Re:Mbox – A lightweight sandboxing mechanism
by tsgates on Monday February 10, 2014 @11:13PM
(#7215752)
I am the author of mbox. Since I got too many emails regarding mbox, here are a few things to clarify.
I particularly like to use mbox for redirecting modification to another directory. For example,
You can checkout a file without overwritting the current file. You can imagine tons of usecases in this vein. Of course, blocking networks, restricting accesses of other directories, and rootless pkg installations are cute. However, to be a mature tool, I have to admit that there are lots of engineering works left -- support of 32bit .. compatibility layers .. still lots of corner cases.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Mbox – A lightweight sandboxing mechanism
by riquito on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @04:22AM
(#7216663)
"pkgfile jpeg" || echo looks like a good name. Maybe not.
(I don't have pkgfile but I think the above command would echo the string). I do understand that naming a program is every day harder, but mbox is a really famous format, the de facto standard for storing e-mails. Please consider a different name for your impressive program.
Re:Mbox – A lightweight sandboxing mechanism
by dobbsbob on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @12:39AM
(#7216002)
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/mbox/mbox-latest.amd64.deb doesn't exist btw.
So far mbox is pretty awesome. Installed a bunch of rootless memory scrapers with a regular user account to see what it can do. Another, ephemeral sandbox I use is PrivExec http://www.onarlioglu.com/privexec/
Re:Mbox – A lightweight sandboxing mechanism
by stelonix on Monday February 10, 2014 @11:25PM
(#7215778)
Thank you for this! I've been looking for a tool like this for a while (up until yesterday too), I'm glad it has been done.
I'd like to ask, are there any caveats?