Mailing List Archive

Re: SSH & xauth (fwd)
YO All!

Have you guys been following the SSH discussion on Bugtraq lately?

I like their idea the X forwarding should be OFF by default on the
client.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:52:15 -0500
From: Robert Watson <robert@cyrus.watson.org>
Reply-To: Robert Watson <robert+sec@cyrus.watson.org>
To: BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS.COM
Subject: Re: SSH & xauth

This is a very round-about way of observing that allowing X11 forwarding
from a client to any untrusted server (by any means -- sshd, xauth, common
accounts, poor file permissions, compromised kernel, etc, etc) with the
current SSH clients results in security problems (which you observe).

What's more curious is that in OpenSSH, which I observed some time ago,
the default configuration is to enable X11 forwarding in the client and
disable it in the server. This is, of course, backwards, as the client is
the one accepting risk by forwarding X11, not the server. :-)

If you search back a few years in the bugtraq archives, you'll see that
one suggestion for dealing with this, and still allowing X11 forwarding
from untrusted clients, is to use the Xnest server, limiting access by the
ssh client to that DISPLAY. As I observed at the time, Xnest was probably
not designed with this use in mind, and as such is probably ``breakable,''
meaning that a pursuaded party might be able to gain access to the proper
display through exploiting weaknesses in the Xnest server. I have not
audited the Xnest code to verify that this is or is not the case.

I believe at the time, Alan Cox responded with information about using the
Broadway extensions to limit access by specific applications to other X11
applications, the X event queue, etc. These messages were circa 1997, and
should appear in bugtraq archives.

Presumably the correct configuration is for clients to disable X11 by
default, and only have it enabled specifically by the user via appropriate
flags to ssh, or via the config file. You could imagine a more
comprehensive interface to new host key adoption that also inquired as to
a trust level for X11 forwarding using Broadway, etc. In this manner, the
user could specify ``limited'' access that would be sandboxed, not
allowing access to screen data, X event queue access, etc, ``full,'' or
``none.'' With a little imagination, you could even imagine it spawning
an Xnest to generate a sandbox for remote access.

I would conclude by observing that this is *very* old news--the only new
news is that it has not yet been ``fixed.'' Of course, there's a decent
argument that many consumers of SSH are the kind of people who also
blindly accept new hostkeys without verifying fingerprints or using a PKI,
so this kind of default won't help them at all, just causing frustration.
:-)

If you want another puzzling OpenSSH tidbit, it's that the CheckIP option
is enabled by default in the base implementation. It has recently been
turned off in the FreeBSD version for the following reason (which was
rejected by OpenSSH developers shortly after OpenSSH was released).

The CheckHostIP feature introduces automatic modification of the known
hosts key file to include the IP address of the host after connecting by
name. This option introduces unnecessary modifications of keying material
entries, and can cause spurious keying errors following IP address
changes, especially in a dynamic DNS/IP allocation environment. When a
user requests a connection by-name, the key storage should be by-name, as
SSH is not aware of whether or not the name/key binding is persistent.
Presumably, just as the user is responsible for performing by-name key
verification and management, the user should also be responsible for
managing by-number key verification and management.

This also causes management problems for hosts employing centralized
ssh_known_hosts entries--SSH replicates the key from the central file into
the user's personal key file using the IP address to index the key. If
the IP of the host is a variable IP, putting the IP into the centralized
file makes no sense, but SSH will take the liberty of replicating the
keying material unnecessarily. If a host key now changes, and the
centralized file is updated to reflect it, SSH will now generate warnings
as its spuriously replicated key no longer matches up.

You can even imagine DNS-based spoofing causing some problems, if combined
with IP spoofing, as ssh-by-ip to a spoofed host would not generate an
unknown key warning, instead, it would connect with full trust. This
attack is a little of a stretch on convenience for the attacker, but is
feasible. The end conclusion is really that key introduction for key
indexes (names, IPs) should only occur when specifically authorized by the
user and following a fingerprint display, never automatically.

Robert N M Watson

robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/
PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37 ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1
TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services


On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Brian Caswell wrote:

> The default SSH configuration for SSH1 and SSH2 allow for remote
> controlling of X sessions through X forwarding.
>
> All children of the SSH connection are able to tunnel X11 sessions
> through the X tunnel to the client X11 session. This is accomplished
> by running xauth upon logging in.
>
> If xauth is replaced on the server by a malicious program that does
> both of the following:
> - runs xauth, adding in the "correct" information allowing the
> children of the session to tunnel X11 programs through the SSH
> session
> - runs xauth, adding in the "malicious" information, allowing a
> malicious source to tunnel X11 programs through the SSH session.
>
> With the added data in .Xauthority, a malicious source can fully control
> the client X session. The malicious source can then do most anything to
> the X session, from logging keystrokes of the X session, to taking
> screen captures, to typing in commands to open terminals.
>
> The only thing that is required for the client system to be compromised
> is for the client to remotely log via ssh (with X11 forwarding enabled)
> into a compromised server.
>
> Allowing X forwarding seems to be turned on by default in SSH1, SSH2,
> and OpenSSH.
>
> To fix this "issue" add the following lines to the SSH client
> configuration. ($HOME/.ssh/config or ssh_config)
>
>
> Host *
> ForwardX11 no
>
>
> Discussions of security flaws within X11 have been going on for years.
> The "issue" in SSH X11 forwarding is not new. SSH has added to the
> security of X11, but by no means does the use of SSH secure X11.
>
> --
> Brian Caswell <cazz@ruff.cs.jmu.edu>
> If I could load the world into vi, the first command I would use is:
> %s/Windows NT//gi
Re: SSH & xauth (fwd) [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Gary E. Miller wrote:

> YO All!
>
> Have you guys been following the SSH discussion on Bugtraq lately?
>
> I like their idea the X forwarding should be OFF by default on the
> client.

In the default config which ships with 1.2.2 it is.

-d

--
| "Bombay is 250ms from New York in the new world order" - Alan Cox
| Damien Miller - http://www.mindrot.org/
| Email: djm@mindrot.org (home) -or- djm@ibs.com.au (work)
Re: SSH & xauth (fwd) [ In reply to ]
I have a suggestion that I think would be useful to implement.
People who have seen the Firewall Toolkit's X proxy will find this
suggestion familiar. The fwtk provides a small proxy that users set their
DISPLAY to. Whenever a new connection is initiated to that proxy, the
proxy pops-up a dialog box on the user's real DISPLAY. The user must
agree to accept that incoming connection before the proxy will forward the
data from it.

The ssh client could be made to, whenever an X tunnel was opened, run an
external dialog program, before the client would accept the tunnel.
Depending on the exit status of that program, the connection would either
be allowed on rejected. Presumably this functionality would be optional
(but perhaps enabled by default).

Of course there is a tendancy for users to treat dialog boxes as a reflex
test and to click them without reading them. However, this mechanism does
provide a way for cautious users to enable X forwarding without blindly
allowing all X clients to connect.

Comments, ambitious coders?

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Gary E. Miller wrote:

> Have you guys been following the SSH discussion on Bugtraq lately?
>
> I like their idea the X forwarding should be OFF by default on the
> client.
>
> RGDS
> GARY
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
> gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:52:15 -0500
> From: Robert Watson <robert@cyrus.watson.org>
> Reply-To: Robert Watson <robert+sec@cyrus.watson.org>
> To: BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS.COM
> Subject: Re: SSH & xauth
>
> This is a very round-about way of observing that allowing X11 forwarding
> from a client to any untrusted server (by any means -- sshd, xauth, common
> accounts, poor file permissions, compromised kernel, etc, etc) with the
> current SSH clients results in security problems (which you observe).
>
> What's more curious is that in OpenSSH, which I observed some time ago,
> the default configuration is to enable X11 forwarding in the client and
> disable it in the server. This is, of course, backwards, as the client is
> the one accepting risk by forwarding X11, not the server. :-)
>
> If you search back a few years in the bugtraq archives, you'll see that
> one suggestion for dealing with this, and still allowing X11 forwarding
> from untrusted clients, is to use the Xnest server, limiting access by the
> ssh client to that DISPLAY. As I observed at the time, Xnest was probably
> not designed with this use in mind, and as such is probably ``breakable,''
> meaning that a pursuaded party might be able to gain access to the proper
> display through exploiting weaknesses in the Xnest server. I have not
> audited the Xnest code to verify that this is or is not the case.
>
> I believe at the time, Alan Cox responded with information about using the
> Broadway extensions to limit access by specific applications to other X11
> applications, the X event queue, etc. These messages were circa 1997, and
> should appear in bugtraq archives.
>
> Presumably the correct configuration is for clients to disable X11 by
> default, and only have it enabled specifically by the user via appropriate
> flags to ssh, or via the config file. You could imagine a more
> comprehensive interface to new host key adoption that also inquired as to
> a trust level for X11 forwarding using Broadway, etc. In this manner, the
> user could specify ``limited'' access that would be sandboxed, not
> allowing access to screen data, X event queue access, etc, ``full,'' or
> ``none.'' With a little imagination, you could even imagine it spawning
> an Xnest to generate a sandbox for remote access.
>
> I would conclude by observing that this is *very* old news--the only new
> news is that it has not yet been ``fixed.'' Of course, there's a decent
> argument that many consumers of SSH are the kind of people who also
> blindly accept new hostkeys without verifying fingerprints or using a PKI,
> so this kind of default won't help them at all, just causing frustration.
> :-)
>
> If you want another puzzling OpenSSH tidbit, it's that the CheckIP option
> is enabled by default in the base implementation. It has recently been
> turned off in the FreeBSD version for the following reason (which was
> rejected by OpenSSH developers shortly after OpenSSH was released).
>
> The CheckHostIP feature introduces automatic modification of the known
> hosts key file to include the IP address of the host after connecting by
> name. This option introduces unnecessary modifications of keying material
> entries, and can cause spurious keying errors following IP address
> changes, especially in a dynamic DNS/IP allocation environment. When a
> user requests a connection by-name, the key storage should be by-name, as
> SSH is not aware of whether or not the name/key binding is persistent.
> Presumably, just as the user is responsible for performing by-name key
> verification and management, the user should also be responsible for
> managing by-number key verification and management.
>
> This also causes management problems for hosts employing centralized
> ssh_known_hosts entries--SSH replicates the key from the central file into
> the user's personal key file using the IP address to index the key. If
> the IP of the host is a variable IP, putting the IP into the centralized
> file makes no sense, but SSH will take the liberty of replicating the
> keying material unnecessarily. If a host key now changes, and the
> centralized file is updated to reflect it, SSH will now generate warnings
> as its spuriously replicated key no longer matches up.
>
> You can even imagine DNS-based spoofing causing some problems, if combined
> with IP spoofing, as ssh-by-ip to a spoofed host would not generate an
> unknown key warning, instead, it would connect with full trust. This
> attack is a little of a stretch on convenience for the attacker, but is
> feasible. The end conclusion is really that key introduction for key
> indexes (names, IPs) should only occur when specifically authorized by the
> user and following a fingerprint display, never automatically.
>
> Robert N M Watson
>
> robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/
> PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37 ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1
> TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Brian Caswell wrote:
>
> > The default SSH configuration for SSH1 and SSH2 allow for remote
> > controlling of X sessions through X forwarding.
> >
> > All children of the SSH connection are able to tunnel X11 sessions
> > through the X tunnel to the client X11 session. This is accomplished
> > by running xauth upon logging in.
> >
> > If xauth is replaced on the server by a malicious program that does
> > both of the following:
> > - runs xauth, adding in the "correct" information allowing the
> > children of the session to tunnel X11 programs through the SSH
> > session
> > - runs xauth, adding in the "malicious" information, allowing a
> > malicious source to tunnel X11 programs through the SSH session.
> >
> > With the added data in .Xauthority, a malicious source can fully control
> > the client X session. The malicious source can then do most anything to
> > the X session, from logging keystrokes of the X session, to taking
> > screen captures, to typing in commands to open terminals.
> >
> > The only thing that is required for the client system to be compromised
> > is for the client to remotely log via ssh (with X11 forwarding enabled)
> > into a compromised server.
> >
> > Allowing X forwarding seems to be turned on by default in SSH1, SSH2,
> > and OpenSSH.
> >
> > To fix this "issue" add the following lines to the SSH client
> > configuration. ($HOME/.ssh/config or ssh_config)
> >
> >
> > Host *
> > ForwardX11 no
> >
> >
> > Discussions of security flaws within X11 have been going on for years.
> > The "issue" in SSH X11 forwarding is not new. SSH has added to the
> > security of X11, but by no means does the use of SSH secure X11.
> >
> > --
> > Brian Caswell <cazz@ruff.cs.jmu.edu>
> > If I could load the world into vi, the first command I would use is:
> > %s/Windows NT//gi
>

--
Mike Fisk, RADIANT Team, Network Engineering Group, Los Alamos National Lab
See http://home.lanl.gov/mfisk/ for contact information
Re: SSH & xauth (fwd) [ In reply to ]
Yo Mike!

I only run X clients (Xwin-32) on my WinXX laptop. From the laptop
I use SecureCRT to connect to remote UNIX hosts running OpenSSH. Then
I tunnel X in the SSH session. The way you describe is EXACTLY
the way that I have my Xwin-32 set up on the WinXX host. Each time
an X window opens on my laptop a box pops up to ask me to allow/deny.

This usually works find unless a popup gets buried under other stuff
and I do not see it in time.

RGDS
GARY

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Mike Fisk wrote:

> I have a suggestion that I think would be useful to implement.
> People who have seen the Firewall Toolkit's X proxy will find this
> suggestion familiar. The fwtk provides a small proxy that users set their
> DISPLAY to. Whenever a new connection is initiated to that proxy, the
> proxy pops-up a dialog box on the user's real DISPLAY. The user must
> agree to accept that incoming connection before the proxy will forward the
> data from it.
>
> The ssh client could be made to, whenever an X tunnel was opened, run an
> external dialog program, before the client would accept the tunnel.
> Depending on the exit status of that program, the connection would either
> be allowed on rejected. Presumably this functionality would be optional
> (but perhaps enabled by default).
>
> Of course there is a tendancy for users to treat dialog boxes as a reflex
> test and to click them without reading them. However, this mechanism does
> provide a way for cautious users to enable X forwarding without blindly
> allowing all X clients to connect.
>
> Comments, ambitious coders?
>
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Gary E. Miller wrote:
>
> > Have you guys been following the SSH discussion on Bugtraq lately?
> >
> > I like their idea the X forwarding should be OFF by default on the
> > client.
> >
> > RGDS
> > GARY
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
> > gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:52:15 -0500
> > From: Robert Watson <robert@cyrus.watson.org>
> > Reply-To: Robert Watson <robert+sec@cyrus.watson.org>
> > To: BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS.COM
> > Subject: Re: SSH & xauth
> >
> > This is a very round-about way of observing that allowing X11 forwarding
> > from a client to any untrusted server (by any means -- sshd, xauth, common
> > accounts, poor file permissions, compromised kernel, etc, etc) with the
> > current SSH clients results in security problems (which you observe).
> >
> > What's more curious is that in OpenSSH, which I observed some time ago,
> > the default configuration is to enable X11 forwarding in the client and
> > disable it in the server. This is, of course, backwards, as the client is
> > the one accepting risk by forwarding X11, not the server. :-)
> >
> > If you search back a few years in the bugtraq archives, you'll see that
> > one suggestion for dealing with this, and still allowing X11 forwarding
> > from untrusted clients, is to use the Xnest server, limiting access by the
> > ssh client to that DISPLAY. As I observed at the time, Xnest was probably
> > not designed with this use in mind, and as such is probably ``breakable,''
> > meaning that a pursuaded party might be able to gain access to the proper
> > display through exploiting weaknesses in the Xnest server. I have not
> > audited the Xnest code to verify that this is or is not the case.
> >
> > I believe at the time, Alan Cox responded with information about using the
> > Broadway extensions to limit access by specific applications to other X11
> > applications, the X event queue, etc. These messages were circa 1997, and
> > should appear in bugtraq archives.
> >
> > Presumably the correct configuration is for clients to disable X11 by
> > default, and only have it enabled specifically by the user via appropriate
> > flags to ssh, or via the config file. You could imagine a more
> > comprehensive interface to new host key adoption that also inquired as to
> > a trust level for X11 forwarding using Broadway, etc. In this manner, the
> > user could specify ``limited'' access that would be sandboxed, not
> > allowing access to screen data, X event queue access, etc, ``full,'' or
> > ``none.'' With a little imagination, you could even imagine it spawning
> > an Xnest to generate a sandbox for remote access.
> >
> > I would conclude by observing that this is *very* old news--the only new
> > news is that it has not yet been ``fixed.'' Of course, there's a decent
> > argument that many consumers of SSH are the kind of people who also
> > blindly accept new hostkeys without verifying fingerprints or using a PKI,
> > so this kind of default won't help them at all, just causing frustration.
> > :-)
> >
> > If you want another puzzling OpenSSH tidbit, it's that the CheckIP option
> > is enabled by default in the base implementation. It has recently been
> > turned off in the FreeBSD version for the following reason (which was
> > rejected by OpenSSH developers shortly after OpenSSH was released).
> >
> > The CheckHostIP feature introduces automatic modification of the known
> > hosts key file to include the IP address of the host after connecting by
> > name. This option introduces unnecessary modifications of keying material
> > entries, and can cause spurious keying errors following IP address
> > changes, especially in a dynamic DNS/IP allocation environment. When a
> > user requests a connection by-name, the key storage should be by-name, as
> > SSH is not aware of whether or not the name/key binding is persistent.
> > Presumably, just as the user is responsible for performing by-name key
> > verification and management, the user should also be responsible for
> > managing by-number key verification and management.
> >
> > This also causes management problems for hosts employing centralized
> > ssh_known_hosts entries--SSH replicates the key from the central file into
> > the user's personal key file using the IP address to index the key. If
> > the IP of the host is a variable IP, putting the IP into the centralized
> > file makes no sense, but SSH will take the liberty of replicating the
> > keying material unnecessarily. If a host key now changes, and the
> > centralized file is updated to reflect it, SSH will now generate warnings
> > as its spuriously replicated key no longer matches up.
> >
> > You can even imagine DNS-based spoofing causing some problems, if combined
> > with IP spoofing, as ssh-by-ip to a spoofed host would not generate an
> > unknown key warning, instead, it would connect with full trust. This
> > attack is a little of a stretch on convenience for the attacker, but is
> > feasible. The end conclusion is really that key introduction for key
> > indexes (names, IPs) should only occur when specifically authorized by the
> > user and following a fingerprint display, never automatically.
> >
> > Robert N M Watson
> >
> > robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/
> > PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37 ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1
> > TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Brian Caswell wrote:
> >
> > > The default SSH configuration for SSH1 and SSH2 allow for remote
> > > controlling of X sessions through X forwarding.
> > >
> > > All children of the SSH connection are able to tunnel X11 sessions
> > > through the X tunnel to the client X11 session. This is accomplished
> > > by running xauth upon logging in.
> > >
> > > If xauth is replaced on the server by a malicious program that does
> > > both of the following:
> > > - runs xauth, adding in the "correct" information allowing the
> > > children of the session to tunnel X11 programs through the SSH
> > > session
> > > - runs xauth, adding in the "malicious" information, allowing a
> > > malicious source to tunnel X11 programs through the SSH session.
> > >
> > > With the added data in .Xauthority, a malicious source can fully control
> > > the client X session. The malicious source can then do most anything to
> > > the X session, from logging keystrokes of the X session, to taking
> > > screen captures, to typing in commands to open terminals.
> > >
> > > The only thing that is required for the client system to be compromised
> > > is for the client to remotely log via ssh (with X11 forwarding enabled)
> > > into a compromised server.
> > >
> > > Allowing X forwarding seems to be turned on by default in SSH1, SSH2,
> > > and OpenSSH.
> > >
> > > To fix this "issue" add the following lines to the SSH client
> > > configuration. ($HOME/.ssh/config or ssh_config)
> > >
> > >
> > > Host *
> > > ForwardX11 no
> > >
> > >
> > > Discussions of security flaws within X11 have been going on for years.
> > > The "issue" in SSH X11 forwarding is not new. SSH has added to the
> > > security of X11, but by no means does the use of SSH secure X11.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brian Caswell <cazz@ruff.cs.jmu.edu>
> > > If I could load the world into vi, the first command I would use is:
> > > %s/Windows NT//gi
> >
>
> --
> Mike Fisk, RADIANT Team, Network Engineering Group, Los Alamos National Lab
> See http://home.lanl.gov/mfisk/ for contact information
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
Re: SSH & xauth (fwd) [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Sean Aaron Lisse wrote:

> > I have a suggestion that I think would be useful to implement.
> > People who have seen the Firewall Toolkit's X proxy will find this
> > suggestion familiar. The fwtk provides a small proxy that users set their
> > DISPLAY to. Whenever a new connection is initiated to that proxy, the
> > proxy pops-up a dialog box on the user's real DISPLAY. The user must
> > agree to accept that incoming connection before the proxy will forward the
> > data from it.
>
> My main objection to this would be that it's dependent upon the dialog-box
> program's presence. You're tying down X forwarding to the
> presence/absence of another (perhaps machine-specific!) program in the
> system, and perhaps the compilation of SSH to the presence of X at all.
>
> Not a wonderful idea for a uniform text-based suite like SSH. I'd have
> no problems at all if SSH was originally designed to be GUI with adding
> another dialog box. Since it's not, however, I'd argue against it.

I wasn't been paying complete attention, but there have been some threads
on this list about the X programs (ssh-askpass, etc.) that prompt for
passwords. I would assume that this dialog box would be provided the same
way that that functionality is provided (however that is or isn't
bundled).

The client could issue a text prompt in the tty, but that disrupts
whatever output is on that window (which might also be iconified and
ignored).

--
Mike Fisk, RADIANT Team, Network Engineering Group, Los Alamos National Lab
See http://home.lanl.gov/mfisk/ for contact information
Re: SSH & xauth (fwd) [ In reply to ]
You're right. I need to study my ssh distro more... had never even seen
ssh-askpass. I withdraw my objection.

-Sean

> > My main objection to this would be that it's dependent upon the dialog-box
> > program's presence. You're tying down X forwarding to the
> > presence/absence of another (perhaps machine-specific!) program in the
> > system, and perhaps the compilation of SSH to the presence of X at all.
> >
> > Not a wonderful idea for a uniform text-based suite like SSH. I'd have
> > no problems at all if SSH was originally designed to be GUI with adding
> > another dialog box. Since it's not, however, I'd argue against it.
>
> I wasn't been paying complete attention, but there have been some threads
> on this list about the X programs (ssh-askpass, etc.) that prompt for
> passwords. I would assume that this dialog box would be provided the same
> way that that functionality is provided (however that is or isn't
> bundled).
>
> The client could issue a text prompt in the tty, but that disrupts
> whatever output is on that window (which might also be iconified and
> ignored).