On Aug 29, 8:14 pm, Fett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 29, 7:42 am, Fett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Aug 28, 7:57 pm, Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So long story short: if I am expecting a dictionary of strings, I > > should make a parser that only accepts a dictionary of strings then. > > There is no safe way to use an existing construct. > > > That is what I was afraid of. I know I will have to deal with the > > possibility of bad data, but considering my use (an acronym legend for > > a database), and the fact that the site I plan to use should be > > secure, these issues should be minimal. The users should be able to > > spot any obvious false data, and restoring it should be simple. > > > Many thanks to all of you for your alarmist remarks. I certainly don't > > want to, in any way, put my clients computers at risk by providing > > unsafe code. > > On a related note, what if I encrypted and signed the data, then only > ran eval() on the string after it was decrypted and the signature > verified? > > It has occurred to me that posting this data on a site might not be > the best idea unless I can be sure that it is not read by anyone that > it shouldn't be. So I figure an encrypting is needed, and as long as I > can sign it as well, then only people with my private signing key > could pass bad data, much less harmful strings.
Your way of thinking is similar to Microsoft's. Encrypting and Signing is a kludge, a real fix should fix the underlying cause. Anyway using data parsers isn't that much harder than using eval/exec. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
