I have an older Intel laptop that has a 1600x900 display, and I find that if I put the machine to sleep, connect an external monitor with a higher resolution, and then turn it back on, the login screen doesn’t adjust to the new resolution and it reveals what I had open (see photo).

However, I’m not that familiar with Linux Mint (even though I’ve daily driven Linux for nearly 10 years, I very casually use LMDE) and I’m not sure if this is a Cinnamon problem or if the lock screen is under a different program.

Looking at Linux Mint’s webpage on reporting a bug (https://projects.linuxmint.com/reporting-an-issue.html) they seem to mostly use Cinnamon as an example, but I don’t want to report this issue as a Cinnamon issue if it’s the wrong project.

In case this is platform specific, my device’s details are below:

  • Host: Dell Latitude E6420
  • CPU: Intel Core i7-2630QM (Sandy Bridge)
  • GPU: Intel 2nd Generation Core Processor Family
  • Kernel: 6.1.0-21-amd64
  • DE: Cinnamon 6.0.4
  • WM: Mutter (Muffin)
  • Display Server: X11

I’ve never filed a bug report in my life before, usually I just put up with the issue until it’s eventually fixed, but I feel this is a moderate security issue that should be flagged.

  • lemmyreader@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

    Yes, go ahead and file the bug. And as others mentioned already, the custom screensaver modifications of XScreensaver like for LM may have bugs. The author of XScreensaver has been complaining about this several times.

    The bug you found looks similar to this one :

    Unlocking a machine locked with Xfce’s screensaver xfce4-screensaver has long been a simple matter of turning two monitors on at the exact same time. That makes Xfce4-screensaver versions prior to 0.1.9 segfault and crash - leaving the machine unlocked. This very unfortunate Xfce bug #16102 has been open since October 29th 2019 and we have pointed fingers at it several times before. Xfce developer Sean Davis has finally closed this gaping security hole. He explained that the embarrassingly long delay before this security vulnerability was addressed was due to “real life conflicts” in a brief comment on March 22nd. He did not elaborate and we did not ask for further details since it is likely none of our business.