-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I do install and run programs i don't trust in a sandbox in my computer, and i think people are wanting much more than just client-side LSL scripts...
On 17/3/2010 14:31, Dzonatas Sol wrote: > You install a program on your computer, and you either trust it or you > don't. It comes down to that, so it doesn't matter if it is .NET or Java > or some binary made by company XYZZY. > > What some people want is to separate a way to run a sandbox version of > their LSL code on the client-side, which is a bit different than the big > picture of client-side scripting in any program language. > > > Erik Anderson wrote: >> Not to mention that .NET does not have an uncontroversial licensing >> arrangement, with many lawyers not able to figure out whether or not >> most linux distributions are in technical violation... >> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Argent Stonecutter >> <secret.arg...@gmail.com <mailto:secret.arg...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> > I don't follow you here. What I read in the above was a combination >> > of a well defined client side extension API and a mechanism to load >> > code that can be granted a level of trust based on criteria it needs >> > to do its job. �That might include code signing and metadata about >> > the capabilities the client plugin needs. I don't see any mention of >> > "untrusted binaries" other than the implication that a module that >> > doesn't negotiate additional capabilities gets started in a >> > sandboxed environment with minimal capabilities. >> > >> Any code not explicitly installed by the user is "untrusted". >> Executing untrusted code in a sandbox is an extremely difficult >> operation to perform safely. Doing so in a way that also accepts >> "trusted" code through the same mechanism is something that even >> Microsoft has notoriously failed to successfully pull off... a good >> number of the exploits of the late '90s and early '00s were due to >> failures of this security model. >> >> Doing this securely enough to ship is an extremely difficult >> undertaking, ranking alongside the whole of Second Life in ambition >> and scope, and not doing it securely could destroy Second Life. >> >> I would not use nor recommend using any viewer that implemented it. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated >> posting privileges >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >> privileges > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuhfu8ACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmVIjACdHy/ughz1ZKM4EUMA1VOXy6dH pAgAoI22HKSwvYpXppWg6tefol72L9np =jloj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
