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 20:12:28 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87d3k0fuyr.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87d3kal0za.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874o5mky4o.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871v0hudzo.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87vcxsswox.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87pqo0fx52.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1304385178 10223 80.91.229.12 (3 May 2011 01:12:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 01:12:58 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 03 03:12:54 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 1QH4AV-0002fM-OQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 May 2011 03:12:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49208 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QH4AV-0000S6-6D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 21:12:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47012) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QH4AS-0000Ry-3r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 21:12:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QH4AO-0000j6-GI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 21:12:48 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:38608) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QH4AO-0000iw-47 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 21:12:44 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QH4AN-0002bk-7H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 May 2011 03:12:43 +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 ; Tue, 03 May 2011 03:12:43 +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 ; Tue, 03 May 2011 03:12:43 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 33 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:OLcNHlLJJNrAlveSzzgE5ZWinpI= 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:139027 Archived-At: On Tue, 03 May 2011 02:51:28 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> Is the mechanism used for evaluating code remotely, or only locally? >> In other words, can it be accessed over the network? LMI> It's for evaluating code remotely over the network. On Mon, 02 May 2011 21:35:46 -0300 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> I'm saying the problem is that server.el doesn't know if you're offering >> services just to yourself or to others as well, so you can't say it's OK >> to be less secure for personal use. SM> server.el offers full service only. Yes, I know! I think it should at *least* have the option to limit the access at the entry point when the code is eval-ed. In Common Lisp you can disable many of the Lisp reader's options that evaluate code, but I don't know how the Emacs Lisp reader can do that. SM> If you give access to it to someone else than yourself, it's your SM> mistake, not server.el. As I keep trying to explain, you don't know who is on the other end because there is *no* authentication, or rather it's binary: you have the shared secret or you don't. At least let's associate a shared secret with an access level, so we do not allow full access all the time. The access level can be a list of function symbols that can be called, for instance. Ted