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 14:56:46 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87vcxsswox.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87d3kal0za.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874o5mky4o.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871v0hudzo.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1304366228 7394 80.91.229.12 (2 May 2011 19:57:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 19:57:08 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 02 21:57:02 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 1QGzEs-00075H-3H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 21:57:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36806 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGzEr-0003jO-O6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 15:57:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58542) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGzEp-0003jE-1c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 15:56:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGzEo-0001ge-7a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 15:56:59 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:42007) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QGzEn-0001gT-QR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 15:56:58 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QGzEm-00074Q-VV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 21:56:56 +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 21:56:56 +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 21:56:56 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 21 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:sNO59TlYAEhhsSCnIvLJdrtxj30= 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:138996 Archived-At: On Mon, 02 May 2011 16:48:17 -0300 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> 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. SM> I think this is pushing server.el where it shouldn't go. It's not meant SM> as "Emacs as a server for whichever network service you can think of", SM> but just "use your own Emacs from other processes". If you want your SM> Emacs to offer services to various users (rather than just to yourself), SM> then you'll want to implement your own (probably based on GNUtls). 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. Knowledge of the shared key is sufficient. Plus there is no authorization granularity so the shared key grants full access. Am I missing or misunderstanding something? Ted