[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] New project: Safe Lua
- From: Mateusz Czaplinski <czapkofan@...>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:10:17 +0200
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Josh Simmons <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Stefan Reich
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Here's the project homepage: http://safelua.sf.net
> I'm not super sure what exactly you're going for here, Lua already is
> very easy to sandbox completely
Umm... I'm not so sure about it... when I look at
http://lua-users.org/wiki/SandBoxes and the amount of question marks
and "not guaranteed" disclaimers on the page.
Among others, bytecode is a known non-obvious vector of attack.
> the issue is providing "safe" APIs
> that provide enough power to be useful.
What about infinite loops and eating all memory?
> If these kind of things are your goals then existing projects already
> provide similar but more powerful control over these issues, things
> like Linux cgroups and Chrome's NaCL.
Yeah, initially I thought the OP was doing some interesting scientific
research and wanted to publish it, but then I realized it's a project
claiming a lot ("super-duper extra safe!") but I totally don't trust
it. Zero proofs, zero references, no protection against malicious
bytecode if I see correctly (thus, absolutely not safe), and author
seems to skim over the "making minimal sandbox" step as if it was