On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Concise: Because not all systems have PAM, and some of those lack standard
getpw* interface to get the encrypted password. Heck, in some there IS no
password.
Detailed: Kerberos and ssh-keys are two such examples. I am sure there's at
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:08:50PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
But you've stated that with pam in the mix and a "null" password,
you basically get it accepting any password. So you too, are an
audience for the "keep this password in .screen
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:08:50PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> But you've stated that with pam in the mix and a "null" password,
> you basically get it accepting any password. So you too, are an
> audience for the "keep this password in .screenrc and be done with
> it" :)
Nope. The
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:04:25PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
It asks for *both* the login password and the screen session
password.
Yes, and the point is: I don't have a login password, so upon
"locking" I am given the opportunity to cre
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:04:25PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>> It asks for *both* the login password and the screen session
>> password.
>
> Yes, and the point is: I don't have a login password, so upon
> "locking" I am given the opportunity to create one, which has no
> persistent f
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Sadly, even though I am root on the systems involved -- the tweak we
really need here is extending screen's builtin lock to support the
password stored in .screenrc
Clearly I d
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You could differentiate between "idle" locks and explicit locks by
>> having "idle" give the lock program a special arg or something.
>
> Really? How? Will idle accept full-on commands, or just "screen"
> commands?
It accepts screen com
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Micah Cowan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
hey, is there a way to customize the message displayed on the "lock",
for example:
Whether it was locked by time, or idle?
What time it was locked?
What HOST it's running on?
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>>> Sadly, even though I am root on the systems involved -- the tweak we
>>> really need here is extending screen's builtin lock to support the
>>> password stored in .screenrc
>>
>> Clearly I don't know what you're talking
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The question comes up: "if I can get at your uid, why do I need your
screen?"
In order to observe the output when I run "gpg -d" on an encrypted,
confidential file. Simply having my login passw
"Dan Mahoney, System Admin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question comes up: "if I can get at your uid, why do I need your
> screen?"
In order to observe the output when I run "gpg -d" on an encrypted,
confidential file. Simply having my login password would not grant
access to GPG encrypted
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I support extending screen's builtin lock to support PAM.
+1. I wondered if that was the problem all along.
___
screen-users mailing list
screen-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/screen-user
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pia Mikeal wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am not sure if this is a bug in screen or something else, but
> screen seems to be a package I can take out of the equation and the
> problem goes away. Here is my issue, at the commandline, my virtual
> termi
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Micah Cowan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
According to the manpage, screen calls /bin/lock or wha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
>
>> Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
According to the manpage, screen calls /bin/lock or whatnot -- there's
no way t
Greetings,
I am not sure if this is a bug in screen or something else, but
screen seems to be a package I can take out of the equation and the
problem goes away. Here is my issue, at the commandline, my virtual
terminal prints odd diamond shaped characters to the screen when hitting
tab or
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
According to the manpage, screen calls /bin/lock or whatnot -- there's
no way through .screenrc to change this (why?)...and yet the output of a
locked screen looks significantly
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:48:15AM -0800, Micah Cowan wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Trent W. Buck wrote:
> > Are there any lurkers on the list that would care to chime in with
> > useful examples on how they use LOCKPRG?
> >
> > A while back, what I wanted was the a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Trent W. Buck wrote:
> Are there any lurkers on the list that would care to chime in with
> useful examples on how they use LOCKPRG?
>
> A while back, what I wanted was the ability to blank the screen after
> two minutes of inactivity, and then *lock*
Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>> According to the manpage, screen calls /bin/lock or whatnot -- there's
>> no way through .screenrc to change this (why?)...and yet the output of a
>> locked screen looks significantly different from when I use lock alone
20 matches
Mail list logo
