🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Dec12.044029.19171@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu
(Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> In article <4221@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, I wrote:
> >I can see how Gatekeeper could be fooled because it does not distinguish
> >between calls of AddResoruce('MSWD', 0) and AR('WDEF', 0).  Maybe GK should
> >check what's going in, and have protection for standard resources, and
> >executable resources.
> Huh? This is exactly how gatekeeper works!  Maybe 'WDEF' just isn't on
> it's standard list of code-containing resources.

My original suggesstion was to have a new privilidge for "Code"-containing
resources, and "Safe" resources.  This way, we could give almost everybody
"Safe" privilidges without worrying, and "Code" resources to only certain
programs (F/DA Mover, Compilers, ResEdit, etc).

I have a question.  Does GateKeeper only intercept calls to resource
modifications of code-containing resources, or all resources?  If GateKeeper
only traps code-containing resource modifications, then why is it necessary
to give the Finder Res/Other privilidges?  I was under the impression that
GateKeeper traps all resource modifications, hence the necessity for Res/
Other privilidges for the Finder.

Unfortunately, I don't think the documentation gives any indication about
(a) whether it traps all resources, or (b) if not all, then the ones that
it does trap.

> Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
> ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?

-Justin
vallon@sbcs.sunysb.edu