Chris Withers wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone shed light on all of these? I know about some of them, but
this is quite a disturbingly long list...
What is the current status of these issues? I am running a rather larges
site with sensitive personal data.
The decision to use Python/Zope instead of Java/u
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:17:38 +0100
Dario Lopez-Kästen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can anyone shed light on all of these? I know about some of them,
> > but this is quite a disturbingly long list...
>
> What is the current status of these issues? I am runn
Hello,
we have spent most of the day tracking down obscure
hangs of Zope (2.6.4rc1) under python2.1.3 on a RHEL3
machine.
The problem seems to be a logic flaw somewhere related
to the cPickleCache, when using a destructor in a Zope
object that accesses itself.
In our case(shortened to the offend
Defining __del__ on a persistent object has unknown effects, FWIW. A
persistent object's __del__ method may be called many times during its
lifetime. See
http://zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/FrontPage/guide/node3.html#SECTION00036 for
more info.
- C
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 09:55, Mario Lor
[Mario Lorenz]
> we have spent most of the day tracking down obscure
> hangs of Zope (2.6.4rc1) under python2.1.3 on a RHEL3
> machine.
Based on what you say next, it sure sounds like this isn't unique to
2.6.4rc1. Did the same code "work" under some previous release? The
infinite loop appears t
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:31:59 -0500
Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Defining __del__ on a persistent object has unknown
> effects, FWIW. A
> persistent object's __del__ method may be called many
> times during its
> lifetime. See
>
http://zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/FrontPage/guide/node3.htm
Maik Jablonski wrote at 2004-1-21 23:42 +0100:
> ...
>If we don't have a easy-to-install-security-fix for such people (or a so
>called "stable" release, which works out of the box) we should a little
>bit cautious about releasing exploits. That's my point...
Almost all the issues covered by Zope
Maik Jablonski wrote at 2004-1-21 21:20 +0100:
> ...
>My proposal: Can we have a delay for making security-related fixes public?
>Just a month or two or so...
-1
Most of the potential exploits have rather strict requirements
(such as creation of executable content by untrusted users).
Thus, few i
Brian Lloyd wrote at 2004-1-22 10:11 -0500:
>> I did check with a fresh 2.6 xx
>> A DCWorkflow script that was not not called with the version from a few
>> hours ago is now called but produces the following traceback
>>
>> This happens when the container binding is set to "container" and also
>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:08:27PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
> > def __del__(self):
> > print "About to destroy: ", self.id
I don't know what your intention is there, but fwiw, if
what you're *really* interested in is the object being
marked for deletion in the ZODB, you can use:
def man
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Brian Lloyd wrote at 2004-1-22 10:11 -0500:
I did check with a fresh 2.6 xx
A DCWorkflow script that was not not called with the version from a few
hours ago is now called but produces the following traceback
This happens when the container binding is set to "container" and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21/01/2004, at 12:54 PM, Stuart Bishop wrote:
I think I've tracked down a minimal example, the trigger being my
use of __allow_access_to_unprotected_subobjects__ = None. I'm thinking
this recent change is incompatible if a parent object tightens sec
12 matches
Mail list logo
