Bug#564079: Is this really a screensaver issue?

[Bastian Blank]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 02:15:13PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 26 janvier 2010 à 12:00 +0100, Bastian Blank a écrit :
> > The OOM killer can always be forced with normal processes as long as
> > over-commitment is enabled. So it is never save to add security measures
> > within processes that can be killed seperately.
> Do you also have any ideas of what screensavers should do to be secure
> wrt. the OOM killer and similar attack vectors?

Move the locking themself into the X server and export the controls as
extension. If the control process dies, the screen remains locked and
can only be unlocked by a authenticated X connection.

Bastian

-- 
Beam me up, Scotty!  It ate my phaser!