From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Preview: portable dumper Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:32:07 -0500 Message-ID: References: <047a67ec-9e29-7e4e-0fb0-24c3e59b5886@dancol.org> <9b6a0571-b2ae-a5dd-a643-3595e8f71cd6@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1480800819 22401 195.159.176.226 (3 Dec 2016 21:33:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 21:33:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 03 22:33:34 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cDHw5-0004vu-UU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 22:33:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52567 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDHw9-0006dP-Ro for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:33:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37740) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDHuq-0006c8-P6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:32:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDHup-0001pm-VQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:32:16 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:50651) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDHuh-0001jo-Pt; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:32:07 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cDHuh-0006Tn-52; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:32:07 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Daniel Colascione on Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:18:21 -0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:209999 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > Here's the scenario: suppose I can convince your Emacs to parse a > carefully crafted network packet that triggers a bug in Emacs and lets > me overwrite arbitrary memory in your Emacs process. Today, I win, in > the sense that I gain complete control over your Emacs process and can > do anything Emacs can do. That reasoning is logically valid -- but is it really a plausible scenario that Emacs's parsing of a packet would have a bug that clobbers other unrelated memory? What Emacs does with the contents of an incoming packet is mainly to turn it into Lisp objects and make that available at Lisp level. That means not much opportunity for such a bug to occur. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.