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).