Private, Community, Friends, Romans, Countrymen

[CoastalMaineBird]

Honestly, it MUSTN'T work like dependencies (in the common sense). If it would, you could easily fake a friend as soon as you know its name just by making sure to pre-load your fake. This would completely cancel the idea of 'friends'.

OK, but is the point of "friendship" to be secure, or just to prevent accidents?

If I was crafting something malicious, couldn't I make the fake have the same name AND THE SAME PATH as the real one?

[Norbert_B]

---

@CoastalMaineBird wrote:
[...]

OK, but is the point of "friendship" to be secure, or just to prevent accidents?

If I was crafting something malicious, couldn't I make the fake have the same name AND THE SAME PATH as the real one?

---

Good question. I would say that it should be as secure as a minimum of effort enables it to be. Any security measurement can be countered given enough resources (time, knowledge, equipment/money, criminal energy). I think it is a fair trade-off we have here right now. But i do understand that your point of view sees this as a disadvantage (i would in your position as well 🙂 ).

[CoastalMaineBird]

Well, I've solved it by using separate PPLs.

I already have such a PPL for them to use, so I put the wrappers there with docs how to use them, and the core functionality in a separate, undocumented PPL that my private code can use.

It's not secure, but they don't have to get so close to the real manager that a small mistake will muck things up.