From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs RPC security Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 13:57:47 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <871v0hudzo.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87d3kal0za.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874o5mky4o.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1304362691 18142 80.91.229.12 (2 May 2011 18:58:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 18:58:11 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 02 20:58:07 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QGyJq-0004nJ-L6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 20:58:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40624 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGyJq-0001Fl-5m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 14:58:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:36781) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGyJn-0001FT-KI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 14:58:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGyJj-0000NS-Ej for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 14:58:03 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:37936) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGyJj-0000NN-6S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 14:57:59 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QGyJh-0004hl-Pb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 20:57:57 +0200 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 20:57:57 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 20:57:57 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ifM/6LZCmxhGtKdb72otV7fzSFU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:138978 Archived-At: On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:02:47 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: >> Having a GnuTLS server in Emacs would be nice. LMI> I just had a horrible idea. LMI> I converted pop3.el to use opportunistic STARTTLS upgrades now (one less LMI> thing on my imaginary todo list -- only googleplex more to go), and it LMI> occurred to me that the Emacs Server could use STARTTLS too. LMI> Today you just send the shared secret and then the command, but we could LMI> easily implement a CAPABILITY command, and offer STARTTLS and thereby LMI> allow forward-and-backward compatibility between encrypted and LMI> non-encrypted clients and servers. :-) Regardless of STARTTLS support (which would be good), a CAPABILITY function would be good for this server-eval RPC you're building. I already mentioned that given GnuTLS, we can associate client-side SSL certificates with particular functions, so we authenticate on the certificates and authorize based on the (certificate, function) combination. This seems to me much better, even if "orthogonal," than the current "come visit my server and run anything you like" approach. Ted