Mod_ruby, require, and $SAFE

Ruby
1

When running under mod_ruby with the default $SAFE == 1, a file
containing only this:

require ‘active_record’

will give a 500 response with the error:

mod_ruby: error in ruby
mod_ruby: /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/source_index.rb:73:in
read': Insecure operation - read (SecurityError) mod_ruby: from /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/source_index.rb:73:inload_specification’
mod_ruby: from
/usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/source_index.rb:45:in
from_installed_gems' mod_ruby: from /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/source_index.rb:44:infrom_installed_gems’
mod_ruby: from
/usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/source_index.rb:63:in
from_installed_gems' mod_ruby: from /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:79:insource_index’
mod_ruby: from
/usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:105:in
init_gemspecs' mod_ruby: from /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:50:ininitialize’
mod_ruby: from
/usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:24:in
require' mod_ruby: from /home/user/public_html/lvs/cgi/safe_test.rbx:1 mod_ruby: from /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/apache/ruby-run.rb:53:inhandler’

I think this is happening because whatever is loaded from active_record
is tainted and then can’t be used to do the requires that active_record
needs to do. That could be way off though.

I’m aware of the RubySafeLevel apache directive, but is there a
reasonable way to keep $SAFE == 1 and still be able to require
active_record?

Thanks,
Jeremy

2

On Jan 22, 2007, at 09:20, [email protected] wrote:

I think this is happening because whatever is loaded from
active_record
is tainted and then can’t be used to do the requires that
active_record
needs to do. That could be way off though.

I’m aware of the RubySafeLevel apache directive, but is there a
reasonable way to keep $SAFE == 1 and still be able to require
active_record?

What version of RubyGems are you using?

–
Eric H. - [email protected] - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

3

Eric H. wrote:

What version of RubyGems are you using?

$ gem --version
shows 0.8.11

Jeremy

4

[email protected] wrote:

Eric H. wrote:

What version of RubyGems are you using?

$ gem --version
shows 0.8.11

I just update RubyGems and now everything in my original script is
working fine. If you don’t mind, could you give me a bit of detail
about what went wrong and what was changed in later versions of Gems?
To satisfy my curiosity more than anything.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Jeremy

5

On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:25, [email protected] wrote:

To satisfy my curiosity more than anything.
I added $SAFE = 1 support to RubyGems in 0.9.0. Before that RubyGems
didn’t untaint objects and was incapable of working.

–
Eric H. - [email protected] - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

6

[email protected] wrote:

Eric H. wrote:

What version of RubyGems are you using?

$ gem --version
shows 0.8.11

I just updated RubyGems and now everything in my original script is
working fine. If you don’t mind, could you give me a bit of detail
about what went wrong and what was changed in later versions of Gems?
To satisfy my curiosity more than anything.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Jeremy