From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HK_LOTTO
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,af0c6ea85f3ed92d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.213.68 with SMTP id nq4mr3618638pbc.2.1328875544993;
        Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 wr5ni8514pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!87.79.20.101.MISMATCH!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Arbitrary Sandbox
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:05:44 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <jh316o$i85$1@dont-email.me>
References: 
 <8e83f2be-c6e9-4b0b-b53c-d50fe70d01e1@pq6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
	<jh25oo$lsl$1@speranza.aioe.org>
	<b413fd6c-dc65-4b85-8126-6d9704c2e3c5@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:05:44 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="DkTdSjxOCm6DqG+Uf7eArg";
	logging-data="18693"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rgHLKVKiwiAkv65GJTXYt3+AS4fcYM8w="
User-Agent: Pan/0.134 (Wait for Me; GIT cb32159 master)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JppjoeDxmWoJ56+1iOpwRhzGjrg=
X-Received-Bytes: 2383
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-02-10T12:05:44+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:41:05 -0800, Rob Shea wrote:

>>    Could you be more specific?  That sounds like a computer running
>> Windows, alone in a dedicated room, with no connections to the outside.
> 
> Well, virtually speaking, that is exactly what I want... literally
> speaking it's a Windows system, networked, with removable disks, that
> needs to run untrusted code processing untrusted data. This untrusted
> data and the system, network, printer, usb, etc must be immutable. A
> read-only compartment that can run arbitrary, dangerous, code, safely.

It's not clear to me how "arbitrary" this code is...
do you mean, arbitrary code that is part of this project, written in 
(your choice of) Ada or C#, to establish the trustworthiness of your 
team's app?

or do you mean that Ada or C# is to be used to help sandbox the machine 
against unknown executables, maybe downloaded from dodgy Iranian websites 
or lottery emails via those removable disks?

The former case, it seems to me, Ada would be the better choice.
In the latter, there may be more tools and better integration between C# 
and Windows, that make C# easier and faster to develop, if not 
necessarily ultimately better.

- Brian