Tony Sidaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The sandbox egg will be the only thing that gives a bit of
security, but it provides only a very basic Scheme dialect and is
pretty slow. The only (somewhat brute-forcish) solution that comes
to mind is to compile to a static executable and hack
On 8/9/07, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/8/07, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The sandbox egg will be the only thing that gives a bit of security, but
it provides only a very basic Scheme dialect and is pretty slow.
The only (somewhat brute-forcish) solution
On 8/8/07, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The sandbox egg will be the only thing that gives a bit of security, but
it provides only a very basic Scheme dialect and is pretty slow.
The only (somewhat brute-forcish) solution that comes to mind is
to compile to a static executable and
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 05:54:04AM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
My current approach is to compile the user script with an included
preamble which redefines important stuff. For instance:
(define-macro (dummy name)
`(define ,name (lambda x (force (delay (begin (display (format ~a
is not
On 8/8/07, Tony Sidaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And so on.
It seems to me that I need to do this otherwise just about everything
in the namespace will be available at runtime, co-optable for bad
stuff.
Or am I just being a silly sausage? Is there a better way of doing this?
The sandbox
This is basic stuff. I think it's a bit ridiculous that I'm asking
this question so late in my project.
Part of my executable, written by me, needs to do all kinds of hairy,
scarey stuff with my native operating system, an external website
(Wikipedia, actually), but another part of my executable
