phatch-dev team mailing list archive
-
phatch-dev team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00292
Re: Phatch for Geeks
Erich
That's very interesting. I don't know anything about keyczar -
however it sounds like the right kind of thing.
Of course, we're jumping ahead (although now's the time to think for
the future). If we arrive at a time when people are publishing
Phatch actions (or actionlists), I think we'll have to consider
something like this.
Until then, I think what Stani's added here is really good.
Robin
http://www.clanmills.com
On Jun 17, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Erich Heine wrote:
Robin,
Thanks for expanding, your point makes much more sense now (and
seems much more reasonable :P ). There are some responses below
(after the quote):
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Robin Mills <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
However it might be nice if Python was able to refuse to run
scripts which don't have a valid digital certificate - and that
would make "alien" scripts less dangerous.
So it all adds up to "The issue is with Python, not Phatch".
We could put something in to check scripts against a "verified
good" phatch "app store". Its not that hard to do an hmac thats
digitally signed with the phatchdev private key. This is close to
trivial to write, particularly if we use a nice framework like
keyczar from google. Of course then we can only verify official
action lists -- which is a game we may not want to play.
As for where the issue lies id put equal parts of it in phatch,
python, and the current computing model.
Phatch -- we want to run arbitrary external scripts and programs
which is isomorphic to running untrusted code. This desire
introduces the issue to begin with.
Python -- no buitin code signing, no restricted shell execution
environment.
Computing model: too much power to each process/program, no good
way of reliably restricting things, too much interdependence
resulting in all or nothing permissions models in the real world.
Regards,
Erich
Follow ups
References