Bug 62086

Summary:	screen does not use the users password for locking
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Public Beta	Reporter:	David Balažic <david.balazic>
Component:	screen	Assignee:	Phil Copeland <copeland>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Brock Organ <borgan>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	skipjack-beta1
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i386
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2002-04-02 17:46:14 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	61901

Description David Balažic 2002-03-27 10:16:41 UTC

Description of Problem:

When I lock screen ( ctrl-a ctrl-x ) it ask me for a key ( password )instead of 
using my system password, like it did in previous versions ).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

screen-3.9.11-1

How Reproducible:

always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. start screen
2. lock it ( ctrl-a ctrla-x )
3. 

Actual Results:

It asks for a key and then locks the screen until one enters the key again.

Expected Results:

It should lock the screen and unlock it when the users system password is 
entered.

Additional Information:
	
Bug #9463 looks similar.

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2002-03-27 21:11:25 UTC

Bryce, is this fixed with the 'new' version in the tree now?

Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2002-04-02 17:46:08 UTC

Apparently it is not fixed with 3.9.10-1.

Comment 3 Phil Copeland 2002-04-15 19:15:52 UTC

pam support added into 3.9.11-2 
BIG NOTE: pam support needs a /etc/pam.d/screen file without which it will
default to /etc/pam.d/other which typically deny's everything so you'd lock a
screen and never be able to unlock it 8)
but I've included one in the rpm dist that gets installed.

Phil
=--=

Comment 4 David Balažic 2002-04-16 07:40:15 UTC

What is this jumping from 3.9.10 to 3.9.11 then back to 3.9.10 and now again to 
3.9.11 ?

Will 3.9.11 be released in the next RHL ?

Comment 5 Phil Copeland 2002-04-16 08:29:16 UTC

the 3.9.11 that originally appeared was not sanctioned by me. it was a poorly
cobbled together rpm by one of the german team who overstepped his mark and
broke numerous features.

This one is as should be.