lock screen "bug"
-
Hi all
I managed to activate the screen of my FP4 in my pocket and have it do a few pin entries. The phone locked up displaying a password entry field. Is that supposed to be a different password from the pin I use to normally access the phone?
I entered the pin and was greeted with a message about too many attempts and the phone locking for 5 minutes. I pulled the battery, rebooted, and got in with my pin normally.
I then rebooted the phone due to bluetooth not working properly, and was greeted with the "too many login attempts" message again and had to wait out the last minute of the 5 minute timeout. That seems a bit out of order?p.s.(a) for any FP4 owner: when pulling the battery make sure your micro-sd didn't come loose... re-seating the battery is a perfect way to guillotine your sd card... ask me how I found out
-
This is a new behavior, when there is 5 failed attempts of login via pincode then a passphrase is shown ( but you can enter digits there). This was to cover the case of someone changing the password via command line and stuck if not the same number of digits or changed to a passphrase.
I think the Greeter cover seems easy to unlock in the pocket, probably due to the launcher still being active.
idk if its a good idea that the launcher is active when phone is locked -
@lduboeuf Launcher and top panels can both be disabled in the lockscreen. I think this issue originated from the common issue of the screen waking up even while in a pocket.
-
@kugiigi
correct, the pin entry does not need any confirmation after enough digits are entered. So once the screen is on any random touches on the numpad will lead to a string of login attempts.@lduboeuf
I have both the greeter and the launcher disabled. it's possible that I failed to enter the pin on the full keyboard as I was a bit rushed.
In any case, given that the bootloader needs to stay unlocked and UT not does support encrypting the home partition(?), I don't think the possible limit bypass by pulling the battery is a large security issue, but it was also not the expected behaviour
