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

• Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 21:06:38 PDT
• From:
  Rich Connamacher <phantom@baymoo.sfsu.edu>
• 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

• Re: [SERVER, SECURITY] bug in set_task_perms() ?
• From: "Nate Massey" <natem@ctdnet.acns.nwu.edu>

• 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