Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-13 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 09:39:48PM +0200, Thomas Lübking wrote: > Stupid question, but since kdm links X11 and communicates with the > greeter anyway: can we simply have it grab keyboard and mouse (must > create a window in the session for this purpose, but it runs on root > privs) > using the kdm

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-13 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:37:41 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne : > Sure it can. Just click "Test" in the Display & Monitor screen saver > options. ;) There's probably some DBus call to do the same thing. i thought about "kstart --fullscreen kdeasciiquarium", fails because the window us resized externally

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-13 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:24:55 +0200 schrieb todd rme : > At least for me wobbly windows provides visual feedback when moving > windows that I find useful. I used it a lot on compiz, but the Kwin > one never really worked all that well but I would have it enabled if > it did. Try advanced mode, the

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-13 Thread todd rme
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Martin Koller wrote: > On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > >> > I consider most effects being "bling" yes, with that said I like it and >> > appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value. >> I have to disagree. By defau

Re: Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-13 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Thursday 13 October 2011 17:29:16 Martin Koller wrote: > On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > > I consider most effects being "bling" yes, with that said I like it and > > > appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value. > > > > I have to disagree.

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-13 Thread Martin Koller
On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > I consider most effects being "bling" yes, with that said I like it and > > appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value. > I have to disagree. By default we ship no effect which is "bling" > only. They all add p

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-13 Thread Martin Koller
On Wednesday, 12. October 2011 02:12:55 Thomas Lübking wrote: Let me give my view here: > Do you have configured a "saver" beyond dpms? > And if, why? > Do you use a locker beyond a black screen? > And if, why? yes to both (diashow). Reason: make other people wandering by (or sitting in the

Re: Re: Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-13 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:38:11 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 04:47:54PM +0200, Dario Freddi wrote: > > 2011/10/12 Martin Gräßlin : > > > ok I have been thinking about it and have a new proposal: > > > * writing a kded module to only handle the screen locking (grab keybo

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-12 Thread Michael Pyne
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 20:43:41 Thomas Lübking wrote: > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:46:40 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne : > > Yes. KDE asciiquarium (feel free to look at the copyright headers for > > that in kdeartwork someday... ;) > > Errr... rather not. The author, *cough* who ever he might be *

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-12 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:10:40 +0200 schrieb Oswald Buddenhagen : > that's not a response to my question. the old lock engine offers the > option to start a saver which only after a few seconds requires a > password to make it go away. I think it was, because the idea is that the locker, unlike today

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-12 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:46:40 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne : > Yes. KDE asciiquarium (feel free to look at the copyright headers for > that in kdeartwork someday... ;) Errr... rather not. The author, *cough* who ever he might be *cough* has apparently so far not found the time to implement the resize

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-12 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 12 October 2011, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 08:26:20 Torgny Nyblom wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.54.42 Thomas Lübking wrote: > > > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200 > > > > > > schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > > > > Screensaver is bling only > > > > > >

Re: Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-12 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 04:47:54PM +0200, Dario Freddi wrote: > 2011/10/12 Martin Gräßlin : > > ok I have been thinking about it and have a new proposal: > > * writing a kded module to only handle the screen locking (grab keyboard and > > mouse) > > TBH, if you really care about not making the thi

Re: Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-12 Thread Dario Freddi
2011/10/12 Martin Gräßlin : > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 09:10:40 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >> > Of course KWin is a more complex application than others, but given >> > what we need in a screen locker the difference becomes marginal IMHO. >> >> yes. one should consider decoupling the greeter fro

Re: Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-12 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 09:10:40 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > Of course KWin is a more complex application than others, but given > > what we need in a screen locker the difference becomes marginal IMHO. > > yes. one should consider decoupling the greeter from the core engine. > > > > > I m

Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-12 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:30:40PM +0200, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 17:34:10 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > on a more serious note, [h]ow do you handle the lock grace time? > > this is actually not affected by the changes. Dim Display and turning off the > screen are decoup

Re: Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-12 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 08:26:20 Torgny Nyblom wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.54.42 Thomas Lübking wrote: > > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200 > > > > schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > > > Screensaver is bling only > > > > No, "screensaver hacks are bling only", a "screensaver" is a > > soft

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-11 Thread Torgny Nyblom
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.54.42 Thomas Lübking wrote: > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200 > > schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > > Screensaver is bling only > > No, "screensaver hacks are bling only", a "screensaver" is a > software relic. (Semantics) > The key aspect is "when and why is there eye-

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-11 Thread Torgny Nyblom
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 21.11.03 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20:12:39 Torgny Nyblom wrote: [...] > > But you also said that the screensaver without locking was going away in > > 4.9. This is what I'm against. > > As Thomas wrote you will always be able to run any animatio

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-11 Thread Michael Pyne
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 02:12:55 Thomas Lübking wrote: > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:47:52 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne : > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 20:54:42 Thomas Lübking wrote: > > > BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system > > > is idle is simply not a justifiabl

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-11 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:47:52 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne : > On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 20:54:42 Thomas Lübking wrote: > > BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system > > is idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore) > > With all due respect, and with full agreement that s

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-11 Thread Michael Pyne
On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 20:54:42 Thomas Lübking wrote: > BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is > idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore) With all due respect, and with full agreement that screen savers are not in general required to *protect the screen*... w

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:42:10 +0200 schrieb Ingo Klöcker : > Until recently I used to believe this. Unfortunately, it's not true. > At work we have several (well, at least two) TFTs which have the line > edit of the login screen burned in. It's clearly visible before a > dark gray mono-colored back

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 11 October 2011, todd rme wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 October 2011, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > >> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 16:06:11 Andras Mantia wrote: > >> > From here: > >> > "If KWin crashes without restarting privacy is leak

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Ingo Klöcker
On Tuesday 11 October 2011, Thomas Lübking wrote: > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200 > > schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a screensaver with > > password unlock? If so why is that not a vaild usecase? It's what I > > use at home all the time. > > "Why that

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread todd rme
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011, Martin Gräßlin wrote: >> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 16:06:11 Andras Mantia wrote: >> > From here: >> > "If KWin crashes without restarting privacy is leaked but the system is >> > hardly useable due to missing

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:06:13 +0200 schrieb Alexander Neundorf : > You can also switch to a text-mode console (Ctrl+F1 etc), set > DISPLAY, and start the window manager there. Errr... "no". In case there's an open VT and chvt is permitted, it's completely pointless to lock the screen, since the chv

Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 21:06:13 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 16:06:11 Andras Mantia wrote: > > > From here: > > > "If KWin crashes without restarting privacy is leaked but the system is > > > hardly useable due to m

Re: Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20:12:39 Torgny Nyblom wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 19.52.36 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 18:02:32 Torgny Nyblom wrote: > > > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.55.15 you wrote: > > > > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200 > > > > > > > > schrieb T

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 11 October 2011, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 16:06:11 Andras Mantia wrote: > > From here: > > "If KWin crashes without restarting privacy is leaked but the system is > > hardly useable due to missing window manager. This situation can savely > > be ignored as a cor

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-11 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200 schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > Screensaver is bling only No, "screensaver hacks are bling only", a "screensaver" is a software relic. The key aspect is "when and why is there eye-candy". You can still run all scsreensavers to look at them, they're just ordinary single

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-11 Thread Torgny Nyblom
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 19.52.36 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 18:02:32 Torgny Nyblom wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.55.15 you wrote: > > > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200 > > > > > > schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > > > > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 18:02:32 Torgny Nyblom wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.55.15 you wrote: > > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200 > > > > schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > > > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a screensaver with > > > password unlock? If so why is that not a vaild

Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

2011-10-11 Thread Torgny Nyblom
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.55.15 you wrote: > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200 > > schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a screensaver with > > password unlock? If so why is that not a vaild usecase? It's what I > > use at home all the time. > > "Why that?"

Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 17:34:10 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:55:15PM +0200, Thomas Lübking wrote: > > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200 schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > > > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a screensaver with > > > password unlock? If so why is tha

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:34:10 +0200 schrieb Oswald Buddenhagen : > "because it's pretty"? "Sink me, I say!" -- Blakeney, Wooster - and it's even a "poem" I however prefer to be present when the pretties show up (see att.) Cheers, Thomas matrix Description: Binary data

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Andras Mantia
On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 16:33:39 Thomas L�bking wrote: > Also it's not required to have the terminal on top of the stack - i've > always been very successful abusing MMB c&p to clickpaste me any > command i wanted ;-) Seems I'm not alone doing that. :) Andras

Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 17:47:13 you wrote: > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:00:46 +0200 > > schrieb Martin Gräßlin : > > that is a good suggestion. I will think about how I can add that. > > Though if someone breaks by crashing kwin he is also able to remove > > any log. So this could be just snakeoil.

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:00:46 +0200 schrieb Martin Gräßlin : > that is a good suggestion. I will think about how I can add that. > Though if someone breaks by crashing kwin he is also able to remove > any log. So this could be just snakeoil. He'll be able to click away the message, yes. But unless

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:55:15PM +0200, Thomas Lübking wrote: > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200 schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a screensaver with > > password unlock? If so why is that not a vaild usecase? It's what I > > use at home all the time. > >

Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 16:33:39 you wrote: > Once the screen locker crashes, security must be assumed > broken (if only by visual access). > Therefore the locker must not crash full ack, we have to be at 0 crashes in KWin (which has to be our goal for Wayland anyway ;-) > and if it does, re-es

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:00:17 +0200 schrieb Martin Gräßlin : > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 16:06:11 Andras Mantia wrote: > > This is not true, the system can be used without a window manager > > and if you happen to have a running terminal or start one, it is > > possible to start a new window manag

Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 16:06:11 Andras Mantia wrote: > From here: > "If KWin crashes without restarting privacy is leaked but the system is > hardly useable due to missing window manager. This situation can savely > be ignored as a corner case as KWin normaly restart." > > This is not true, th

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Thomas Lübking
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200 schrieb Torgny Nyblom : > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a screensaver with > password unlock? If so why is that not a vaild usecase? It's what I > use at home all the time. "Why that?" xdpms saves you power (and screen, if that would be any necessa

Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15:33:39 Torgny Nyblom wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 14.55.29 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > On Monday 10 October 2011 20:02:07 Parker Coates wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 14:02, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > > > I want to request a security audit for the changes to en

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Torgny Nyblom
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 14.55.29 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Monday 10 October 2011 20:02:07 Parker Coates wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 14:02, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > > I want to request a security audit for the changes to ensure that > > > the new implementation is as secure as the existi

Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Gräßlin
On Monday 10 October 2011 20:02:07 Parker Coates wrote: > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 14:02, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > I want to request a security audit for the changes to ensure that the new > > implementation is as secure as the existing one and that I did not forget > > an important case which would

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Andras Mantia
On Sunday, October 09, 2011 20:02:27 Martin Gr��lin wrote: > Hi all, > > as you might know we have been working on moving the screenlocker from > KRunner to KWin and passed the control to the compositor (iff > compositing is active) to ensure that nothing which should not be > shown gets visible.

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-11 Thread Parker Coates
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 14:02, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > I want to request a security audit for the changes to ensure that the new > implementation is as secure as the existing one and that I did not forget an > important case which would compromise the security. > > The general concept of the new scr

Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

2011-10-09 Thread Martin Gräßlin
Hi all, as you might know we have been working on moving the screenlocker from KRunner to KWin and passed the control to the compositor (iff compositing is active) to ensure that nothing which should not be shown gets visible. I want to request a security audit for the changes to ensure that th