Dino Viehland wrote:
Michael wrote:
I still see it as a question of usability rather than security. (I'm
honestly not sure how creating a writable directory is a security
issue?) If the default install location of IronPython makes installing
and using Python packages with IronPython impossible for non-elevated
users then that is an extreme misfeature.
This is the security problem. Let's say I, a normal user, goes into
C:\Python26\Lib\site-packages and creates or modifies sitecustomize.py.
In sitecustomize.py I add some code like:
import os
if os.environ['USERNAME'] == 'Administrator':
# install malware here, set myself as an administrator, format C,
# etc...
pass
Now I just sit back and wait for an administrator to start some program
which relies on Python. I now have full control of a machine which I was
originally only granted normal user access on.
Well, fair enough [1]. :-)
Except it may *still* leave distutils / package management basically
unusable for many people. That would still seem to be bad. I'd like to
work on making Distribute (the successor to setuptools) compatible with
IronPython but it is going to require a working distutils system.
Can PEP 370 style site-packages be made the default for IronPython?
Michael
[1] I don't have this problem on the Mac. I have a system installed
Python that I must sudo to modify and a user installed one that I don't.
Even a user installed IronPython wouldn't have write permissions in the
normal site-packages folder on Windows, right?
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.ironpython.com
http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.ironpython.com
http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
