TCL(Tool Command Language) Scripting :: Secure interpreter...haven't we had that?


	Secure interpreter...haven't we had that? http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-have-finished-securing-python.html On Jun 1, 5:13 pm, Robert Hicks <sigz@gmail.com> wrote: > http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-have-finished-securing-python.html Or maybe he means something different... Robert Hicks wrote: > On Jun 1, 5:13 pm, Robert Hicks <sigz@gmail.com> wrote: >> http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-have-finished-securing-python.html > Or maybe he means something different... No, he means a safe interpreter. AFAIK, Python still only supports one interpreter per process tho, yes? Makes it difficult to do some of the good stuff. -- Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST) His kernel fu is strong. He studied at the Shao Linux Temple. Darren New schrieb: > Robert Hicks wrote: >> On Jun 1, 5:13 pm, Robert Hicks <sigz@gmail.com> wrote: >>> http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-have-finished-securing-python.html >> Or maybe he means something different... > No, he means a safe interpreter. AFAIK, Python still only supports one > interpreter per process tho, yes? Makes it difficult to do some of the > good stuff. IIRC they had some safe interpreter like features but threw them out because extensions didn't play nice with them (introduced security breaches). Tcls safe interpreters have the same problem if a C coded extension exposes unsafe features in its Safe_Init Function. So review the extensions you allow to be used. Michael