Re: Embedding Guile with sandboxing

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:06:05AM +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Samstag, 21. November 2015, 13:35:12 schrieb Matthew Keeter:
> > If I were to replace Python with Guile, is there a way to sandbox it so 
> > that arbitrary (perhaps
> > malicious) user-provided scripts can be run safely?
> 
> The languages which try to do that are Java and Javascript, and they
> have several bugs connected to this every year (which i.e. allowing
> execution of code with elevated priviledges).
> 
> To make this safe, you could follow the route described by Pascal:
> Define a restricted sub-language which is not turing-complete. You can

I think the problem isn't Turing completeness. It's the access to
the whole machine environment.

Still a tall order.

As another point, the Tcl community has had something they call "safe"
for quite a while (they can have several interpreters in one executable
and can instantiate so-called "safe" interpreters [1]). Might be worth
a look (for inspiration -- or for use).

[1] <http://wiki.tcl.tk/4204>

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlZVln4ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYQyQCfTADGl0E80DtDZcCvuCcBhdhe
lZcAn2O4S4bQbWYtVcJUP/S/R/IlBJdg
=3+xj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----