fast user switching glitch?

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
I have fast user switching enabled on my iBook. I also have it set in each account to require the password to unlock the computer on wake up from sleep or the screen saver.



Now, If I am in my account, and close the iBook, the computer goes to sleep. My girlfriend then wakes up the computer (opens it) and clicks on "switch user" which takes her to the login screen where she goes into her account.



At a later time, I go to go back into my account. From the login screen, I click on my username and enter my password. Now here is the problem. I am now presented with the screen saver and the little box on the screen where my girlfriend had clicked "switch user". Here I have to enter my password AGAIN!!



Can others confirm this behavior? Maybe something is strange on my iBook as I truly can not believe that this kind of crap has survived, 10.3.0, 10.3.1, 10.3.2, 10.3.3, and 10.3.4 !! Windows does fast user switching better than this!! I suppose if this does exist on more than my computer, we should let Apple know.



cheers

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rrabu

    I have fast user switching enabled on my iBook. I also have it set in each account to require the password to unlock the computer on wake up from sleep or the screen saver.



    Now, If I am in my account, and close the iBook, the computer goes to sleep. My girlfriend then wakes up the computer (opens it) and clicks on "switch user" which takes her to the login screen where she goes into her account.



    At a later time, I go to go back into my account. From the login screen, I click on my username and enter my password. Now here is the problem. I am now presented with the screen saver and the little box on the screen where my girlfriend had clicked "switch user". Here I have to enter my password AGAIN!!



    Can others confirm this behavior? Maybe something is strange on my iBook as I truly can not believe that this kind of crap has survived, 10.3.0, 10.3.1, 10.3.2, 10.3.3, and 10.3.4 !! Windows does fast user switching better than this!! I suppose if this does exist on more than my computer, we should let Apple know.



    cheers




    If I was writing the software to do the fast user switching, this is precisely the behaviour I would aim for.



    The point of fast user switching is to leave everything the way it is, and let someone else use the computer. Then, when you come back to it, everything is left exactly as you left it, (unless the programs open at the time were "automatic" then things may be different).



    The point is, the screen-saver was not exited, so there's no real reason for you to log back in and have the screen-saver gone. It could be a security risk at that moment between when the screen-saver exits, and then fast user switching kicks in...



    My $0.02. m.
  • Reply 2 of 9
    rraburrabu Posts: 239member
    I respectfully disagree. If I just logged back in, then under no circumstance am I doing so just to check up on my screensaver. There is absolutely no security risk. It should be set such that teh login window can disable the screensaver. Furthermore, it can do this in a very clean fashion. It has just received the user's credentials and could pass this on to the screensaver in the user's account (if running and locked) so that the user logging back in is back to exactly the point they were at before the screen saver kicked in.



    Has anybody else out there found the double login bug annoying? Or does nobody really use fast user switching much?
  • Reply 3 of 9
    For your uses, I would say that a full logout would be better anyway, FUS is not meant for that kind of use, it is intended as a resource for quick tasks, for example, you are working on a photoshop project and your girl friend wants to check her mail.



    the way you use it, and this would be true in any multi-user unix or winblows envionment, could leat to software instability (Example: both accounts are running itunes, mail.app, or photoshop this could lead to crashes and conflicts) and it also wastes double the resources.



    and as for the "glitch" I would much rather a glitch that requiers my password twice than a glitch that doesnt requier it at all.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    The screen saver should definitely ask for the password. Passing the username and password to a second application in and of itself is a security risk.
  • Reply 5 of 9
    fulmerfulmer Posts: 171member
    This is the exact same thing that happens to me when I'm on my G5. I think that's the way it's designed...
  • Reply 6 of 9
    Does accessing the screensaver automatically lock your keychain? And even if so, the login window could unlock it (if you have it set up that way) and then the screensaver should see that and use the freshly unlocked keychain.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    vox barbaravox barbara Posts: 2,021member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by apple_a_day

    For your uses, I would say that a full logout would be better anyway, FUS is not meant for that kind of use, it is intended as a resource for quick tasks, for example, you are working on a photoshop project and your girl friend wants to check her mail.



    That would explain a lot of nasty things occasionaly happen on my PB. The, well, problem i encounter is when different users - all logged in - share one partition on one and the same HD. That seems to confuse the entire system, especially when they share the same iTunes library - ever heard about SecurityAgent crashing?



    Btw, ...er... how do you know he/she uses his/her computer? He /She just described basic FUS, hm?



    Quote:

    the way you use it, and this would be true in any multi-user unix or winblows envionment, could lead to software instability (Example: both accounts are running itunes, mail.app, or photoshop this could lead to crashes and conflicts) and it also wastes double the resources...



    Well, i second that, though ...
  • Reply 8 of 9
    talksense101talksense101 Posts: 1,737member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rrabu

    It has just received the user's credentials and could pass this on to the screensaver in the user's account (if running and locked) so that the user logging back in is back to exactly the point they were at before the screen saver kicked in.



    Screensavers can be developed by anyone. It is easier to write a trojan horse or malware if this was allowed.
  • Reply 9 of 9
    rraburrabu Posts: 239member
    To clear up some stuff:



    1. I use FUS because I like to keep project builder, my terminal windows, and documentation windows, etc up and ready for me to return to when my girlfriend is done checking her email and web browsing. I never asked for an evaluation of my FUS usage, thank you.



    2. Screen savers can be written by anyone. However I don't believe they have access to the credentials that the locked screen has. That little window that asks you to unlock your screen can not be modified. It is Apple's software regardless of what screensaver is running behind it. I don't think there is any security risk with this no longer being active and locked when somebody switches back to their account.



    3. Probably the best solution would be to have a setting such that the computer automatically goes back to the login window when it is put to sleep. From there, I can go back to my account. Similarly, we could have it go back to the login window instead of going to screen saver. After all, I'm only using the screen saver to lock my screen. Apple already has an option to logout an account after a period of inactivity. However this is NOT what I want as this would kill all my programs. I just want it to switch out instead.



    4. Thank you, fulmar. You are the only one that answered the original question. Glad to know it isn't something glitchy on my computer. Mind you more reports would verify that it is nothing glitchy on both our computers.



    As for FUS adding instability to the system. I personally don't believe that. Even withough FUS enabled, you have processes running with different credentials (some by root, some by your account, etc.). Any major production system usually has different tasks run by different users. For example, the oracle account on any Unix of Windows Server box. The only real difference is in properly shifting resources from some processes and onto others (screen, audio subsystem). If there is instability with FUS, I would say that this is mostly due to how new Apple's implementation is. I won't bother getting in to how ridiculous it is that some apps can only have 1 instance total running...
Sign In or Register to comment.