Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
Every once in a while someone asks about secure sandboxing with Guile,
and generally the response is that it should be fairly easy, by creating
a module with
That is an interesting problem. It would be nice to have sandboxing.
I'm writing to point out that there has been an attempt to make
out-of-the-box sandboxing work. The modules (ice-9 safe) and (ice-9
safe-r5rs) should be sandboxed environments, I think. (I encountered
them while looking for
Hi Mark!
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
Every once in a while someone asks about secure sandboxing with Guile,
and generally the response is that it should be fairly easy, by creating
a module with carefully selected bindings, but there's nothing ready
out of the box.
I just
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
Every once in a while someone asks about secure sandboxing with Guile,
and generally the response is that it should be fairly easy, by creating
a module with carefully selected bindings, but there's nothing ready
Can you think of anything else that would need to be fixed, besides this
problem with forgeable syntax-objects?
It depends how much of a sandbox you're thinking of, but I'd like to
make sure that the untrusted code didn't go into an infinite loop,
which means either putting it in a separate
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
Can you think of anything else that would need to be fixed, besides this
problem with forgeable syntax-objects?
It depends how much of a sandbox you're thinking of, but I'd like to
make sure that the untrusted code didn't go into an infinite loop,
Hello all,
Every once in a while someone asks about secure sandboxing with Guile,
and generally the response is that it should be fairly easy, by creating
a module with carefully selected bindings, but there's nothing ready
out of the box.
I just realized that psyntax has a security hole that
