[DGD] Re: Net Security

[Mikael Lind]

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Jason Cone wrote:

> I, too, think this is a viable option, but for the sake of the argument...
> How does this differ from native socket functionality?  You're still giving
> John Doe the ability to potentially connect to a remote machine from within
> the confines of the MUD.  You said that it could be disabled by "simply not
> providing the external process for use" - you could effectly accomplish the
> same thing via:
> 
> varargs void connect(string sIPNumber, int nPort, string sProtocol)
> {
>     error("Outgoing socket functionality has been disabled.");
> }
> 
> in the auto object.  Yes, someone could alter the auto object to get rid of
> this block, but I really don't like that rebuttal.  There are ways to
> protect against even that: LPC -> C the auto object.  That way, only the
> account owner(s) could dictate when actual changes in the auto object became
> effective.  Anyway, I'd like to have a native alternative to the networking
> package, but it looks I'm going to have to accept that that won't happen.
> I'm more intested in alternatives at this point.  Potential alternatives,
> anyone? :)

As far as I know, precompiled objects will still be represented by an LPC
object. If this object (which exists at startup) is destructed, the object
won't use the precompiled version of itself the next time it is compiled.
(While the system is up...) That means that the security issue still comes
down to breaking the access system.

Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

L Mikael "eLeMeL" Lind                :: "Rising up and wiping the webs and
z94lind at mtek.chalmers.se              :: the dew from my withered eye"
http://www.mtek.chalmers.se/~z94lind/ :: // Tool



List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd