alt Hacker News> You'll often see xhost + suggested as the "just make it work" answer, and it does — by turning host-based access control off entirely. Every client from every host can then connect to your display without any cookie at all.
> On a single-user machine that sounds harmless, but X has no isolation between clients: anyone who can reach the server can read your keystrokes, grab the contents of any window, and inject synthetic input. xhost + hands that capability to every local user and, if your server listens on TCP, to the network. Even the narrower xhost +local: still trusts every UID on the box.
Does modern Xorg even support TCP? I know it doesn't default to allowing it, and the last time I actually wanted to run X11 over the network I ended up using socat against the socket file. Controlling access by user could have some value, but only under very specific threat models, especially since containers won't be able to reach the socket unless you give it to them on purpose. (Actually, can you just chmod o-rwx the socket?)
So I'm really skeptical of ever practically needing a more complicated fix when you can just xhost +
Replies
It is likely that your desktop Linux distro, or whatever, is configured out-of-box to run the X server that only listens on the unix:0 domain.
You can reconfigure it, restart it, or start a secondary server. And check your firewall/packet filtering setup while you're at it.
There are several cryptographic security methods for the xauth(1) system.
https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/resolute/man7/Xsecurity...
Notably, "si" or "server interpreted" is not cryptographically secure. However, you can share MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE values easily by copy-paste into another user's xauth command.
> Does modern Xorg even support TCP?
Yes. It works well. X11 over Wireguard works so much better than ssh -X. Haven't tried over the internet, but in a LAN you can't tell the difference between local and remote windows, at least with Emacs.