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

bartmoss@mistral.co.uk (bartmoss@mistral.co.uk)
Thu, 21 Sep 1995 13:35:09 PDT

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

    >Some time ago, Rui pointed out that the current definition of
    >set_task_perms() may lead to a security hole.
    >The problem is that wizperms can set_task_perms() to an invalid object.
    >Some verbs rely on testing whether valid(caller_perms()), as a general test
    >for 'am I being called from command line, or from another verb?', just
    >because this is cheaper than using callers(). But setting task perms to an
    >invalid may fool this.
    >I suggest that bf_set_task_perms be modified to return E_INVARG if the
    >wizard attempts to set_task_perms() to an invalid object. The modification
    >is very simple. In execute.c, modify:
    >

    How is this a security hole, I may be missing the point but if a programmer
    could do this then I would agree. But, a wizard may need to do it, I did and
    why would it be wrong to have it as a possible wizards tool? They can do
    practically anything anyway.

    -Chris.