I've heard it said that pickle is a security hole, and so it's better to write your own serialization routine. That's unfortunate because pickle has so many advantages such as automatically tying into copy/deepcopy. Would it be possible to make unpickle secure, e.g., by having the caller create a context in which all calls to unpickle are limited to unpickling a specific set of types? (When these types unpickle their sub-objects, they could potentially limit the set of types further.)
On 7/22/2015 1:03 AM, Neil Girdhar wrote:
I've heard it said that pickle is a security hole,
Yes -- from the security section of the pickle docs: However, for unpickling, it is never a good idea to unpickle an untrusted string whose origins are dubious
and so it's better to write your own serialization routine.
Or unpickle only trusted strings.
Do-you-know-where-your-pickles-been-lately-ly yr's, Emile
Have you looked at https://docs.python.org/3/library/pickle.html#pickle-restrict ? -- Eric.
On 7/22/2015 1:03 AM, Neil Girdhar wrote:
I've heard it said that pickle is a security hole,
Yes -- from the security section of the pickle docs: However, for unpickling, it is never a good idea to unpickle an untrusted string whose origins are dubious
and so it's better to write your own serialization routine.
Or unpickle only trusted strings.
Do-you-know-where-your-pickles-been-lately-ly yr's, Emile
Have you looked at https://docs.python.org/3/library/pickle.html#pickle-restrict ? -- Eric.
participants (3)
-
Emile van Sebille -
Eric V. Smith -
Neil Girdhar