Merge pull request #700 from Denton-L/sec

Minor Changes to #693

2 files changed, 52 insertions, 49 deletions

diff --git a/docs/control-structures.rst b/docs/control-structures.rst
index 6d615caf..ab6f59fb 100644
--- a/docs/control-structures.rst
+++ b/docs/control-structures.rst
@@ -70,15 +70,18 @@ only (locally) sets the value and amount of gas sent with the function call and
 parentheses at the end perform the actual call.
 
 .. warning::
-    Any interaction with another contract imposes a certain danger, especially
+    Any interaction with another contract imposes a potential danger, especially
     if the source code of the contract is not known in advance. The current
-    contract hands over control to the called contract and that might do
-    just about anything. Be prepared that it calls into other contracts of
-    your system and perhaps even back into the calling contract before your
+    contract hands over control to the called contract and that may potentially
+    do just about anything. Even if the called contract inherits from a known parent contract,
+    the inheriting contract is only required to have a correct interface. The
+    implementation of the contract, however, can be completely arbitrary and thus,
+    pose a danger. In addition, be prepared in case it calls into other contracts of
+    your system or even back into the calling contract before the first
     call returns. This means
     that the called contract can change state variables of the calling contract
-    via its functions. Write your functions in a way that e.g. calls to
-    external functions happen after any changes to state variables in your contract,
+    via its functions. Write your functions in a way that, for example, calls to
+    external functions happen after any changes to state variables in your contract
     so your contract is not vulnerable to a recursive call exploit.
 
 Named Calls and Anonymous Function Parameters
diff --git a/docs/security-considerations.rst b/docs/security-considerations.rst
index 5520e96c..f1a5dc03 100644
--- a/docs/security-considerations.rst
+++ b/docs/security-considerations.rst
@@ -6,22 +6,23 @@ While it is usually quite easy to build software that works as expected,
 it is much harder to check that nobody can use it in a way that was **not** anticipated.
 
 In Solidity, this is even more important because you can use smart contracts
-to handle tokens or even more valuable things. Furthermore, every execution of a smart
-contract happens in public as it is mostly open source.
+to handle tokens or, possibly, even more valuable things. Furthermore, every
+execution of a smart contract happens in public and, in addition to that,
+the source code is often available.
 
 Of course you always have to consider how much is at stake:
 You can compare a smart contract with a web service that is open to the
-public (and thus also to malicous actors) and perhaps even open source.
+public (and thus, also to malicous actors) and perhaps even open source.
 If you only store your grocery list on that web service, you might not have
 to take too much care, but if you manage your bank account using that web service,
 you should be more careful.
 
 This section will list some pitfalls and general security recommendations but
-can of course never be complete. Also keep in mind that even if your
+can, of course, never be complete. Also, keep in mind that even if your
 smart contract code is bug-free, the compiler or the platform itself might
 have a bug.
 
-As always with open source documentation, please help us extend this section
+As always, with open source documentation, please help us extend this section
 (especially, some examples would not hurt)!
 
 ********
@@ -50,19 +51,19 @@ complete contract):
 
   // THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS A BUG - DO NOT USE
   contract Fund {
-    /// Mapping of ether shares of the contract.
-    mapping(address => uint) shares;
-    /// Withdraw your share.
-    function withdraw() {
-      if (msg.sender.send(shares[msg.sender]))
-        shares[msg.sender] = 0;
-    }
+      /// Mapping of ether shares of the contract.
+      mapping(address => uint) shares;
+      /// Withdraw your share.
+      function withdraw() {
+          if (msg.sender.send(shares[msg.sender]))
+              shares[msg.sender] = 0;
+      }
   }
 
 The problem is not too serious here because of the limited gas as part
 of ``send``, but it still exposes a weakness: Ether transfer always
 includes code execution, so the recipient could be a contract that calls
-back into ``withdraw``. This would enable it to get a multiple refund and
+back into ``withdraw``. This would let it get multiple refunds and
 basically retrieve all the Ether in the contract.
 
 To avoid re-entrancy, you can use the Checks-Effects-Interactions pattern as
@@ -71,18 +72,17 @@ outlined further below:
 ::
 
   contract Fund {
-    /// Mapping of ether shares of the contract.
-    mapping(address => uint) shares;
-    /// Withdraw your share.
-    function withdraw() {
-      var share = shares[msg.sender];
-      shares[msg.sender] = 0;
-      if (!msg.sender.send(share))
-        throw;
-    }
+      /// Mapping of ether shares of the contract.
+      mapping(address => uint) shares;
+      /// Withdraw your share.
+      function withdraw() {
+          var share = shares[msg.sender];
+          shares[msg.sender] = 0;
+          if (!msg.sender.send(share))
+              throw;
+      }
   }
 
-
 Note that re-entrancy is not only an effect of Ether transfer but of any
 function call on another contract. Furthermore, you also have to take
 multi-contract situations into account. A called contract could modify the
@@ -91,10 +91,10 @@ state of another contract you depend on.
 Gas Limit and Loops
 ===================
 
-Loops that do not have a fixed number of iterations, e.g. loops that depends on storage values, have to be used carefully:
+Loops that do not have a fixed number of iterations, for example, loops that depend on storage values, have to be used carefully:
 Due to the block gas limit, transactions can only consume a certain amount of gas. Either explicitly or just due to
-normal operation, the number of iterations in a loop can grow beyond the block gas limit, which can cause the complete
-contract to be stalled at a certain point. This does not apply at full extent to ``constant`` functions that are only executed
+normal operation, the number of iterations in a loop can grow beyond the block gas limit which can cause the complete
+contract to be stalled at a certain point. This may not apply to ``constant`` functions that are only executed
 to read data from the blockchain. Still, such functions may be called by other contracts as part of on-chain operations
 and stall those. Please be explicit about such cases in the documentation of your contracts.
 
@@ -111,19 +111,19 @@ Sending and Receiving Ether
   only that it forwards all remaining gas and opens up the ability for the
   recipient to perform more expensive actions. This might include calling back
   into the sending contract or other state changes you might not have though of.
-  So it allows for great flexibility for honest users but also for malicious actors. 
+  So it allows for great flexibility for honest users but also for malicious actors.
 
-- If you want to send ether using ``address.send``, there are certain details to be aware of:
+- If you want to send Ether using ``address.send``, there are certain details to be aware of:
 
-  1. If the recipient is a contract, it causes its fallback function to be executed which can in turn call back into the sending contract
+  1. If the recipient is a contract, it causes its fallback function to be executed which can, in turn, call back the sending contract.
   2. Sending Ether can fail due to the call depth going above 1024. Since the caller is in total control of the call
-     depth, they can force the transfer to fail, so make sure to always check the return value of ``send``. Better yet,
+     depth, they can force the transfer to fail; make sure to always check the return value of ``send``. Better yet,
      write your contract using a pattern where the recipient can withdraw Ether instead.
   3. Sending Ether can also fail because the execution of the recipient contract
      requires more than the allotted amount of gas (explicitly by using ``throw`` or
      because the operation is just too expensive) - it "runs out of gas" (OOG).
      If the return value of ``send`` is checked, this might provide a
-     means for the recipient to block progress in the sending contract. Again, the best practise here is to use
+     means for the recipient to block progress in the sending contract. Again, the best practice here is to use
      a "withdraw" pattern instead of a "send" pattern.
 
 Callstack Depth
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ Restrict the Amount of Ether
 
 Restrict the amount of Ether (or other tokens) that can be stored in a smart
 contract. If your source code, the compiler or the platform has a bug, these
-funds might be gone. If you want to limit your loss, limit the amount of Ether.
+funds may be lost. If you want to limit your loss, limit the amount of Ether.
 
 Keep it Small and Modular
 =========================
@@ -168,30 +168,30 @@ about source code quality of course apply: Limit the amount of local variables,
 the length of functions and so on. Document your functions so that others
 can see what your intention was and whether it is different than what the code does.
 
-Use the Checks-Effects-Interactions pattern
+Use the Checks-Effects-Interactions Pattern
 ===========================================
 
 Most functions will first perform some checks (who called the function,
 are the arguments in range, did they send enough Ether, does the person
-have tokens, ...). These checks should be done first.
+have tokens, etc.). These checks should be done first.
 
 As the second step, if all checks passed, effects to the state variables
 of the current contract should be made. Interaction with other contracts
 should be the very last step in any function.
 
 Early contracts delayed some effects and waited for external function
-calls to return in a non-error state. This is often a serious mistake,
+calls to return in a non-error state. This is often a serious mistake
 because of the re-entrancy problem explained above.
 
-Note that also calls to known contracts might in turn cause calls to
-unknown contracts, so it is probably better to just always apply this pattern. 
+Note that, also, calls to known contracts might in turn cause calls to
+unknown contracts, so it is probably better to just always apply this pattern.
 
-Include a Failsafe-Mode
-=======================
+Include a Fail-Safe Mode
+========================
 
 While making your system fully decentralised will remove any intermediary,
 it might be a good idea, especially for new code, to include some kind
-of fail-safe-mechanism:
+of fail-safe mechanism:
 
 You can add a function in your smart contract that performs some
 self-checks like "Has any Ether leaked?",
@@ -200,9 +200,9 @@ Keep in mind that you cannot use too much gas for that, so help through off-chai
 computations might be needed there.
 
 If the self-check fails, the contract automatically switches into some kind
-of "failsafe" mode, which e.g. disables most of the features, hands over
+of "failsafe" mode, which, for example, disables most of the features, hands over
 control to a fixed and trusted third party or just converts the contract into
-a simple "give me back my money"-contract.
+a simple "give me back my money" contract.
 
 
 *******************
@@ -218,4 +218,4 @@ it will be better documented soon.
 Note that formal verification itself can only help you understand the
 difference between what you did (the specification) and how you did it
 (the actual implementation). You still need to check whether the specification
-is what you wanted and that you did not miss any unintended effects of it.
\ No newline at end of file
+is what you wanted and that you did not miss any unintended effects of it.