Jel, I agree that TiddlyWiki should have some security awareness.
We've talked a bit about adding the ability to authenticate plugins before they are loaded. The TW core already contains code to generate SHA-1 hashes, so it would be a matter of generating the SHA-1 hash of a plugin and comparing it with a centrally held value, held for example on TiddlyVault as you suggest. The trouble then is who assesses the plugins. Self-authentication is no protection against a malicious plugin writer. We could have some kind of community assessment, though. Martin 2009/4/8 Jel <[email protected]>: > > None in particular. However, I note that we have - since you invited > me to put this up as a placeholder, moreover - <a href="http:// > groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki/browse_thread/thread/ > 8bdc3f1dca95c83b">a case of an infection</a> reported on the User > forum which is a case in point - the poster was in no way responsible, > but others could have been caught. > My general point is that ALL applications really should be, and should > be seen to be, security-aware - there will be no thanks if we start > getting on installation blacklists with MS and the like because we've > been somewhat careless, Windows 7 and upwards can be expected to > become increasingly alert to problems, and since there's some redesign > thinking going on, it's probably not a bad time to consider if any > precautions are needed to authenticate code in the Plugin upload > routines, for example. Not all users are programmers, and so not all > can be expected to be able to intercept a call to some nasty assembler > code hooked in to an otherwise anodyne href call to such a site, for > instance. > What might be sensible as a first-level protection would be to include > some form of CTC assessment of authenticated code in the field > specification for each tiddler, and to run it (offering an alert if > missing or not authenticated) before loading code tiddlers: it might > be an interesting question whether to include an assessment routine in > the standard package, for instance, or whether to have an independant > assessor - TiddlyVault or the like springs to mind, although I haven't > had the courtesy to ask them, for which I apologise. Others will > certainly be wiser in the subject than yours truly, however. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWikiDev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
