A capability-safe language would have minimized the Log4j vulnerability
1–10 of 158 posts
Re: A capability-safe language would have minimized the Log4j vulnerability
#2This approach reminds me of Haskell's effect systems.
Re: A capability-safe language would have minimized the Log4j vulnerability
#3No post body was provided.
Re: A capability-safe language would have minimized the Log4j vulnerability
#4It seems more practical to use BSD’s approach of pledging once in main that the process won’t access the network. Parts of the program that need different capabilities are isolated in their own processes and communicated with using IPC. I don’t think people want to pass all kinds of capabilities around in every function call.
Re: A capability-safe language would have minimized the Log4j vulnerability
#5Does this interact with or preclude operating system level capabilities?
Re: A capability-safe language would have minimized the Log4j vulnerability
#6Why should a programming language be limiting network access? Why wouldn't we do this via the operating system?
Re: A capability-safe language would have minimized the Log4j vulnerability
#7Except the vulnerability was a stack up. The logger wasn't making network calls per se, but passing requests to a component (JNDI) that would obviously need network access. You'd have the same root issue, it'd just manifest more as sort of a confused deputy with a capability based model.
Re: A capability-safe language would have minimized the Log4j vulnerability
#8It seems more practical to use BSD’s approach of pledging once in main that the process won’t access the network. Parts of the program that need different capabilities are isolated in their own processes and communicated with using IPC. I don’t think people want to pass all kinds of capabilities around in every function call.
Sounds better in general, but probably wouldn't help with something like logging which would probably be used in all the processes. Unless you want to make IPC calls for every logging call.
Re: A capability-safe language would have minimized the Log4j vulnerability
#9Why should a programming language be limiting network access? Why wouldn't we do this via the operating system?
It might be useful that some code in a single process have access while other parts do not. How would you propose an OS handle those cases?
Re: A capability-safe language would have minimized the Log4j vulnerability
#10Ideally all egress network connections should go via NAT Gateway & filters at NAT Gateway should have policies to say which request can go out. Failures do happen in programming, we need to have better guardrails ensuring security.