[sugar] Integration with web apps (and Moodle specifically!)

Ivan Krstić krstic
Mon Sep 4 19:30:27 EDT 2006

Dan Williams wrote:
> So you'll at least be able to ensure that, if you're
> passed an activity, nobody modified it in-transit, and that somebody
> signed an activity bundle.  

We'll be able to do this for most all communication, so it's not that
part that worries me, it's this part:

> Now, whether or not you trust that person is
> a different story, and how/if you ask the child what they want to do
> with it.

This assumes that trusting a person is the same as trusting code that
the person thinks is trustworthy. That's an assumption that's absolutely
and clearly incorrect on just about every level.

> Ideally that integrates into the KCM such that if your friend Kristin
> signed the activity bundle with a private key, and you have Kristin's
> public key stored because you have a trust relationship with her, it's
> all magic.

We can't do this until we have working Python sandboxing. Before then,
movable code will need to be restricted to e.g. OLPC-signed or
country-signed code; I see no other way to prevent a simple worm from
wreaking complete havoc on the machines.

Ivan Krsti? <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list