[Squeak-e] squeak-e and ANSI Smalltalk
rwithers12 at attbi.com
Sat Feb 1 19:01:42 CET 2003
On Saturday, February 1, 2003, at 06:38 PM, Robert Withers wrote:
>> I'm not sure what these questions mean in terms of "normal"
>> Smalltalk operation and security measures. Has anyone on this list
>> dealt with Smalltalk security issues before, without relying upon
>> host operating system services?
> this is a big reason that I presume we felt it was pertinent to form
> another list. the host OS is only there to give us a launching point
> and allow squeak access to display, sockets, files, sound, time, and
> that kind of thing.
I didn't answer your question, did I?
I meant to say that we are considering changes to the Squeak language,
although we may be able to keep it ANSI compliant, surprisingly.
_this_ is why I think we thought we should form another list, plus we
were being very noisy.
I think it possible that some squeakers have written security to the
host, but it would be for a specific host and that breaks the
cross-platform nature of squeak. There is a fair bit of security
features already in squeak, including message signing and other bits.
There is a security plugin which can sandbox the image (no file access,
etc..). I think we are looking at finer grain techniques for securing
sorry about that,
More information about the Squeak-e