Re: Lisp security
- From: "John Thingstad" <john.thingstad@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:00:51 +0100
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:41:54 +0100, Cameron MacKinnon <cmackin+nn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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)?
Reply to me in person and I'll show why I didn't come with a release just yet.
The comparabilities have been reported to CERT.
I had a near break in. Only tripwire (actually it's Microsoft equivalent) save me.
They had managed to elevate privilege from user to admin.
I thought a program that played Othello was safe.
I was wrong! I nerly got a lawsuit against me.
Now I take security seriously!
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ .
- References:
- Lisp security
- From: John Thingstad
- Re: Lisp security
- From: Cameron MacKinnon
- Lisp security
- Prev by Date: Re: diff. betw. equal and eq on simbols
- Next by Date: Re: Lisp security
- Previous by thread: Re: Lisp security
- Next by thread: Re: Lisp security
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
