Bug 19958 - xscreensaver won't unlock on root password
Summary: xscreensaver won't unlock on root password
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: xscreensaver   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 6.1
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Bill Nottingham
QA Contact:
: 76969 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2000-10-28 17:44 UTC by Kevin Range
Modified: 2014-03-17 02:17 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2000-10-28 17:44:13 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Kevin Range 2000-10-28 17:44:10 UTC
In the xscreensaver man page it says:

Enable  locking:  before the screensaver will turn
               off, it will require you to type the  password  of
               the  logged-in  user  (really,  the person who ran
               xscreensaver), or the root password.

When a user is logged in and locks the screen (or it locks automatically
after the time out), they can enter their password and unlock with no
problem.  But if I try to unlock their screen with the root password it
doesn't work.  So then I have to log in and kill xscreensaver to unlock the

This isn't a super-big deal, but I imagine in a public lab, this could be a
pain (users leave the screen locked for the afternoon and the sysadmin has
to go around killing xscreensavers...)


Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2000-10-31 23:48:10 UTC
This is a consequence of the screensaver not being
setuid root, and the use of shadow passwords.

Comment 2 Kevin Range 2000-11-06 22:37:13 UTC
So, not to waste any more of your time, I can understand how shadow passwords
and non-setuid root xscreensaver would cause this problem.  But how does one
solve it?  Make xscreensaver setuid root?  Or does that create other problems?

Thanks for you time.

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2002-10-31 03:32:02 UTC
*** Bug 76969 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.