Re: [HACKERS] Interpretation of TRUSTED

2005-02-08 Thread Jeff Davis
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 14:51 -0800, elein wrote: > An untrusted language is so because of what it can do and cannot do. > An untrusted language cannot access the filesystem, for example. > There is a bit of confusion in the terminology. Trusted means that the language has been deemed "safe", i.e.

Re: [HACKERS] Interpretation of TRUSTED

2005-02-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:12:07PM +0100, Thomas Hallgren wrote: Is it OK to design a trusted language so that it allows access to the filesystem provided that the session user is a super-user? AFAICS, what Thomas proposes would be exactly equivalent to root running

Re: [HACKERS] Interpretation of TRUSTED

2005-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:12:07PM +0100, Thomas Hallgren wrote: >> Is it OK to design a trusted language so that it allows access to >> the filesystem provided that the session user is a super-user? > I believe that that is what UNTRUSTED languages are f

Re: [HACKERS] Interpretation of TRUSTED

2005-02-08 Thread Thomas Hallgren
elein wrote: An untrusted language is so because of what it can do and cannot do. An untrusted language cannot access the filesystem, for example. WHO writes and runs untrusted and trusted procedures is a different thing. It is the security mechanism meant to restrict writting and running the func

Re: [HACKERS] Interpretation of TRUSTED

2005-02-08 Thread elein
An untrusted language is so because of what it can do and cannot do. An untrusted language cannot access the filesystem, for example. WHO writes and runs untrusted and trusted procedures is a different thing. It is the security mechanism meant to restrict writting and running the functions writte

Re: [HACKERS] Interpretation of TRUSTED

2005-02-08 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:12:07PM +0100, Thomas Hallgren wrote: > Hi, > A TRUSTED language specifies that ordinary users can use the > language. It also implies that access to the file system should be > prevented. In essence, ordinary users can never access the > filesystem. > > Is it OK to des

[HACKERS] Interpretation of TRUSTED

2005-02-08 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Hi, A TRUSTED language specifies that ordinary users can use the language. It also implies that access to the file system should be prevented. In essence, ordinary users can never access the filesystem. Is it OK to design a trusted language so that it allows access to the filesystem provided th