2010/1/20 hiro <23h...@googlemail.com>:
> The next step has already been anounced. Hackers are rolling out a
> so-called Flash bug, a virus running on any OS. Supposedly developed
> by a joint-venture between North-Corea and the Taliban it is a big
> threat, if not the biggest threat ever for the w
There is actually no alternative parsing, is it?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:57 AM, anonymous wrote:
>> Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or not
>> using exec in xinitrc/xsession!
>>
> Problem here is (not (using exec startx or startx & exit)), not (using
> or not us
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Andrew Antle wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:32:14AM +0100, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
>> anonymous dixit (2010-01-20, 10:57):
>>
>> > > Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or not
>> > > using exec in xinitrc/xsession!
>> > >
>> > Pro
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:32:14AM +0100, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
> anonymous dixit (2010-01-20, 10:57):
>
> > > Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or not
> > > using exec in xinitrc/xsession!
> > >
> > Problem here is (not (using exec startx or startx & exit)), not
On (20/01/10 10:57), anonymous wrote:
> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:57:41 +0300
> From: anonymous
> To: dev mail list
> Subject: Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> List-Id: dev mail list
>
> > Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or n
anonymous dixit (2010-01-20, 10:57):
> > Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or not
> > using exec in xinitrc/xsession!
> >
> Problem here is (not (using exec startx or startx & exit)), not (using
> or not using exec in xinitrc/xsession).
I also parsed it that way,
> Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or not
> using exec in xinitrc/xsession!
>
Problem here is (not (using exec startx or startx & exit)), not (using
or not using exec in xinitrc/xsession).
Right?
Couldn't slock just ignore ctl,alt, &c? Basically any char that can't be
used in a password.
--
Government is the great fiction through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
pgpap9fEkObwd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
BREAKING NEWS: MAC, WINDOWS, LINUX: NOT SAFE ANYMORE!
The operating system market does not manage to recover from the crisis.
After attacks from the Chinese government several errors in Microsoft
Windows' Internet Explorer were identified. Anonymous sources claim
having "total control over all Pcs
Hi,
* Nico Golde [2010-01-19 13:48]:
> * Premysl Hruby [2010-01-19 12:21]:
> > On (19/01/10 12:05), Nico Golde wrote:
> > > * Andres Perera [2010-01-18 22:16]:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:23 PM, anonymous wrote:
> > > > >> This thread is hilarious, I find it pretty funny that on a mailing
Hi,
* Nico Golde [2010-01-18 20:03]:
> * Premysl Hruby [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
> > > To: dev@suckless.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dev] [SL
[2010-01-19 12:11] Premysl Hruby
>
> Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or not
> using exec in xinitrc/xsession!
I needed some time to get to the sense of the sentence, but now I
reached it ... and yes, it's a nice play on words. Thanks, YMMD.
meillo
Hi,
* Premysl Hruby [2010-01-19 12:21]:
> On (19/01/10 12:05), Nico Golde wrote:
> > * Andres Perera [2010-01-18 22:16]:
> > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:23 PM, anonymous wrote:
> > > >> This thread is hilarious, I find it pretty funny that on a mailing
> > > >> list of the
> > > >> suckless pro
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:11:24 +0100
Premysl Hruby wrote:
> Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or
> not using exec in xinitrc/xsession!
>
> -Ph
say what?
On (19/01/10 12:05), Nico Golde wrote:
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:05:07 +0100
> From: Nico Golde
> To: dev@suckless.org
> Subject: Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> List-Id: dev mail list
> X-Mailer: netcat 1.10
>
> Hi,
> * Andres Perera [2010-01-18 22:16]:
> >
Hi,
* Andres Perera [2010-01-18 22:16]:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:23 PM, anonymous 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 e
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:07:50PM +0100, daspostloch wrote:
> On 01/18/2010 10:17 PM, Ryan R wrote:
> > Put this in your xorg.conf this turns off ctrl-alt-backspace and VT
> > switching.
> >
> > Section "ServerFlags"
> >Option "DontZap" "true"
> >Option "DontVTSwitch" "true"
> > EndSect
On 01/18/2010 10:17 PM, Ryan R wrote:
Put this in your xorg.conf this turns off ctrl-alt-backspace and VT switching.
Section "ServerFlags"
Option "DontZap" "true"
Option "DontVTSwitch" "true"
EndSection
Can we put an end to this thread nao? kthx
not everyone still has a xorg.conf
Put this in your xorg.conf this turns off ctrl-alt-backspace and VT switching.
Section "ServerFlags"
Option "DontZap" "true"
Option "DontVTSwitch" "true"
EndSection
Can we put an end to this thread nao? kthx
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:23 PM, anonymous 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/d
> 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?!
>
Just checked: I was always
This is actually not funny my lads...
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:51:09PM +0100, Nico Golde wrote:
> Hi,
> * Julien Pecqueur [2010-01-17 16:22]:
> > 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
Hi,
* Premysl Hruby [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
> > To: dev@suckless.org
> > Subject: Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> > List-Id: dev mail list
> > User-Agen
Hi,
* Julien Pecqueur [2010-01-17 16:22]:
> 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
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:41:23AM +0100, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
> Sebastian Goll dixit (2010-01-17, 16:44):
>
> > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:24:11 +0100
> > Gregor Best wrote:
> >
> > > Same thing with every other screen locker. The only "solution" is to
> > > remove the ChangeVT* mappings from the
Sebastian Goll dixit (2010-01-17, 16:44):
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:24:11 +0100
> Gregor Best wrote:
>
> > Same thing with every other screen locker. The only "solution" is to
> > remove the ChangeVT* mappings from the xmodmap.
>
> Another solution seems to be to exec into “startx” instead of ru
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:17:16PM +0100, Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> Hi,
Hi
> I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not safe at all!
Oh, you are scary me.
> 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
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:33:12AM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2010 at 07:28 AM, Premysl Hruby wrote:
> > On (17/01/10 16:17), Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> > > 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 h
On Jan 17, 2010 at 07:28 AM, Premysl Hruby wrote:
> On (17/01/10 16:17), Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> > 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 backgroun
On Sun 17/01/10, 16:17, Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> 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...
The only locker known to circumvent this proble
> Not really, simply using 'startx & exit' instead of plain 'startx' is
> sufficient.
>
> -Ph
Looks the best solution... i'll to that!
--
Julien Pecqueur (JPEC)
Site: http://julienpecqueur.com
Email: j...@julienpecqueur.com
PGP:B1AA2389 (GNUPG)
IRC:jpec (irc.freenode.net)
Powered b
On (17/01/10 16:02), Rob wrote:
> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:02:13 +
> From: Rob
> To: dev mail list
> Subject: Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> List-Id: dev mail list
>
> > Asside from the fact, that magic sysrq can be disabled
> Oh yeah, forgot about that
>
> Asside from the fact, that magic sysrq can be disabled
Oh yeah, forgot about that
> how can some one use Magic Sysrq to access your data?
If you've prevented ctrl+alt+f1 using xmodmap or whatever, they could
use the raw terminal mode to switch to vt1 anyway
Just have it rebind all the necessary keys to break in when you run
slock and then bind them back when you're done; that way no one will
really be able to guess the proper key sequence, especially if you use
an alternative layout like dvorak. (That way they can't login if they
know your password, a
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:49:41PM +0100, Premysl Hruby wrote:
> [...]
> Not really, simply using 'startx & exit' instead of plain 'startx' is
> sufficient.
> [...]
Agreed, forgot about that one.
--
GCS/IT/M d- s+:- a-- C++ UL+++ US UB++ P+++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ o--
K- w--- ?O M-- ?V PS++ PE- Y++ PG
On (17/01/10 15:51), Rob wrote:
> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:51:26 +
> From: Rob
> To: dev mail list
> Subject: Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> List-Id: dev mail list
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not safe a
> 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...
>
It's incredi
On (17/01/10 16:24), Gregor Best wrote:
> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:24:11 +0100
> From: Gregor Best
> To: dev@suckless.org
> Subject: Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> List-Id: dev mail list
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:17:16PM +010
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:24:11 +0100
Gregor Best wrote:
> Same thing with every other screen locker. The only "solution" is to
> remove the ChangeVT* mappings from the xmodmap.
Another solution seems to be to exec into “startx” instead of running
it within a shell. Then, there is no C-z to send it
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
> she
On (17/01/10 16:17), Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:17:16 +0100
> From: Julien Pecqueur
> To: dev@suckless.org
> Subject: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> List-Id: dev mail list
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using sloc
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...
--
Julien Pecqueur (
43 matches
Mail list logo
