Guido van Rossum python.org> writes:
> As for protocol buffers, assuming its absence (so far from the
> stdlib is the only objection, how hard would it be to make the logging
> package "prepared" so that if one *did* have protocol buffers
> installed, it would be a one-line config setting to use
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>>
>> I've updated the documentation of SocketHandler.makePickle to mention
>> security
>> concerns, and that the method can be overridden to use a more secure
>> implementation (e.g.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> I've updated the documentation of SocketHandler.makePickle to mention security
> concerns, and that the method can be overridden to use a more secure
> implementation (e.g. HMAC-signed pickles).
Thanks. But I doubt HMAC complication helps to
anatoly techtonik gmail.com> writes:
> insecure. SocketHandler and DatagramHandler docs should at least
> contain a warning about danger of exposing unpickling interfaces to
> insecure networks.
I've updated the documentation of SocketHandler.makePickle to mention security
concerns, and that the
Hello,
I need to send logging module output over the network. The module has
everything to make this happen, except security. SocketHandler and
DatagramHandler examples are using pickle module that is said to be
insecure. SocketHandler and DatagramHandler docs should at least
contain a warning abo
