Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] A small security hole REBOL, and a huge one! Re:(6)

From: jeff:rebol at: 21-Aug-2000 13:30

Howdy, Brian:
> >The security risks of modifiable REBOL code will be best > >dealt with by modules. Untrusted REBOL code can evaluate > >in a module prevented from affecting the surrounding > >execution environment. > > I'd be curious to see how that is done. The current module > spec doesn't prohibit the kind of change to the code of the > mezzanine functions that I outlined, nor the hacks > involving changes to the specs that Ladislav mentioned.
The current spec doesn't directly address this issue, but essentially the idea is that modules will provide secure execution environments. It's a deep question, and one that the final design will address. I'm looking forward to the "answer" myself.
> The problem with the current module spec is that once you > make a function visible inside a module so that it can be > used there, that function can be modified.
Maybe, and maybe not... :-)
> Don't misunderstand, I'm as much a fan of self-modifying > code as the next mad scientist - it's just that I'm willing > to give up modifiable functions for security reasons. We > should be able to get by with replaceable functions, since > we can easily track assignment if we want to. If we still > need self-modifying code we can still do blocks.
Insightful observations, Brian.
> >Besides, only good hackers use REBOL! ;-) Why would > >someone be so evil as to make good little REBOL do > >something bad?! (-; > > A jealous Perl enthusiast, perhaps? :-)
Ditto. (-: -jeff