Re: [POLL] We plan to remove #+LINK: ...%(my-function) placeholder from link abbreviation spec

[Suhail Singh]

Steven Allen <steven@stebalien.com> writes:

> 1. While this feature no longer invokes completely arbitrary code, it
> still allows an attacker to call any function marked as "pure" which
> is a pretty large attack surface.

I am struggling to assess this, because it's not clear to me what the
threat model is.  Could you please elaborate?  How are the attacker and
potential victim interacting; what is the attack vector(s); who are the
threat agents and what is their goal that we are trying to guard
against, etc?

> You can, of course, write that function; but then you might as well
> use org-link-abbrev-alist instead of defining a local #+LINK.

Perhaps I misunderstood, I thought the thing being polled was whether or
not to allow org-link-abbrev-alist to have REPLACE (per its docstring)
be a function.  I.e., if %(my-function) is removed, so too would the
ability to have a function in the REPLACE position in
org-link-abbrev-alist.  Did I misunderstand?

-- 
Suhail