Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

[Torgny Nyblom]

On Tuesday 11 October 2011 14.55.29 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Monday 10 October 2011 20:02:07 Parker Coates wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 14:02, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > I want to request a security audit for the changes to ensure that
> > > the new implementation is as secure as the existing one and that I
> > > did not forget an important case which would compromise the
> > > security.
> > > 
> > > The general concept of the new screenlocker is described in the
> > > wiki:
> > > http://community.kde.org/KWin/Screenlocker
> > > 
> > >> Screensavers without Locking
> > >> No valid use case: should no longer be supported.
> > 
> > Could you elaborate on this part? What is meant by "screensavers
> > without locking"?
> 
> Just running the screen saver animation without locking the screen. That is
> moving the mouse deactivates the screensaver without asking for a password.

Does this mean that I will be focred to use a screensaver with password 
unlock? If so why is that not a vaild usecase? It's what I use at home all the 
time.

/Regards
Torgny
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20111011/635c2250/attachment.sig>