David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > Ken Sharp <[email protected]> writes: >> >> And the unsafe context you are storing is what exactly ? > > The object you get when executing "safe" before executing .setsafe.
s/"safe"/"save"/ of course. > Calling restore on it reverts to non-safe mode, so we don't want it > accessible to the potentially unsafe code executed in -dSAFER mode. > > I mean, that's the textbook and documented way of using .runandhide . > It's not like we invented it. > >> Usually these result in crashes but we've also seen denial of service, >> directory and file traversal/retrieval and some cases where it was >> possible to execute arbitrary code. Note that these have been true in >> some instances even when -dSAFER is set. > > Calling "safe" "save" again. Sorry. > in unsafe mode will deliver an object useful for returning from > -dSAFER _if_ code has access to that object. .runandhide was the > documented way of hiding the object away from potentially unsafe code. >> Given the rather acrimonious past history of our discussions, I think >> it may be better if I hand this to a colleague. I'll speak to someone >> tomorrow and see if they are willing to take it on. I am not sure that having to start over explaining will lead to an improvement of my ability to communicate. Being better able to tell computers what I am talking about than humans is not exactly rewarding for me either, but when I am the main person responsible for affected code, there is not much of a way for me to pass the bucket. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
