Limiting the features of an embedded python instance - python

Is there a way to limit the abilities of python scripts running under an embedded interpretor? Specifically I wish to prevent the scripts from doing things like the following:
Importing python extension modules (ie .pyd modules), except those specifically allowed by the application.
Manipulating processes in any way (ie starting new processes, or terminating the application).
Any kind of networking.
Manipulating the file system (eg creating, modifying and deleting files).

No. There's no easy way to prevent those things on CPython. Your options are:
Edit CPython source code and remove things you don't want - provide mocking methods for all those things. Very error-prone and hard to do. This is the approach of Google's App Engine.
Use Restricted Python. However, with it you can't prevent your user from exhausting the memory available or running infinite eat-all-cpu loops.
Use another python implementation. PyPy has a sandbox mode you can use. Jython runs under java and I guess java can be sandboxed.

Maybe this can be helpful. You have an example provided on how to work with the ast.

What you want it Google's Unladen Swallow project that Python version of App Engine runs on.
Modules are severely restricted, ctypes are not allowed, sockets are matched against some policy or other, in other words you get a sandboxed version of Python, in line with their Java offering.
I'd like to point out that this makes the system almost useless. Well useless for anything cooler than yet another [App Engine] App. Forget monkey-patching system modules, and even access to own stack is restricted. Totally un-dynamic-like.
OT: games typically embed LUA for scripting, perhaps you should check it out.

Related

How can I wrap Python processes in an OSGi deployment

I need to integrate a body of Python code into an existing OSGi (Apache Felix) deployment.
I assume, or at least hope, that packages exist to help with this effort.
If it helps, the Python code is still relatively new and small, so can probably re re-architected to meet whatever constraints are needed. However, it must remain in Python, because of dependencies on third-party libraries.
What are suggested best practices?
The trick is to make this an extender, see 1 and 2. You want your Python code to be separate from the code that handles the interaction with the interpreter. So what you do is wrap the Python code and any native libraries in a bundle. This is trivial since it is just a zip file.
You then develop a bundle that listens to starting bundle (see the BundleTracker) that have python code. A manifest is often used but you can also look in a directory in the JAR. If you detect this code, you extract any native libraries and run the code in the interpeter of your choice.
If can use JYthon then that would be highly recommended. You can then carry the interpreter as an OSGi bundle that runs on the VM. If you need to use a native compiler your life is less rosy. You can rely on the environment to provide you with an interpreter but then why use OSGi in the first place. You basically lose the write once run anywhere advantage. You could go the full monty by creating bundles that contain Python installers for all platforms you support. Can be done, not even that hard, but a maintenance nightmare. Believe me, native code suck, it only does it a bit faster than Java.

What is the recommended practice in django to execute external scripts?

I'm planning to build a WebApp that will need to execute scripts based on the argument that an user will provide in a text-field or in the Url.
possible solutions that I have found:
create a lib directory in the root directory of the project, and put the scripts there, and import it from views.
using subprocess module to directly run the scripts in the following way:
subprocess.call(['python', 'somescript.py', argument_1,...])
argument_1: should be what an end user provides.
I'm planning to build a WebApp that will need to execute scripts
Why should it "execute scripts" ? Turn your "scripts" into proper modules, import the relevant functions and call them. The fact that Python can be used as a "scripting language" doesn't mean it's not a proper programming language.
Approach (1) should be the default approach. Never subprocess unless you absolutely have to.
Disadvantages of subprocessing:
Depends on the underlying OS and in your case Python (i.e. is python command the same as the Python that runs the original script?).
Potentially harder to make safe.
Harder to pass values, return results and report errors.
Eats more memory and cpu (a side effect is that you can utilize all cpu cores but since you are writing a web app it is likely you do that anyway).
Generally harder to code and maintain.
Advantages of subprocessing:
Isolates the runtime. This is useful if for example scripts are uploaded by users. You don't want them to mess with your application.
Related to 1: potentially easier to dynamically add scripts. Not that you should do that anyway. Also becomes harder when you have more then 1 server and you need to synchronize them.
Well, you can run non-python code that way. But it doesn't apply to your case.

How can I simulate a Python shell most effectively and securely?

For to offer interactive examples about data analysis, I'd like to embed an interactive python shell. It does not necessarily have to be a real Python shell. Users shall be given tasks that they can execute in the shell. This is similar to existing tutorials, as seen on, e.g., http://www.codecademy.org, but I'd like to work with libraries that those solutions do not offer, as far as I understood.
In order to get a real shell on the website, I think of two approaches:
I found projects like http://www.repl.it, but it seems rather difficult to include the necessary libraries like SciPy, NumPy, and Pandas. In addition, user input has to be validated and I'm not sure whether that works with those shells I found.
I could pipe the commands through a web applications to a Python installation on my server, but I'm scared of using eval() on foreign, arbitrary code. Is there a safe mode for Python? I found http://www.pypy.org. Although they offer a Python sandbox, unfortunately, they do not support the libraries I need.
Alternatively, I thought of just embedding a "fake shell", which I build to copy the behaviour of the functions that I want to explain. Of course, this would result in more work, as I would have to write a fake interface, but for now it seems to be the only possibility.
I hope that this question is not too generic; I'm looking for either a good HTML/JS library that helps me put a fake shell on my website or a library/service/software that can embed a real Python shell with the required modules installed.
There is no way to run untrusted Python safely; Python's dynamic nature allows for too many ways to break through any protective layers you could care to think of.
Instead, run each session on a new virtual machine, properly locked down (firewalled, unprivileged user), which you shut down after a hard time limit. New sessions get a new, clean virtual machine.
This isolates you from any malicious code that might run and try to break out of a sandbox; a good virtual machine is hardware-isolated by the processor from the host OS, something a Python-only layer could never achieve.
This process is sometimes called sandboxing.
You can find some good information on the python wiki
There are basically three options available:
machine-level mechanisms (such as a VM, as Martijn Pieters suggested)
OS-level mechanisms (such as a chroot or SELinux)
custom interpreters, such as pypy (which has sandboxing capabilities, as you mentioned), or Jython, where you may be able to use the Java security manager or applet mechanisms.
You may also want to check Restricted Python, which is especially useful for very restricted environments, but security will depend on its configuration.
Ultimately, your choice of solution will depend on what you want to restrict:
Filesystem access? Block everything, or allow certain directories?
Network access, such as sockets?
Arbitrary system calls?

Cocoa: how safe is it to make an app that is coupled with python subroutines?

I want to make a Cocoa OS X app. I would prefer to use python scripts in it's core. However, not sure how safe is it. I know that python penetration is quite high, but what about version conflicts and migrations? Is it worth bundling whole python runtime into the OS X app?
Thanks.
So.... what this really boils down to is compatibility issues across versions, something that scripting languages are notoriously bad at maintaining. Python does better than most, but it is still quite problematic.
Apple has generally shipped legacy versions of interpreters on the system for exactly this reason. Thus, if you do rely on the system installed Python, I would recommend locking to a particular version. I.e. use /usr/bin/python2.6 and not the generic /usr/bin/python.
The alternative is as you state; bundle the python interpreter and any needed resources into your app. That is a bit of a pain the butt to do, but it addresses the compatibility issue. More or less; the reality is that Python is, effectively, an interface to the OS and, thus, is quite large with potential to break across any release. Not much you can about that, though.
Another possibility is to go the route that #kindall proposes; use PyObjC and implement your Cocoa application entirely or mostly in Python. Works fine. Been there, done that, and wouldn't do it again, frankly, as the maintenance/debugging issues of large scale scripted applications are nasty.
As an alternative, you might want to investigate using Lua (http://www.lua.org) as it is very much designed to be embedded in applications. Lua has a tiny interpreter and you can fully control exactly what features of your app are accessible at runtime. For example, World of Warcraft's UI is mostly implemented as Lua gluing together a set of fast UI primitives. Fully customizable on the client side, which is really impressive when you consider the security implications.
You should use py2app. It will bundle a Python executable, all the libraries you need, and your script together into a single executable. You can then add other executables (e.g. your Objective-C parts) into that app bundle.

Execution permissions in Python

I need to send code to remote clients to be executed in them but security is a concern for me right now. I don't want unsafe code to be executed there so I would like to control what a program is doing. I mean for example, know if is making connections, where is connecting to, if is reading local files, etc. Is this possible with Python?
EDIT: I'm thinking in something similar to Android permission system. I want to know what a code will do and if it does something different, stop it.
You could use a different Python runtime:
if you run your script using Jython; you can exploit Java's permission system
with Pypy's sandboxed version you can choose what is allowed to run in your controller script
There used to be a module in Python called bastian, but that was deprecated as it wasn't that secure. There's also I believe something called RPython, but I don't know too much about that.
I would in this case use Pyro and write the code on the target server. That way you know clients can only execute written and tested code.
edit - it's probably worth noting that Pyro also supports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_separation - although I've not had to use it for that.
I think you are looking for a sandboxed python. There used to be an effort to implement this, but it has been abolished a couple of years ago.
Sandboxed python in the python wiki offers a nice overview of possible options for your usecase.
The most rigourous (but probably the slowest) way is to run Python on a bare OS in an emulator.
Depending on the OS you use, there are several ways of running programs with restrictions, but without the overhead of an emulator:
FreeBSD has a nice integrated solution in the form of jails.
These grew out of the chroot system call.
Linux-VServer aims to do more or less the same on Linux.

Categories

Resources