4 ms·
I wouldn’t say that screens (protocol term) in X11 are totally useless. In fact, this is how I would implement a more secure screensaver (this would require coo
by WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
I wouldn’t say that screens (protocol term) in X11 are totally useless. In fact, this is how I would implement a more secure screensaver (this would require cooperation from the server, though): the screensaver client somehow securely authenticates to the server so it’s entitled to be the screen locking/unlocking process. It’s hosted on a separate X11 screen. When there’s a command to lock the machine, the server switches to that screen. Upon unlock, the server returns to the default screen.
Now if you kill the screensaver, or it segfaults because you hit a lot of keys, or a butterfly causes an EMI disturbance and the screensaver dies, you are left with an empty screen and not with your work exposed like in the current scheme of things.
- kevincox 4y agoIIUC this is more or less how the secure screen lockers work. GNOME will switch to the Display Manager (GDM) screen and ask it to validate the user's credentials before switching back to the session screen. If GDM crashes there is nothing to see and it is restarted.