[#6660] Ruby on Neko ? — Nicolas Cannasse <ncannasse@...>

Hi folks,

14 messages 2005/11/19

[#6672] testing for hardlink with "test(?-, ...)" flawed on Windows — noreply@...

Bugs item #2858, was opened at 2005-11-20 16:35

13 messages 2005/11/20

[#6684] semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...>

Hi all,

81 messages 2005/11/21
[#6685] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Mauricio Fern疣dez <mfp@...> 2005/11/22

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:22:59AM +0900, Stefan Kaes wrote:

[#6686] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:

[#6687] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2005/11/22

On Nov 21, 2005, at 4:37 PM, Stefan Kaes wrote:

[#6689] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

Eric Hodel wrote:

[#6693] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/11/22

Hi,

[#6695] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#6718] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — mathew <meta@...> 2005/11/22

[#6722] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

mathew wrote:

[#6707] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/11/22

Hi --

[#6708] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

David A. Black wrote:

[#6714] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/11/22

Hi --

[#6717] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

David A. Black wrote:

[#6798] ruby 1.8.4 preview2 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

37 messages 2005/11/30

Re: Sandboxing without $SAFE

From: Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-11-10 23:39:06 UTC
List: ruby-core #6608
why the lucky stiff wrote:
> I've been playing with Ruby sandboxing alot over the past several 
> weeks.  I've been using remove_const and redefinitions of classes to 
> limit Ruby rather than $SAFE.  I want to offer an interpreter which can 
> be scripted without needing to learn tainting and still giving the 
> ability to `eval'.
> 
> Here are the assumptions:
> 1. The filesystem is chroot'd or, better yet, a virtual filesystem 
> implemented in Ruby memory.  (Like MockFS.)
> 2. Scripts will be monitored for CPU usage and consuming processes will 
> be killed.
> 3. STDERR, STDIN and STDOUT are attached to the user's input and output 
> (the browser).
> 4. The following constants are removed from Object: Continuation, GC, 
> ObjectSpace, Process.
> 5. The following methods are removed or redefined in Kernel: (backtick), 
> abort, autoload, autoload?, exec, exit, exit!, getc, gets, fork, load, 
> readline, readlines, require, select, syscall, system, test.
> 6. As a part of #1, the following class are redefined to prevent them 
> from accessing the actual filesystem: File, FileTest, Dir, DBM, File::Stat.
> 7. All communication to the interpreter is done through a UNIXServer 
> socket, like this:
> 
>   s = UNIXServer.open( socket_path )
>  # .. removal of all constants (including UNIXServer), loading of libs
>  while true
>    Thread.start( s.accept ) do |s|
>       if cmd = s.gets
>         s.write eval(cmd)
>         s.close
>       end
>     end
>   end
> 
> It's a bit more complicated than this, but you get the idea.
> 
> My questions are three:
> 1. Are removed constants and methods available elsewhere in the 
> interpreter?
> 2. Could this be distilled into a general practice, as standard as $SAFE?
> 3. In general, what am I overlooking?

In general, this may be unnecessary work. If you run Ruby in a chrooted
environment with minimal tools and as an unprivileged user with all
proper permissions set, it is fairly safe. The failpoints, then,
would be any other applications in that chrooted environment,
accessed through system() and so on.

Well, with a sane chroot program at any rate.


> _why

E


In This Thread