# [SERVER, SECURITY] bug in set_task_perms() ?

Rich Connamacher (phantom@baymoo.sfsu.edu)
Mon, 25 Sep 1995 14:34:04 PDT

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    > > Am I missing something?  Why would you need to build the huge stack in
    > > callers() just to test top level-ness?  In all of my verbs, to test top
    > > level-ness, I just make the quick and tick-friendly check 'if
    > > (valid(caller))'.  A wiz can fool caller_perms(), but can't fool the
    > > variable 'caller'.
    >
    > Uh, how can this possibly work?  For command-line verb calls,
    > caller==player, which means that caller is valid.  On the other hand, if
    > it's called from another verb, it's also valid.  caller is !valid only
    > when referenced within eval(), which is a very limited case indeed.

    Um... all I can say is... whoops

    Phantom