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

• Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 14:06:33 PDT
• From:
  sir@po.cwru.edu (Seth I. Rich)
• Reply-to:
  sir@po.cwru.edu (Seth I. Rich)
• 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.

• 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