On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:


On 2 Sep 2014 00:59, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:53:11 +1000
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> 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