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

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

- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 14:06:33 PDT
- From:
- Reply-to:
- cc: bmgustav@bioinformatics.weizmann.ac.il, moo-cows.parc@xerox.com

    > 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.

Follow-Ups:

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

- From: Rich Connamacher <phantom@baymoo.sfsu.edu>

- 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