From: Tanner Burson Date: 2006-04-01T00:31:40+09:00 Subject: Re: Digital signing of Ruby scripts ------=_Part_18759_21154976.1143819094748 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/30/06, John Lam wrote: > > It's actually the other way around - can the author of the program trust > the > user of the program? Think about a corporate environment where you're > worried about employees hacking your system. In today's SOX compliance > driven world it's not an unreasonable thing to worry about. > > DRM can be used for "good" or "evil". In a corporate setting, the user > doesn't own the computer - it's the company's property. So in that case, > the > company should be able to define what can and cannot execute on the > machine. > So while *today* this isn't a reasonable expectation, in the future havin= g > the ability to lock down a machine so that it only executes code that was > signed by an approved list of certificate holders seems like a really goo= d > way to avoid problems like trusted insiders hacking your system. Given that you're bridging to .NET could you use that to your advantage? D= o some sort of a hash, or simple signature of the ruby code, which gets passe= d through the bridge, and then let .NET handle that part. Hmm...more random using here... What if you took the ruby code, and compiled it into a .NET exe as an embedded resource (far from secure, but it would allow you to use strong name keys or something similar on the entire assembly) then use a generic Main function that either embeds a ruby interpreter, or 'forks' one out to call the code? I realize this isn't much different than exerb or the like, but being in a .NET assembly could allow you the strong naming and such. -John > http://www.iunknown.com > > > On 3/30/06, listrecv@gmail.com wrote: > > > > I still don't understand. Who are you trying to protect - a user from > > running a malicous (or tampered with) ruby script? If so, as I said, > > this is no different than protecting a user from running a trojan > > compiled file - people either trust the author (and hopefully use code > > signing), or run the code in a sandbox. > > > > In terms of ensuring that only admin's can install the ruby > > executable/interpreter - this is currently impossible, and likely will > > remain so. Even if you mark your exe/interpreter to require admin > > privs to install, what's to stop anyone else from creating their own > > exe/interpreter without that restriction? It's essentially the old > > copy protection / DRM issue, which all experts agree can always be > > defeated (at least short of a hardware implementation). > > > > > > > > -- =3D=3D=3DTanner Burson=3D=3D=3D tanner.burson@gmail.com http://tannerburson.com <---Might even work one day... ------=_Part_18759_21154976.1143819094748--