MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: Caller & Player
On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Mentor wrote:
> The following example is taken out of EricM@BioMOO@Diversity University
> security manual.
> -- quotation start --
> Why is it unacceptable to test "player" for security on +x verbs?
> I'll give an example. Loro the lazy wizard writes a +x verb that can
> any object and tests permissions with "if
> (!$perm_utils:controls(player,this))" at the verb's beginning. Semli the
> sneaky programmer builds an object and adds a "tell" verb to it (ie. a
> verb that gets called any time someone in the same room speaks). The
> "tell" verb calls Loro's +x verb and tells it to recycle all of Loro's
> objects. Semli puts the object in Loro's room...and Loro gets a nasty
> surprise after connecting. Neato eh! Note that "player" will be the
> person speaking (Loro in this case), because "player" is set to whoever
> initiates the action, and can only be changed by wiz-permed verbs.
> Generally, it stays the same from the task's start to it's finish. Now,
> if Loro had tested caller_perms(), then Semli's call would have been caught
> as one that did not have permission to be recycling objects. Got it?
Thanks Mentor for your answer ;)
But, the things I don't understand in this example are:
-In this case, the caller shouldn't also be Loro?
_What does caller_perms() do?
Subject Index |