Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3188 in pharo: do we need SecurityManager?
Updates: Labels: Milestone-1.3 Comment #1 on issue 3188 by marcus.d...@gmail.com: do we need SecurityManager? http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3188 let's kill it
Comment #2 on issue 3188 by marcus.d...@gmail.com: do we need SecurityManager? http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3188 We need to integrate Issue 3818 before (changes / cleanups to startup logic)
Updates: Status: FixProposed Comment #3 on issue 3188 by marcus.d...@gmail.com: do we need SecurityManager? http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3188 After Issue 4033 is added, the attached cs can be used to remove SecurityManager. CAUTION: preamble needed. Smalltalk removeFromStartUpList: SecurityManager Attachments: SecurityManagerRemove.1.cs 2.1 KB
Comment #4 on issue 3188 by siguc...@gmail.com: do we need SecurityManager? http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3188 There are certain primitives which controlling VM security plugin self flushSecurityKeys. self disableFileAccess. self disableImageWrite. "self disableSocketAccess." IMO the whole security features should be reviewed. In new Cog VMs i added a new primitive(s) which can disable loading plugins (including internal ones). So, for sandboxing, one could simply run this primitive so, no other plugins (except already loaded ones) can be used for the rest of the session.
participants (1)
-
pharo＠googlecode.com