On Donnerstag, 18. März 2004 00:45, Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch wrote: > Funny, > > I just discovered 'unprotect word ... > > is there a higher order 'protect, which actually does not allow unprotect? > > Maybe a refinement should be added to protect, so that no malicious code > can play around with stuff you've protected in your user.r... like > read/write/save/load/open for example >
Will not protect against malicious code anyway, as you can change the functions code anyway by [second :my-func]. protect is a helper to find coding-bugs. unprotect makes sense when one wants to patch an inbuild functions, like protect-system unprotect[prin print] security-rule: do not put important data in the process before calling dubious code. use launch or call to fire up such code in its own exe if you really need to run it. i use 'call with a wrapper-script, which sets security higher in such cases. allows also to choose a old exe which has better sandbox. while using a fresh beta for my own stuff. > something like protect/permanent or protect/forever > > this is especially true when one adds sandbox capabilities to his setup and > does not want downloaded code to seep through it... > > just a tought... does any one agree? > > > > -MAx > --- > "You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, but in the > end, being part of the problem is much more fun." -Volker -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
