World: r3wp

Will we get ssl for the plugin?

iirc we have squid at work, View works, so should plug-in imo ...

Ok, I know that beer doesn't

Altme doesn't

We are looking at SSL in the future.

Altme doesn't? Is that problem of altme? I doubt it - altme uses 
proxy settings ... but it uses world look-up, and for that single 
thing is requires some special port opened on firewall, thing our 
admins will not do for me ....

How about encapping product for use on plugin?:

Good to know that rT is considering releasing SSL somehow...

Graham, we are looking into that also.

(We are looking at the idea of securing source code, not necessarily 
"encapping" per-se)

Ah, good.

securing? hooo ho, so maybe finally we will be able to work with 
certificates in rebol? :-) That would be uber cool :-)

Yes, certificate support are also needed if we are going to replace 
those java banking apps, and medical applications

As a suggestion for dealing with proxy issues, why not have the plugin 
dll read the browser's proxy settings and then call the View dll 
with some REBOL code that would set its proxy settings accordingly?

that's what it does now.

it does not imo anything like that ...

plugin dll imo does not do anything, just starts View with some parameter 
.... it is View's get-net-info, which is outdated (look at the source) 
and incorrect. It looks at incorrect Registry setting

I mean, once the security infrastructure is set up properly in a 
future version of the plugin, anonymous scripts shouldn't get a persistent 
sandbox at all, so there would be no place to put a user.r.

that is why even normal View is not able to get control panel proxy 
setting

Brian's suggestion might work, but not sure Josh will do it, as he 
already suggested we should contact Carl, to fix View code involved 
...

ok, my bad understanding

no persistent sandbox? what do you mean, please? Are you suggesting, 
that our plug-in apps, should not rely on local storage? I am not 
sure I like it ...

Imagine plug-in version of IOS. Currently the sand box is in Temp 
dir, which get's purged by control panel setting. I don't want to 
lose MY local data :-)

I have gone over this before - the key word is anonymous.

maybe I don't understand what you mean ....

Josh's aforementioned secure source code was something I suggested. 
The other part of the suggestion was that every secure script would 
be cryptographically signed by an SDK license key, or some other 
way for RT to trace the author of the script. Only those signed scripts 
would be allowed to store persistent data in a sandbox without the 
attempt to do so prompting the user with a security requestor.

so in your opinion, plug-in should not be allowed to write even in 
sandbox dir?

Scripts that aren't cryptographically signed (anonymous scripts) 
would be limited in what they can do on your system.

my question was a bit different, though. Let's imagine your proposed 
secure way, so I can use it for some app, to sync some data to user. 
The problem for me is the sandbox placement - in system Temp dir, 
which can be purged via control panel. I am not sure I like it, if 
there is possibility I could loose my synced data. Or am I missing 
something?

Your last reaction to when I brought this up:

OK - one thing is clear now - "What would you let your worst enemy 
do with your computer?" should be a saying for Rebol plug-in .... 
now just how to represent it ...

My suggestion was just for anonymous scripts. Signed scripts could 
get a sandbox, probably somewhere under %appdata%.

Did it take long time for you to dig it up? :-)

I just had to look for the last point in the history where I posted. 
Security seems to be a recurring theme in my posts. :)

btw - what do you mean by "should not get a persistent sandbox at 
all" - do you mean it should not be allowed to write to temp at ll, 
just use memory? Or just by anonymous you mean randomly generated 
"anonymous" directory somewhere in Temp directory?

Isnt' this a bit over the top?  What about cookies ?

No, just use memory. No cookies except browser cookies - there should 
be a way to access them, similar to how do-browser lets you access 
JavaScript. Perhaps a wrapper function around do-browser could work 
for now.

although some storage for graphics-heavy things would be nice.

Brain - are you suggesting so tight security for us rebollers only, 
or do also other plug-ins use such limited environment? (although 
I am starting to understand, that there should be NO way of how to 
harm your computer, or it will be regarded - unsecure)

I don't want there to be any need for people to make a REBOL-blocker 
like FlashBlock or NoScript.

(both of which I use,  btw)

i would not go oncrypto only but also on "allow website", like noscript

Yes, we need better security requestors too.

yes, and remembering such things. maybe asking on start to allow 
access to last session. if denied sandbox is cleared.

that is one extra click

Volker, I agree that some graphics-heavy scripts could use local 
storage. Those scripts could easily be signed though.

There should also be a way to provide access to the browser's objects. 
The browser already caches those, and that cache is managed by code 
that the user is already trusting.

signing needs keys. then we need a free registry if we want all the 
newcomers to have fun.

and allowing access based on url is IMHO the most natural way.

Actually, there is a lot that you can do even within those restrictions. 
Just look at Flash.

but there could be done more :)