[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

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

- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 21:06:38 PDT
- From:
- cc: MOO-Cows.PARC@xerox.com
- Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-to: <v0213050eac88eaad5e02@[132.76.55.130]>

    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'.

    Phantom

Follow-Ups:

- Re: [SERVER, SECURITY] bug in set_task_perms() ?

- From: "Nate Massey" <natem@ctdnet.acns.nwu.edu>

References:

- Re: [SERVER, SECURITY] bug in set_task_perms() ?

- From: bmgustav@bioinformatics.weizmann.ac.il (Gustavo Glusman)

- Prev: Re: [SERVER, SECURITY] bug in set_task_perms() ?
- Next: Re: [SERVER, SECURITY] bug in set_task_perms() ?
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index