Re: unsafep - Malicious code detector

Re: unsafep - Malicious code detector

[Richard Stallman]

This could be very useful, but I think it needs to overcome
some of these limitations:

    ;; This is a simplistic implementation that does not allow any access to
    ;; files or buffers or global variables.

Why not allow read-access to files, buffers and global variables?

    ;;  2.  It's a symbol with the `side-effect-free' property, defined by the
    ;;      byte compiler or user.  We extend the meaning of this property:
    ;;      value nil indicates that the function or macro has side effects
    ;;      but is otherwise safe.

I think it would be cleaner to use a different property for that
purpose.

    ;;  3.  It's a member of list `unsafep-disable', so the user says it's safe.

How about renaming that to `safe-function'.

    ;; A lexical binding is unsafe if its symbol:

Emacs Lisp does not have lexical bindings, so what does that
really refer to?

    ;; A target variable is unsafe if:

What is a "target variable"?

Re: unsafep - Malicious code detector

[Florian Weimer]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     ;; This is a simplistic implementation that does not allow any access to
>     ;; files or buffers or global variables.
>
> Why not allow read-access to files, buffers and global variables?

Read access to files opens covert channels (using the file atime).