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

Seth I. Rich (sir@po.cwru.edu)
Mon, 25 Sep 1995 14:06:33 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.

    Seth / Blackbriar

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Seth I. Rich
    Woo, woo!  OpalMOO's back!       There is nothing more precious than
    Rabbits on walls, no problem.    a tear of true repentance.