🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4276@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> So, Commodore, you're gonna put AREXX in 1.4, eh?  Soon the place
>> will be crawling with scripts, and some of them will be simple
>> viruses or booby traps.  That was one of the objections that I
>> brought up to my idea of symbolic links to REXX scripts.
>
>How does this differ from all the programs, device drivers, handlers, and
>libraries already crawling all over the place?

I brought up that point in my original article.  Couldn't
hurt to read the whole thing.  In more depth:

 1- arexx makes it possible for all sorts of things to happen 
    without the user's direct request or knowledge, and can
    make the consequences of previously harmless actions
    be harmful or unexpected.

    Example: macros for DME.  Before AREXX, the only way a DME
    macro could do any damage was to, for instance, save an
    empty buffer on top of a file.  With AREXX, a DME macro can
    do anything.  Joe Casual User (JCU) downloads a new set of
    macros from a bulletin board, thinking that at least editor
    macros can't be booby trapped...

 2- why the heck NOT add some protection.  It's possible, and
    not too hard.  Handy for programmers too, during testing
    stages.  

 3- it's all moot, anyway.  The earth is in a cloud of asteroids;
    one of these days we'll be blown away.


"Trespassers w"   ranjit@eniac.seas.upenn.edu	mailrus!eecae!netnews!eniac!...
	   "Such a brute that even his shadow breaks things." (Lorca)