RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jul 24 00:07:25 CEST 2006 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/067651.html

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 01:00 PM 7/23/2006 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> 
>>I obviously don't want to change the feel of Python, but if I have to 
>>remove the constructor for code objects to prevent evil bytecode or 
>>__subclasses__() from object to prevent poking around stuff, then so be 
>>it.  For this project, security is [trumping] backwards-compatibility when 
>>the latter is impossible in order to have the former.  I will obviously 
>>try to minimize it, but something that works at such a basic level of the 
>>language is just going to require some changes for it to work.
> 
> Zope 3's sandboxing machinery manages to handle securing these things 
> without any language changes.  So, declaring it "impossible" to manage 
> without backward compatibility seems inappropriate, or at least 
> incorrect.

... if Zope's sandboxing is secure. I haven't done a security review of it,
but your argument assumes that it is.

In any case, Zope's sandboxing is not capability-based.

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/067651.html below:

[Python-Dev] new security doc using object-capabilities