On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Nick Coghlan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 2 Sep 2014 00:59, "Antoine Pitrou" <email@example.com mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:53:11 +1000 Nick Coghlan <email@example.com mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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.
Oh, now I get what you mean - yes, sitecustomize already poses the same kind of problem as the proposed sslcustomize (hence the existence of the related command line options).
I missed that you had switched to talking about using that attack vector, rather than trying to shadow stdlib modules directly through the filesystem (which is the only tricky thing I was referring to).
Cheers, Nick. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io
Or you can just install something with easy_install, or you can drop a .pth file and monkey patch there. You can’t stop people from overriding modules, it’s trivial to do. The sys.path ordering just makes it slightly less trivial.
— Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA