[Squeak-e] squeak-e and ANSI Smalltalk

[Robert Withers]

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 
live objects.

sorry about that,
rob