Re: Lisp security
- From: Cameron MacKinnon <cmackin+nn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:41:54 -0500
John Thingstad wrote:
Obviously Lisp is not prone to buffer overfow controls. (unless optimations turn bounds checking off)
But there is the question of Java.final.
Apperaently there is no equivalence in Lisp.
Simularly there is the possibility to change inheritance after runtime.
Also decaring code after runtime.
Obviously if you get trough the outer defenses Lisp is chanseless.
Any chance of anyone (Allegro) deveoping a 'sandbox' for lisp?
What is your threat model? Do you allow users to add Lisp code to your system, and want them limited to a safe subset? Or are you worried about what is ostensibly user provided data breaching the code/data boundary (a la buffer overflow)?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lisp security
- From: John Thingstad
- Re: Lisp security
- From: John Thingstad
- Re: Lisp security
- References:
- Lisp security
- From: John Thingstad
- Lisp security
- Prev by Date: Re: diff. betw. equal and eq on simbols
- Next by Date: Re: diff. betw. equal and eq on simbols
- Previous by thread: Re: Lisp security
- Next by thread: Re: Lisp security
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|