
> >>>
On 20.01.2012 02:18, David J. Haines wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Tavian Barnes
> wrote:
>> On 19 January 2012 18:23, Dmitry Korzhevin wrote:
>>> a funny bug in the Xorg server that could allow attackers with physical
>>> access to a machine to bypass the screensaver/screen locker pr
On 20.01.2012 02:08, Tavian Barnes wrote:
> On 19 January 2012 18:23, Dmitry Korzhevin wrote:
>> a funny bug in the Xorg server that could allow attackers with physical
>> access to a machine to bypass the screensaver/screen locker program.
>> Most people use those programs to lock their computer
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Tavian Barnes
wrote:
> On 19 January 2012 18:23, Dmitry Korzhevin wrote:
>> a funny bug in the Xorg server that could allow attackers with physical
>> access to a machine to bypass the screensaver/screen locker program.
>> Most people use those programs to lock th
On 19 January 2012 18:23, Dmitry Korzhevin wrote:
> a funny bug in the Xorg server that could allow attackers with physical
> access to a machine to bypass the screensaver/screen locker program.
> Most people use those programs to lock their computer when they are
> away. On Gnome, gnome-screensav
On 20-01-2012 00:08, Don Juan wrote:
>> I just restarted, and it's exhibiting the same behavior.
> Happens for me as well, fully updated and restarted.
>
Works fine here. Fully up-to-date x86_64, radeon driver, xscreensaver, xfce.
--
Mauro Santos
On 01/19/2012 04:07 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:04 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
I just restarted, and it's exhibiting the same behavior.
Do you have a Happy Hacking Keyboard? ;-)
Retract my last statement. I do not have the issue still my bad :(
On 01/19/2012 04:04 PM, David J. Haines wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
On 01/20/2012 01:32 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Karol Blazewicz
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:04 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
> I just restarted, and it's exhibiting the same behavior.
Do you have a Happy Hacking Keyboard? ;-)
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 01/20/2012 01:32 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Karol Blazewicz
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Karol Blazewicz
wrote:
>
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Michael Holmes wrote:
> Cannot reproduce, using xkeyboard-config 2.4.1-3, xscreensaver with
> Xfce 4.8. Looks like the testing version has this patched.
There's none, the only xkeyboard-config we have in the synced mirrors
is already in extra:
http://www.archlinu
Cannot reproduce, using xkeyboard-config 2.4.1-3, xscreensaver with
Xfce 4.8. Looks like the testing version has this patched.
On 01/20/2012 01:32 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Karol Blazewicz
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Karol Blazewicz
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Dmitry Korzhevin
wro
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:32 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Karol Blazewicz
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Karol Blazewicz
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Dmitry Korzhevi
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Karol Blazewicz
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Karol Blazewicz
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Dmitry Korzhevin
>>> wrote:
ctrl+atl+*(on num lock keyboard) confirmed and
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM, David J. Haines wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Karol Blazewicz
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Dmitry Korzhevin
>> wrote:
>>> ctrl+atl+*(on num lock keyboard) confirmed and work in arch linux.
>>
>> On a fully updated system?
>> http://m
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Karol Blazewicz
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Dmitry Korzhevin
> wrote:
>> ctrl+atl+*(on num lock keyboard) confirmed and work in arch linux.
>
> On a fully updated system?
> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-January/024298.html
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Dmitry Korzhevin
wrote:
> ctrl+atl+*(on num lock keyboard) confirmed and work in arch linux.
On a fully updated system?
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-January/024298.html
24 matches
Mail list logo