I would think that while the author of Safe considers it unsafe (sounds weird really:-) it may be better then not using it at all.
I'm not so sure. The promise of Safe.pm was that it would provide safe compartments for code to be evaluated in. The history of Safe.pm means that I'm very skeptical that this is true.
So if somebody uses Safe.pm and thinks "fantastic - all my security problems with remote code are solved" then I think they're probably going to be surprised at some point. A better solution would be a design that avoids running potentially insecure code at all.
In reply to Re^2: Safe Code?
by adrianh
in thread Safe Code?
by ghenry
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |