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 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:05:56 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <8739l7gk57.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <874o5ny2cw.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87pqobgm6y.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1303697186 1216 80.91.229.12 (25 Apr 2011 02:06:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 02:06:26 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 25 04:06:22 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 1QEBBu-00005G-Au for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 04:06:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35049 helo=lists2.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEBBt-00073q-QY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:06:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35307) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEBBp-00073l-8M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:06:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEBBk-0000UM-Ms for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:06:17 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:50287) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEBBk-0000UF-FI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:06:12 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QEBBi-0008U9-SD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 04:06:10 +0200 Original-Received: from c-67-186-102-106.hsd1.il.comcast.net ([67.186.102.106]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 04:06:10 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by c-67-186-102-106.hsd1.il.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 04:06:10 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 30 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-67-186-102-106.hsd1.il.comcast.net 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/5.110016 (No Gnus v0.16) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:QLt0QtVolP2FfgU2uYc94omWN7M= 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:138697 Archived-At: On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:26:46 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> Please, please implement this securely from the start. emacsclient is >> terribly insecure and we don't need to repeat that. LMI> The network connection isn't encrypted, but how is emacsclient insecure LMI> otherwise? You have to pass the (shared) secret to the server to get it LMI> to do anything. The server executes anything passed to it. There's no verification that the content came from a trusted client beyond the shared secret. I'm suggesting more granular permissions that work across operating systems and don't require NFS mounts (have you ever set up a NFS mount to a W32 machine? it's painful... and expensive...) The permissions should be applied at the procedure level, so different procedures can be authorized and authenticated differently. But encryption would be nice too, hence my GnuTLS suggestion. 90% of the code is already in Emacs. LMI> In any case, it's rather an orthogonal issue. I see no reason why the LMI> in-Emacs RPC should be more secure than the command line RPC. ...because the command-line RPC can then use the in-Emacs RPC and improve security for everyone. It would (IMHO) make emacsclient and in-Emacs RPC real, viable RPC mechanisms. Right now they can't be. Ted