Hi,

> Things
> that we need to do are in the file manipulation range, such as moving or
> renaming large numbers of files

Well, that you can do outside Blender via regular Python too?

Further - if we can make file manipulations in the UI work sane/safe (and 
usable still), the hacked os module would just do same :) You will also define 
your own blends to be 'trusted' and allow scripts there to write anywhere you 
want (or not).

-Ton-

--------------------------------------------------------
Ton Roosendaal  -  [email protected]   -   www.blender.org
Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands



On 5 Jun, 2013, at 16:19, Bassam Kurdali wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 14:35 +0200, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Here's just some ideas to investigate:
>> 
>> 1) Better location for temp saves
> 
> 1) is actually really nice, /tmp has issues on some systems still and we
> often move the default to inside the home dir. esp. some systems don't
> keep /tmp between boots which has caused data loss sometimes.
> 
>> 2) Communicate to users all saving C/C++ code well
>> 
> saves initiated by a user (not by a script, tool, autosave or node save)
> should probably allowed anywhere the user has permission. also the user
> should have an easy way to make a file trusted.
> 
>> 3) Formalize definition of "trusted source" better.
>> 
>> - Any .blend file with absolute output paths could be marked untrusted by 
>> default.
>> 
>> - Macs (and Windows?) already have a way to detect a downloaded file, which 
>> can marked to be untrusted .blend.
>> 
>> - Blender files can also get a User identifier struct, which can be used for 
>> various ways to mark files 'trusted' or not. 
>> In its simplest implementation it can just store an identifier string 
>> (copied from userpref) to mark files as "saved by myself". 
>> 
> Once you get into this the trusted thing can be forged; I'm guessing
> some cyptography / security people have to weigh in on how to stop that.
>> 4) Replace Python's os module
>> 
> Please don't!
> We use python OS module so much for pipeline scripts, and I can't
> imagine other studios just don't do this. Replacing it with something
> crippled for security would be a huge annoyance - yes we can build our
> own, but for us at least we depend on external collaborators running on
> their own systems - sometimes our builds don't work for them. Things
> that we need to do are in the file manipulation range, such as moving or
> renaming large numbers of files, we access our share for the project in
> an absolute path in the root (this was standard practice before I got
> here) etc. etc. Messing with OS module would be pretty bad for us, and I
> don't know what would make it safe other than removing most of it's
> functionality anyway (the only thing safe is probably file path
> joining/splitting)
>> -Ton-
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> Ton Roosendaal  -  [email protected]   -   www.blender.org
>> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
>> Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5 Jun, 2013, at 13:24, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I've checked some history of past discussions (including sandboxing Python) 
>>> and to me it seems we still accept too much risk here. As a team (and for 
>>> me as Blender Foundation chairman) I feel it's a big responsibility to not 
>>> waive away so easily.
>>> 
>>> More over - it's a disaster waiting to be happening one day. It would be 
>>> unforgivable if we didn't at least help users to have a basic security in 
>>> place.
>>> 
>>> The discussion is also getting too much complicated by knowledgable people 
>>> who point out that there's always another vulnerability or other methods to 
>>> bypass any security feature. IMHO that's irrelevant, should never be a 
>>> reason to ignore it altogether.
>>> 
>>> We should be able to bring down this topic to a basic and sensible minimal 
>>> protection we provide for users.
>>> 
>>> Can we form some kindof workgroup to investigate it further and define a 
>>> proposal for actions? Or a roadmap? 
>>> 
>>> And: is there a consensis to make the default startup install have 
>>> 'autorun' disabled, with a notifier in the top header about it?
>>> 
>>> -Ton-
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> Ton Roosendaal  -  [email protected]   -   www.blender.org
>>> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
>>> Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5 Jun, 2013, at 8:25, Campbell Barton wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Knapp <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Knapp <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> As a normal hobby users, the biggest risk that I see is downloading a
>>>>>> blend from the net and opening it. This is not something we are likely
>>>>>> to give up. So, warning or not, what good is it? I need some way to
>>>>>> know if the file is good or bad. I don't see an answer. I would say a
>>>>>> good third of the users or more download blends for learning at least
>>>>>> and often for producing their own stuff.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What might be much more useful is a program that load a blend and tell
>>>>> me what it might do. For example, does it run scripts, does it have
>>>>> crazy large data sets? If it runs scripts then it should be able to
>>>>> show me them. It should look at the data sizes that the blend will use
>>>>> and make guesses if it is too large. Naturally it should only open the
>>>>> blend as data and not as blender would.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Douglas E Knapp
>>>> 
>>>> Such a tool isn't so hard to write, see this python module which loads
>>>> up blend files without using blender.
>>>> http://blender-aid.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/blendfile.py
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

_______________________________________________
Bf-committers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Reply via email to