Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
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
Re: [dev] Distribution
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:50:29PM -0600, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Samuel Baldwin > wrote: > > Extremely valid point. Are there any distros, gentoo or not, that > > don't use gcc in favour of something a little saner, though? Obviously > > Plan 9 doesn't count. > > I think the FreeBSD guys are working on a version built with clang. I > don't think the linux kernel can be compiled with anything but gcc. OpenBSD is switching to pcc, or it appears very likely that it will sometime in the future. http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20091228231142
Re: [dev] [OT] Distribution
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:56:56PM +0300, anonymous wrote: >> Why not Slackware? >> > > Why not suse? > > that's yasty -- # Kurt H Maier
Re: [dev] [OT] Distribution
good one, definitely worth this thread :D On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Samuel Baldwin wrote: > 2010/1/19 Antoni Grzymala : >> Why not feed trolls? > > Have you ever been near a troll when it's passed gas? Probably not, > otherwise you'd probably be in the hospital. > > -- > Samuel Baldwin - logik.li > >
Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
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 with Internet Explorer installed, but also over all Macs!" Since Internet Explorer is an integral compnent of any Pc security advisors currently recommend using GNU/Linux for a safe alternative. But unidentified hackers directly denied that security claim and although mostly used by hackers themselves they said it was prone to the "same kind of attacks". 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 whole IT world. (kkk)
Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
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 > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > > > > > Just checked: I was always using exec in xinitrc. And I can still > > > > > killall slock. > > > > > > > > I'm also using exec dwm in xinitrc, as are most people that use startx > > > > or xinit. > > > > > > > > That doesn't solve anything. > > > > > > Huh? What is the issue then? The original mail stated the problem is > > > putting > > > the shell into background by ctrl-z and then killing slock which clearly > > > doesn't work if you exec into startx. > > > > Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or not > > using exec in xinitrc/xsession! > > So what else is it? Being able to switch to the console is no security issue. > Being able to interact with a shell where there shouldn't be one, is. Hehe, Meilos post just made me aware of the clever sentence you made here, I assumed your english just sucks and interpreted it obviously wrong. Really a nice sentence and yeah I just realized that in 20100118185636.gc6...@ngolde.de I was saying exec dwm instead of exec startx, grr :) Ofc it is about execing into startx... Cheers Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - n...@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0xA0A0 For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgpGGtd0ItvTs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
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] [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 +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 > > > > shell) and type "killall slock" to unlock the session... > > > > > > Same thing with every other screen locker. The only "solution" is to > > > remove the ChangeVT* mappings from the xmodmap. > > > > > > > Not really, simply using 'startx & exit' instead of plain 'startx' is > > sufficient. > > 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?! errm not exec dwm but startx, yeah sorry... here is what i use actually in my zshrc: if [ "$(tty)" = "/dev/tty1" ]; then exec startx fi Cheers Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - n...@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0xA0A0 For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgpDLaGPFjgW2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [OT] Distribution
2010/1/19 Antoni Grzymala : > Why not feed trolls? Have you ever been near a troll when it's passed gas? Probably not, otherwise you'd probably be in the hospital. -- Samuel Baldwin - logik.li
Re: [dev] [OT] Distribution
Moritz Wilhelmy dixit (2010-01-19, 22:46): > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:56:56PM +0300, anonymous wrote: > > Why not Slackware? > > Why not suse? Why not feed trolls? -- [a]
Re: [dev] [OT] Distribution
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:56:56PM +0300, anonymous wrote: > Why not Slackware? > Why not suse?
Re: [dev] Distribution
Why not Slackware?
Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
[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
Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
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 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. > > > > > > > > Just checked: I was always using exec in xinitrc. And I can still > > > > killall slock. > > > > > > I'm also using exec dwm in xinitrc, as are most people that use startx or > > > xinit. > > > > > > That doesn't solve anything. > > > > Huh? What is the issue then? The original mail stated the problem is > > putting > > the shell into background by ctrl-z and then killing slock which clearly > > doesn't work if you exec into startx. > > Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or not > using exec in xinitrc/xsession! So what else is it? Being able to switch to the console is no security issue. Being able to interact with a shell where there shouldn't be one, is. Cheers Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - n...@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0xA0A0 For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgpxBCnihKSSJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
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?
Re: [dev] Distribution
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:34:47PM -0500, Samuel Baldwin wrote: > 2010/1/18 Jacob Todd : > > "I heard they made a sport out of gcc, it's called gentoo or something" > > -Uriel > > > > I use Gentoo and Plan 9. > > Has anyone made gentoo work with anything besides gcc, like pcc or tcc? > > -- > Samuel Baldwin - logik.li > I used to have a chroot of funtoo that used clang. I didn't try building X with it, but most things compiled fine. I think coreutils and svn were some of the things that didn't compile, but nothing of value was lost ;). I'll have to try it out again one day. -- Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. pgpBEaKtxGTo2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] Distribution
i use tiny core linux, it's definitely worth trying out!
Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
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]: > > 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/dwm. > > > > > > Just checked: I was always using exec in xinitrc. And I can still > > > killall slock. > > > > I'm also using exec dwm in xinitrc, as are most people that use startx or > > xinit. > > > > That doesn't solve anything. > > Huh? What is the issue then? The original mail stated the problem is putting > the shell into background by ctrl-z and then killing slock which clearly > doesn't work if you exec into startx. > > Cheers > Nico Problem here is not using exec startx or startx & exit, not using or not using exec in xinitrc/xsession! -Ph -- Premysl "Anydot" Hruby, https://www.redrum.cz/ - I'm a signature virus. Please add me to your signature and help me spread!
Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
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 exec /usr/bin/dwm in ~/.xinitrc rather than > >> /usr/bin/dwm. > > > > Just checked: I was always using exec in xinitrc. And I can still > > killall slock. > > I'm also using exec dwm in xinitrc, as are most people that use startx or > xinit. > > That doesn't solve anything. Huh? What is the issue then? The original mail stated the problem is putting the shell into background by ctrl-z and then killing slock which clearly doesn't work if you exec into startx. Cheers Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - n...@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0xA0A0 For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgpP1wNUD7XPK.pgp Description: PGP signature
