Bug 62086 - screen does not use the users password for locking
Summary: screen does not use the users password for locking
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Public Beta
Classification: Retired
Component: screen
Version: skipjack-beta1
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Phil Copeland
QA Contact: Brock Organ
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 61901
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2002-03-27 10:16 UTC by David Balažic
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:41 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2002-04-02 17:46:14 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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.


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