http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=55355


in reply to Known security issues with Safe.pm?

You might try a simple server architecture, which depending on your needs, may be truly-threaded or simply forked. Runaway processes can be easily STOPped or KILLed if your server is paying attention. Invoking a forked process prepended with the "nice" command is certainly an option. Using SIGALRM is generally a bad idea for any security considerations. You could also give the "modified" interpreter a separate user or group in which you can set limits of quota, swap usage, CPU time and system time. That's sounds like alot of encapsulation for an untrusted user who would have access to your system. Is it really worth it? Under the best circumstances, you'd probably need a separate computer to guarantee the safety of your own stuff. The unltimate answer depends on how much you can trust your users or how much you are able to track them (Which libs should they not have access to, etc.) If you need more help, or if you want Olga to call, just reply below...
AgentM Systems nor Nasca Enterprises nor Bone::Easy nor Macperl is responsible for the comments made by AgentM. Remember, you can build any logical system with NOR.
  • Comment on Re: Known security issues with Safe.pm?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Known security issues with Safe.pm?
by Fastolfe (Vicar) on Jan 31, 2001 at 00:51 UTC
    Exactly. I'm just trying to get a full feel for my options here and weigh that against the risk I'm willing to assume. Forking off a new process seems like another good alternative as far as compartmentalizing the code, leaving the parent running and able to watch over it.