Re: Script codes

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Thu Jan 05 2006 - 22:35:07 CST

>> yes, okay I grant you that interpretation for the quoted section. But the
>> prior sentence (quoted earlier but not in the section you are refering to)
>> seems unequivocal:
>> namely:
>> ">> 4.2.2 Software Integrity
>>>> Self-modifying, dynamically loaded, or interpreted code is
>>>> prohibited, except under the
>>>> security provisions outlined in section 6.4.e."
>I don't think this is so clear. There is plenty of sloppy wording in the
>"standards." This sentence may have been trying to say that
>"self-modifying" code is prohibited. In other places, they talk about
>interpreted code as if it's expected to be used.

Okay good answer. I'll buy that. That does possibly proscibe the use of some python language features, like for example the using the type() statement to instantiate a class, or directly accessing an objects dir[] dictionary. But that's essentially the same as saying "dont use malloc or dont do pointer arithatic". that is design policy enforement , not compiler and language definition enforcement. I'm fine with that as long as that's okay.

Moving along it seem this section 6.4.1e raises another sore thumb. It says all compilers have to be removed from the system. I suppose in theory one could convery python to say jython bytecode or to compiled C and then remove the interpreters entirely. Is that required by this statement?

If so then this might constitute a clear distinction to the "accubasic" issue and python.

OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Mon Jan 8 20:24:36 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 08 2007 - 20:24:39 CST