Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Security #10

Open
formula1 opened this issue Nov 20, 2014 · 1 comment
Open

Security #10

formula1 opened this issue Nov 20, 2014 · 1 comment
Labels

Comments

@formula1
Copy link
Contributor

It isn't even a big deal and since the whole operating system will be hackable, I question the point of bringing it up. However, Its worth questioning.

Its possible to create a dummy user with no permissions and run the child process from within that context. http://linux.die.net/man/8/sudo. This allows processes to be forced to go through us to do anything. This may or may not be a good thing however as it basically limits freedom and/or enable frustration for developers used to doing whatever they want. That being said, it is useful for ensuring ports and etc all run without conflicts.

As for the client permissions, that is strictly web based and not as easy to implement.

@zodern
Copy link
Member

zodern commented Jan 4, 2015

How much security Silk needs is an interesting question. Running processes in a dummy user would allow us to make sure apps don't go beyond any permissions they have. Currently we don't have permissions and most apps let Silk handle their public server and routing so ports isn't a concern yet.

Later we might want to implement this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants