4 ms·
Maybe cutting off network access could be done too? That would reduce some potentially useful features, but it could be a parameter to enable it (hey, we're tal
by akavel 8y ago
Maybe cutting off network access could be done too? That would reduce some potentially useful features, but it could be a parameter to enable it (hey, we're talking Linux, never enough parameters! ;). That is, assuming that a syscalls/capabilities trick like that is possible at all. (Anyone can say more here? Some kernel hackers? This is HN, ain't it?)
- rcthompson 8y agoYeah, I think almost any ability to produce an effect other than printing to stdout and stderr should probably be restricted by default, with a flag to enable it. If people adopt this and frequently use specific capabilities, they can add a shell alias to add enable their preferred set of capabilities.
- rcthompson 8y agoOr, one possible alternative would be to always prevent any side-effects other than printing output, and then display a warning saying something like "This command tried to access the network/modify the filesystem/be naughty in some other way. To allow this and re-run the command, press Control+Shift+Enter"
- em-bee 8y agocapabilities should certainly work. for portability, setting a non-existant proxy should also help. most commandline tools should honor shell proxy variables and fail the request. greetings, eMBee.