On 30 January 2012 16:06, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
a little digression here: nobody knows that steps towards systems security is needed and always welcome, even more in this internet days... but I always found that by "security", most security systems are being constructed against the programmers, not against the possible violations. IMHO, things like "don't touch this class behavior", as a way to ensure system security is oppressive, and is against the paradigm enforced by smalltalk. I don't think a programmer should be in a jail to program secure things... when we (pharoers) start this task, please, please, take this into account.
yep... always someone mentions security, I run to see if my rights are being violated :P
And you can't even start addressing security until you have a threat model against which to secure! frank
best, Esteban
El 30/01/2012, a las 12:45p.m., Igor Stasenko escribió:
a comment on Mariano's comment: "I am not sure if Pharo could be the best language for security....the fact of being able to play as god goes in contrary to security also. I would let all this security stuff for the javascript guys. "
in fact, straightly opposite. think in terms that you want to develop/model/research a secure system on top of Pharo. And you're a God, of course, and you should be able to do that, and Pharo should help you investigating your problem space. Now, if pharo is underpowered, so you as well, and then you leave "security stuff for the javascript guys." :)
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.