[Python-ideas] shutil.run no security thread

[anatoly techtonik]

Ok, let's separately discuss shutil.run() added value without touching
security at all (subj changed).

Is it ok? Is it nice idea? Would it be included in stdlib in an ideal
world where security implications doesn't matter?
--
anatoly t.


On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:39:16 +0300
> anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Therefore, inspired by Fabric API, I've finally found the solution -
>> shutil.run() function:
>> https://bitbucket.org/techtonik/shutil-run/src
>>
>> run(command, combine_stderr=True):
>>
>>     Run command through a system shell, return output string with
>>     additional properties:
>>
>>         output.succeeded    - result of the operation True/False
>>         output.return_code  - specific return code
>>         output.stderr       - stderr contents if combine_stderr=False
>>
>>      `combine_stderr` if set, makes stderr merged into output string,
>>      otherwise it will be available  as `output.stderr` attribute.
> [...]
>> That's the most intuitive way I found so far. Objective advantages:
>>
>> 1. Better than
>>        subprocess.call(cmd, shell=true)
>>        subprocess.check_call(cmd, shell=true)
>>        subprocess.check_output(cmd, shell=True)
>>      because it is just
>>        shutil.run(cmd)
>>      i.e. short, simple and _easy to remember_
>
> -2
>
> Unless there's some way to turn off shell processing (better yet, have
> no shell processing be the default, and require that it be turned on),
> it can't be used securely with tainted strings, so it should *not* be
> used with tainted strings, which means it's pretty much useless in any
> environment where security matters. With everything being networked,
> there may no longer be any such environments.
>
>> 3. shutil.run() is predictable and consistent - its arguments are not
>> dependent on each other, their combination doesn't change the function
>> behavior over and over requiring you iterate over the documentation
>> and warnings again and again
>
> As proposed, it certainly provides a predictable and consistent
> vulnerability to code injection attacks.
>
>> 4. shutil.run() is the correct next level API over subprocess base
>> level. subprocess executes external process - that is its role, but
>> automatic ability to execute external process inside another external
>> process (shell) looks like a hack to me. Practical, but still a hack.
>
> It's only correct if you are in an environment where you don't care
> about security. If you care about security, you can't use it. If we're
> going to add yet another system() replacement, let's at least try and
> make it secure.
>
>     <mike
> --
> Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>              http://www.mired.org/
> Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information.
>
> O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org