We Keep Coding

Starting a .NET process within an AppDomain

The title of my question might already give away the fact that I'm not sure about what I want, as it might not make sense.
For a project I want to be able to run executables within my application, while redirecting their standard in and out so that my application can communicate with them through those streams.
At the same time, I do not want to allow these executables to perform certain actions like use the network, or read/write outside of their own working directory (basically I only want to allow them to write and read from the standard in and out).
I read on different places on the internet that these permissions can be set with PermissionStates when creating an AppDomain in which you can then execute the executables. However, I did not find a way to then communicate with the executables through their standard in and out, which is essential. I can however do this when starting a new Process (Process.Start()), though then I cannot set boundaries as to what the executable is allowed to do.
My intuition tells me I should somehow execute the Process inside the AppDomain, so that the process kind of 'runs' in the domain, though I cannot see a way to directly do that.
A colleague of mine accomplished this by creating a proxy-application, which basically is another executable in which the AppDomain is created, in which the actual executable is executed. The proxy-application is then started by a Process in the main application. I think this is a cool idea, though I feel like I shouldn't need this step.
I could add some code containing what I've done so far creating a process and appdomain, though the question is pretty long already. I'll add it if you want me to.

The "proxy" application sounds like a very reasonable approach (given that you only ever want to run .NET assemblies).
You get the isolation of different processes which allows you to communicate via stdin/stdout and gives the additional robustness that the untrusted executable cannot crash your main application (which it could if it was running in an AppDomain inside your main application's process.
The proxy application would then setup a restricted AppDomain and execute the sandboxed code, similar to the approach described here:
How to: Run Partially Trusted Code in a Sandbox
In addition, you can make use of operation system level mechansims to reduce the attack surface of a process. This can be achieved e.g. by starting the proxy process with lowest integrity which removes write access to most resources (e.g. allow writing files only in AppData\LocalLow). See here for an example.
Of course, you need to consider whether this level of sandboxing is sufficient for you. Sandboxing, in general, is hard, and the level of isolation always will be to a certain degree only.

Block file system and internet access in a C# application [duplicate]

Over the months, I've developed a personal tool that I'm using to compile C# 3.5 Xaml projects online. Basically, I'm compiling with the CodeDom compiler. I'm thinking about making it public, but the problem is that it is -very-very- easy to do anything on the server with this tool.
The reason I want to protect my server is because there's a 'Run' button to test and debug the app (in screenshot mode).
Is this possible to run an app in a sandbox - in other words, limiting memory access, hard drive access and BIOS access - without having to run it in a VM? Or should I just analyze every code, or 'disable' the Run mode?

Spin up an AppDomain, load assemblies in it, look for an interface you control, Activate up the implementing type, call your method. Just don't let any instances cross that AppDomain barrier (including exceptions!) that you don't 100% control.
Controlling the security policies for your external-code AppDomain is a bit much for a single answer, but you can check this link on MSDN or just search for "code access security msdn" to get details about how to secure this domain.
Edit: There are exceptions you cannot stop, so it is important to watch for them and record in some manner the assemblies that caused the exception so you will not load them again.
Also, it is always better to inject into this second AppDomain a type that you will then use to do all loading and execution. That way you are ensured that no type (that won't bring down your entire application) will cross any AppDomain boundary. I've found it is useful to define a type that extends MarshalByRefObject that you call methods on that executes insecure code in the second AppDomain. It should never return an unsealed type that isn't marked Serializable across the boundary, either as a method parameter or as a return type. As long as you can accomplish this you are 90% of the way there.

What cases to use Application Domain?

I read the concept about Application Domain in .NET. However, I don't know when to use it. A application domain is working as a thread in a process. A process will have more than or equal one application domain. However, I can deploy a process with multi-threading without using application domain.
Anyone can tell some examples to use it in practice. There are source code for examples are good. And I wonder that there are any Microsoft's applications to use this technology.
Thanks.

If you load a dll in your main AppDOmain you can't unlod it. But if you load the .dll in an AppDOmain you can unload the AppDomain and so unload the dll. Like that you can load and unload dll.
And with Addin I saw that you can load plugin in AppDomain with security, in order that the plugin can not compromise the main software security.

I would like to explain the usage of AppDomains in a real world design problem from one of my earlier project.
Basically that project is a port scanner for some information. So we had 6 ports, and we are suppose to scan 6 ports in parallel. Of course we could have used threads, but then isolation would not be possible at all. We wanted every port functionality i.e scanning should be completely isolated and even its data storage and other functionality to be independent.
So what we did was, we used AppDomain concept in loading on of our dll which does this scanning job and few more (proprietary logics) into 6 AppDomains we had created for each port. Infact, this dll spawns more thread internally to do various jobs once you scan the port for some data. Hence we have completely isolated each port scanning and when user wants to stop scanning for one of the port (via UI selection) then we just have to gracefully unload this AppDomain.
Hope it was some help to you :)

MSDN really gives a clear picture here of what AppDomains are actually for: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.appdomain.aspx
Application domains, which are represented by AppDomain objects, help provide isolation, unloading, and security boundaries for executing managed code.
Use application domains to isolate tasks that might bring down a
process. If the state of the AppDomain that's executing a task becomes
unstable, the AppDomain can be unloaded without affecting the process.
This is important when a process must run for long periods without
restarting. You can also use application domains to isolate tasks that
should not share data.
If an assembly is loaded into the default application domain, it
cannot be unloaded from memory while the process is running. However,
if you open a second application domain to load and execute the
assembly, the assembly is unloaded when that application domain is
unloaded. Use this technique to minimize the working set of
long-running processes that occasionally use large DLLs.

.net new process sandbox for untrusted code

So I need to run dynamically compiled untrusted code in a new process. I found how to do that in a new AppDomain (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb763046.aspx) but not new process. Is it possible to do?
The reason I need new process is because it is easier to capture standard output, see memory and cpu consumption and terminate it.
The end goal is to write online C# compiler.

AppDomains are a way to isolate .NET code in a system. Processes are an operating system mechanism for isolation. To some degree you will give up the niceties of .NET code and have to manually manage the transfer of data between processes.
Check out the Process class. It sounds like you either need to compile your code to a .exe, or create a host .exe in .NET that loads your code. The latter seems better as you can just write the host once and then write standard communication code with that host.
You don't provide a lot of information on your end goals but recent versions of .NET provide various plug-in APIs that might be worth a quick look.

Question about how to implement a c# host application with a plugin-like architecture

I want to have an application that works as a Host to many other small applications. Each one of those applications should work as kind of plugin to this main application. I call them plugins not in the sense they add something to the main application, but because they can only work with this Host application as they depend on some of its services.
My idea was to have each of those plugins run in a different app domain. The problem seems to be that my host application should have a set of services that my plugins will want to use and from what is my understanding making data flow in and out from different app domains is not that great of a thing.
On one hand I'd like them to behave as stand-alone applications(although, as I said, they need to use lots of times the host application services), but on the other hand I'd like that if any of them crashes, my main application wouldn't suffer from it.
What is the best (.NET) approach to this kind of situation? Make them all run on the same AppDomain but each one in a different Thread? Use different AppDomains? One for each "plugin"? How would I make them communicate with the Host Application? Any other way of doing this?
Although speed is not an issue here, I wouldn't like for function calls to be that much slower than they are when we're working with just a regular .NET application.
Thanks
EDIT: Maybe I really need to use different AppDomains. From what I've been reading, loading assemblies in different AppDomains is the only way to later be able to unload them from the process.

I've implemented something along these lines using the Managed Addin Framework (MAF) in the System.Addin namespace. With MAF you package your addins as separate DLLs, which your host app can discover and launch in its app domain, in a separate domain for all of the addins, or each addin in its own domain. With shadow copy and separate domains you can even update an addin without shutting down your hostapp.
Your host app and the addins communicate through contracts that you derive from MAF interfaces. You can send objects back and forth between the host and the addins. The cotnracts provide a black-box interface between addins and the host, allowing you to change an addin's implementation unbeknownst to the host.
Addins can even communicate between themselves if the host tells them about each other. In my case a logging addin is shared by the others. This lets me drop in different loggers without touching the other addins or the host.
For my app, the addin use simple supervisor classes that in launch worker classes on their own threads that do all of the processing. Workers catch their own exceptions, which they return to their supervisor through callback methods. Supervisors can restart workers or take other action. The host controls the supervisors through a command contract, which instructs them to start and stop workers and return data.
My host app is a Windows service. The worker threads have thrown exceptions for all the usual reasons (including bugs!), but the host app has never crashed in any of our installations. Since debugging services is inconvenient, addins allow me to build test apps that use the same contracts, with added assurance that I'm testing what I deploy.
Addins can expose UI elements, too. This is very helpful to me as I need to deploy a controller app with the host service, since services do not have UIs. Each plugin includes its own controller interface. The controller app itself is very simple - it loads the addins and displays their UI elements. This allows me to ship an updated addin with an updated interface and not have to ship a new controller.
Even though the controller and the host service use the same addins, they don't step on each other; in fact, they don't even know that another app is using the same addins. The controller and the host talk to each other through a shared database, but you could also use another inter-app mechanism like MSMQ. In the next version the host will be a WCF service with addins on the backend and web services for control.
This is a bit long-winded but I wanted to give you an idea of how versatile MAF is. It's not as complex as it might first look, and you can build rock-solid apps with it.

It depends on how much trust you wish to allow the extensions. I'm working on a similar application and I've chosen to mostly trust the extension code, as this greatly simplifies things. I call into the code from a common thread (in my case, the extensions don't really 'run' in any continuous loop, but rather execute certain tasks that the main application wants to do) and catch exceptions in this thread, so as to provide helpful warnings that loaded extensions are misbehaving.
Currently there's nothing keeping these extensions from launching their own threads that could throw and crash the whole app, but this where I've had to make the trade-off between safety and complexity. My application is not mission-critical (not like a web server or database server), so I consider it an acceptable risk that a buggy extension could bring down my application. I provide safeguards to more politely cover the most common failure cases and leave it to the plugin developers (who will mostly be in-house people for now anyway) to clean up their bugs.
In regards to Unloading, yes, you can only unload the code and metadata for an assembly if you place it in an AppDomain. That said, unless you want to be loading and unloading frequently over the life of your program, the overhead associated with keeping the code in memory is not necessarily an issue. Any actual instances or resources using types from the assembly will still be cleaned up by the GC when you stop 'using' it, so the fact that it's still in memory doesn't imply a memory leak.
If your main use case is a series of plugins that you locate once at startup and then provide an option to instantiate while your app is running, I suggest investigating the real memory footprint associated with loading all of them at start-up and keeping them loaded. If you use AppDomains, there will be additional overhead there as well (for instance, memory for the proxy objects and loaded/JITed code to support AppDomain marshaling). There will also be CPU overhead associated with the marshaling and attendant serialization.
In short, I would only use AppDomains if one of the following were true:
I want to get true isolation for the purposes of code security (i.e. I need to run untrusted code in an isolated way)
My app is mission-critical and I absolutely need to make sure that if a plugin fails, it can't bring down my core app.
I need to load and unload the same plugin repeatedly, in order to support dynamic changes to the DLL. This is mainly if my app can't stop running, but I want to hot-patch plugins while it's still running.
I would not prefer AppDomains for the sole purpose of reducing possible memory footprint by allowing Unload.

This is an interisting question.
My first idea was to simply implement interfaces from your host application in your plugin applications to allow them to communicate through Reflection, but this would only allow communication and would not bring a real "sandbox-like" architecture.
My second thought was to design a service-oriented platform. The host application would be a kind of "plugin broadcaster" which would publish your plugins in a ServiceHost on a different thread. As this need to be really responsive and "no brainer configurated", the host application could communicate with the plugin through named pipes channel (NetNamedPipesBinding for WCF) which means is only communicating with localhost pipes and does not need any network configuration or knowledge at all. I think this could be a good solution to your problem.
Regards.