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

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

- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 14:34:24 PDT
- From:
- cc: MOO-Cows.parc@xerox.com
- In-Reply-to: "Gustavo Glusman's message of \"Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:31:44 PDT\" <v02130504ac876c608bd3@[132.76.55.130]>"

    Gustavo Glusman writes:
    > 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 claim that this valid(caller_perms()) test was always bogus; the proper test
    is `caller_perms() == #-1' or (yes, more expensive but you shouldn't be doing
    it in the expensive failure case very often) `callers() == {}'.

    	Pavel

References:

- [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