From: Albert Chou <achou@...>
Date: 2004-07-21T07:18:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Safe Ruby Environment

------_=_NextPart_001_01C46EA6.FBE45E81
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Maybe take inspiration from TCL's interp command
(http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.2.3/TclCmd/interp.htm), though that's a much
heavier-weight solution?

Al


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Neumann [mailto:mneumann@ntecs.de]=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 2:04 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Safe Ruby Environment

Hi,

Okay, there are the different $SAFE levels. But why not simply removing=20
dangerous methods, like:

   undef `
   undef system
   undef require
   ...

or replacing them by your own?

I guess, this is as secure as any $SAFE level (of course it depends on=20
which methods you are removing). Or am I missing something? The problem=20
is that this way you can't run other "good" code next to your "bad" code

(as it is possible with $SAFE).

It would be very nice to execute some Ruby code in such a reduced=20
environment without affecting the other "good" code:

   env =3D Environment.new
   env.remove_method :system
   env.remove_constant :ENV
   env.remove_global "$0"
   ...
   env.eval dangerous_code

   # or
   env =3D Environment.fresh
   env.add_method :system
   env.add_constant :ENV, ENV
   ...

BTW, is this possible to implement in Ruby or a C extension? I guess=20
not. Or would it work with two (or multiple) anonymous modules, one for=20
the good code, one for the bad code, and then by removing all=20
methods/constants/global variables outside those two modules?

Regards,

   Michael

------_=_NextPart_001_01C46EA6.FBE45E81--