On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:53:11 +1000 Nick Coghlan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 2 Sep 2014 00:08, "Antoine Pitrou" email@example.com wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 23:42:10 +1000 Chris Angelico firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
That has to be done inside the same process. But imagine this scenario: You have a program that gets invoked as root (or some other user than yourself), and you're trying to fiddle with what it sees. You don't have root access, but you can manipulate the file system,
the extent that your userid has access. What can you do to affect
If you're root you shouldn't run untrusted code. See https://docs.python.org/3/using/cmdline.html#cmdoption-I
Right, which is why sslcustomize has to be controlled by that, but the possibility of patching (or monkeypatching) ssl.py isn't as big a deal.
To be frank I don't understand what you're arguing about.
When I said "shadowing ssl can be tricky to arrange", Chris correctly interpreted it as referring to the filesystem based privilege escalation scenario that isolated mode handles, not to normal in-process monkeypatching or module injection.
There's no actual difference. You can have a sitecustomize.py that does the monkeypatching or the shadowing. There doesn't seem to be anything "tricky" about that.