Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.redatomik.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:Python': 0.05; 'interpreter.': 0.07; 'plenty': 0.07; 'pypy': 0.07; 'compiler.': 0.09; 'creighton': 0.09; 'experimental': 0.09; 'garbage': 0.09; 'interpreter,': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'runtime': 0.09; 'things.': 0.15; 'from:addr:behnel.de': 0.16; 'from:addr:stefan_ml': 0.16; 'from:name:stefan behnel': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'rewriting': 0.16; 'cheap': 0.18; 'laura': 0.18; 'stefan': 0.18; 'language': 0.19; 'either.': 0.22; 'academic': 0.23; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'written': 0.24; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.26; 'point': 0.33; 'crazy': 0.33; 'view,': 0.33; 'languages': 0.34; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.35; 'done': 0.35; 'exist': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'project': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'received:org': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:de': 0.40; 'free,': 0.60; 'entire': 0.61; 'other.': 0.64; 'our': 0.64; 'here': 0.66; 'fact,': 0.67; 'potentially': 0.67; 'price': 0.68; 'prolog': 0.84 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Stefan Behnel Subject: Re: Creating a reliable sandboxed Python environment Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 20:42:49 +0200 References: <60b424a2-2273-42b2-b60c-92656af0afa5@googlegroups.com> <87h9qvxmh0.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> <878uc6yhtq.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> <874mmuy8ko.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net><55697c1f$0$13013$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <201505301124.t4UBOnPb020332@fido.openend.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ipservice-092-211-042-169.092.211.pools.vodafone-ip.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 In-Reply-To: <201505301124.t4UBOnPb020332@fido.openend.se> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+ Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1433011380 news.xs4all.nl 2969 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:35780 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:91537 Laura Creighton schrieb am 30.05.2015 um 13:24: > As a point of fact, We've _already got_ Topaz, a Ruby interpreter, > Hippy, a PHP interpreter, a Prolog interpreter, a Smalltalk > interpeter, and a javascript interpreter. Recently we got Pyket a > Racket compiler. There also exist plenty of experimental languages > written by academic langauge designers, and other crazy people who > like such things. But don't ask the PyPy project about hard is it to > sandbox one versus the other. From our point of view, they all cost > the same -- free, as in _already done for you_, same as you get a JIT > for free, and pluggable garbage collectors for free, etc. etc. So here the cost of security is actually rewriting the entire language runtime and potentially also major parts of its ecosystem? Not exactly a cheap price either. Stefan