Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 19:12:56 -0400 (EDT) From: CyberPeasant <djv@bedford.net> To: cdlevin@dialisdn.com Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: can saver modules lock the machine ? Message-ID: <199805242312.TAA04401@lucy.bedford.net> In-Reply-To: <199805241951.PAA05688@dania.dialisdn.com> from "cdlevin@dialisdn.com" at "May 24, 98 03:51:52 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
cdlevin@dialisdn.com wrote:
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> Hi, I am pretty new to freeBSD, but have an interesting
> question or two. Firstly, I have apps that must run 24/7,
> even when I'm not around. I'd like to be able to secure
> these apps, but running an ordinary lock program isn't
> really feasible. BSD has some wonderful screen savers
> that come up at intervals set by the install program.
> I was wondering, since they are controlled by modules,
> if it would be possible to have one of these modules,
> or possibly all, have a feature enabling a lock function
> for all vtys. In other words, after x amount of inactivity,
Under the X Window System, this program is called "xscreensaver".
Such programs don't need to be part of the kernel, actually.
A privileged daemon is all that's needed.
> cause the computer to enable the saver, and lock the computer so that a key
> press of any type will give a password prompt instead of
> simply allowing a user, or anyone else for that matter,
> to reaccess the system. I was also looking at console.h
> in the kernel source, and it might be possible to do
> something of this sort from there, although the modules
> do offer more flexibility.
I hope I don't come on like a wise guy, but the name of
the program that locks the console is "login".
The problem seems to be to get your apps away from the console.
If they don't need the console, (why would they if they run unattended),
they should be made to run in the background, or even as daemons.
These can't be interfered with except by root or the owning
user. This is one of the benefits of a real multitasking/multi-user
OS, of course. The ability to interfere with another user's
process is called a "security hole".
The simplest way to get a task away from the console is to
run it with "nohup" (means "no hangup", i.e. the job so run is
immune from the 'hangup' that occurs when you logoff the
console. -- it will run happily. man nohup for more info.
So if you've got some job that needs to run for a few days
you can do it this way:
nohup bigjob <bigjob.input >bigjob.output 2>bigjob.errors &
and log out. (Note this is Bourne shell syntax. For csh syntax, see the
csh man page.) There are other ways to skin this cat, too.
> BTW - are there any plans for a VGA_100x37 terminal ?
> It's a nice mode, and works well with most VGA cards,
> without any special timings, etc. Ok, thanx for reading
> this, and we'll ttyl.
I'll cast a vote for such modes, too. It's the wide use of X that
has stifled the "text" console features.
> Curtis D. Levin
> cdlevin@dialisdn.com
Dave
--
Is the true purpose of Unix its use, or its administration?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805242312.TAA04401>