New email "virus" sighting
Ray Depew
Got a message today from a cow orker who should've known better.
She forwarded it from a friend at juno.com, who forwarded it
from another friend at juno.com.
This message warns of an email virus titled "JOIN THE CREW",
which supposedly "will erase EVERYTHING ON YOUR HARD DRIVE!"
The message attempts to build credibility by asserting:
"This information was received this morning from IBM, please
share it with anyone that might access the internet."
Problem is that "this morning" is not further specified.
So far I've found forwarding dates of Sep10, Sep12 and Sep29.
A further credibility boost is attempted by saying, in
effect, "if you don't believe this, here's another one!"
The message then goes on to repeat the warning about "PENPAL
GREETINGS". The technical description is: "This message appears
to be a friendly letter asking you if you are interested in a
penpal, but by the time you read this letter, it is too late.
The trojan horse virus will have already infected the boot sector
of your hard drive, destroying all of the data present."
The writer uses lots of CAPITALIZED WORDS and multiple exclamation
points. I count runs of 9 and 12. The writer talks a good
pseudo-scientific line, even though it's obviously crap.
Punctuation and grammar are on an eighth-grade (13-year-old) level.
The notice is signed simply "Romayne". I didn't see any
ENCOURAGEMENT for UNALTERED REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of
this IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.
I've sent e-mail to the two people at
juno(.junk.mail.city.of.the.world).com, to find out where they
heard about the virus.
Regards | "It does not do to
Ray Depew r...@fc.hp.com | leave a live dragon out of
Integrated Circuits Business Division | your calculations."
Hewlett Packard Co, Fort Collins, CO | -- Tolkien
Disclaimer: I don't speak for HP.
Chett Schmitt
Not an e-mail virus, but along the same lines. I like the way the
author wraps this bogus virus warning in a warning about a virus hoax.
Especially like the way the author pleads you to inform your friends
(twice) about this, then asks not to pass it on.
Subject: Time Bomb Virus Hoax
Author: John Fritzius at MIS_PO1
Date: 09/30/1997 9:49 AM
Time Bomb
---------
Aliases: Win95, October 1
Region reported: E-mail
Description:
This "virus" does not exist.
"Time Bomb" is not a virus; it is a complete hoax. There is
currently
no virus that has the characteristics ascribed to " Time Bomb."
The message includes the following "warning:"There is a macro virus
going off on Oct 1!!! All computers installed with Windows 95 are
installed with this virus. It is a time bomb virus. Microsoft has
already apologized for the mass breakdown of computers around the
world
on that day. However they had yet to come up with a remedy. Some
versions of Win95 are safe but some are not. Please Be Careful,
and
forward to all your on-line friends A.S.A.P. not a lot of people
know
about it, just let everyone know, so they won't be a victim.
Please
forward this e-mail.
Please ignore any messages regarding this supposed "virus" and do
not
pass on any messages regarding it. Passing on messages about this
hoax
serves only to further propagate it.
John Fritzius, Technical
Specialist
Technology Infrastructure &
Design
--
Chester L. Schmitt III
schm...@kids.wustl.edu
mrc...@mo.net
Chett Schmitt
I guess if I took the time to read the message, I would have noticed
that the author was quoting the bogus virus warning - not asking to pass
it along via e-mail. My apologies to the author, and the group(s), for
my comments. Bad Chett, no cookie!
Chett Schmitt wrote:
> Not an e-mail virus, but along the same lines. I like the way the
> author wraps this bogus virus warning in a warning about a virus hoax.
>
> Especially like the way the author pleads you to inform your friends
> (twice) about this, then asks not to pass it on.
>
--
Dave Budd
Ray Depew wrote:
> This message warns of an email virus titled "JOIN THE CREW",
> which supposedly "will erase EVERYTHING ON YOUR HARD DRIVE!"
We had that one at our site recently. I sent what I thought was a
reasonable and polite explanation that it wasn't true and got an irate
how-am-i-supposed-to-know-i-was-only-trying-to-help response.
otoh, my boss's boss was dumb enough not to check a Word document sent
to him as an attachment and it had the Concept macro virus in it.
We used to be able to tell people all this email virus stuff was junk,
but now we have to explain that it's junk as long as you check
executable attachments before running/opening them and don't use some
flakey web browser to read email. This is too much for some users'
brains, so I just recommend a memory-resident virus checker - "It may
lose you a few processor cycles, ma'am, but that's better than losing
your entire hard disk". They're safer if they're frightened.
--
Sent me email but no reply? You may have forgotten to edit out
the antispam part of the address, or perhaps you'd like to try
zlsiida @ fs1.mcc.ac.uk instead. http://www.man.ac.uk/~zlsiida
The UK private poker game & player registries need more data:
http://www.man.ac.uk/~zlsiida/gambling/poker
Lon Stowell
In article <3434C9...@mcc.ac.uk>, Dave Budd <d.b...@mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
>otoh, my boss's boss was dumb enough not to check a Word document sent
>to him as an attachment and it had the Concept macro virus in it.
>We used to be able to tell people all this email virus stuff was junk,
>but now we have to explain that it's junk as long as you check
>executable attachments before running/opening them and don't use some
>flakey web browser to read email. This is too much for some users'
>brains, so I just recommend a memory-resident virus checker - "It may
>lose you a few processor cycles, ma'am, but that's better than losing
>your entire hard disk". They're safer if they're frightened.
Only the very latest viral checkers [the behavioral analyzer types
as opposed to the signature checker types] are any real protection
against Word viruses. With very few exceptions, the anti-viruse
stuff usually gives you a very false sense of security as you
quietly get infected and pass it along.
Don't badmouth those browser emailers, one good characteristic
of some of them is that you can tell them to open Word attachments
with Wordpad or Wordview....neither of which will allow a
Word Macro virus to infect your computer for the very reason
that neither understands the macro's which propagate Word viruses.
D. Peschel
>otoh, my boss's boss was dumb enough not to check a Word document sent
>to him as an attachment and it had the Concept macro virus in it.
I'm not sure if "dumb" is the right word here... "reckless," definitely. It
annoys me that people should have to check all their files (and should have to
know that they have to check all their files)... just because one fool at
Microsoft decided to have self-running macros, and another jerk implemented a
virus with them.
-- Derek
Ben Hutchings
In article <6144k8$f9d$1...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
at Microsoft
>virus with them.
Don't forget, the original harmless "Concept" macro virus was created by
Microsoft itself as a demonstration sent out to developers. Due to
insufficient warning notices around the original document it was added
to, it and its modified clones have become the most successful computer
virus yet.
--
Ben Hutchings, compsci&mathmo | ICOAmiga http://www.lapcopaintball.com/icoa/
email/finger m95...@ecs.ox.ac.uk | homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/
Larkinson's Law: All laws are basically false.
D. Peschel
In article <61514m$a7c$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Ben Hutchings <worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <6144k8$f9d$1...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
>D. Peschel <dpes...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>I'm not sure if "dumb" is the right word here... "reckless," definitely. It
>>annoys me that people should have to check all their files (and should have
>>to know that they have to check all their files)... just because one fool at
>>Microsoft decided to have self-running macros, and another jerk implemented a
> ^
> at Microsoft
>>virus with them.
>Don't forget, the original harmless "Concept" macro virus was created by
>Microsoft itself as a demonstration sent out to developers. Due to
>insufficient warning notices around the original document it was added
>to, it and its modified clones have become the most successful computer
>virus yet.
When I wrote "implemented," I was referring to something along those lines.
Wasn't the original document theoretical? Something along the lines of
"Here's how you could create a virus using Word macros if you wanted to --
here's a sample of the virus attached to this document."? The altered,
destructive versions which are spreading so successfully are the true
implementation, in a way. The person (or persons) who produced those
versions is the true jerk.
I have to ask, what kind of warning messages could you put on a document
like that, anyway? "Don't change this because you could really make
people's lives miserable!"? "Don't spread this document around because
it's very dangerous!"? If you made the messages more emphatic, it would
only encourage people. I suppose you're right in calling the writer of
the paper a jerk, because it seems he let the cat out of the bag,
warning messages or not.
Barring a complete redesign of Word (which is an *excellent* idea, and not
just because of macro viruses, either) I wish there were a better way to
protect against these things.
-- Derek
Unknown
In <6159mh$gin$1...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, on 10/04/97
at 11, dpes...@u.washington.edu (D. Peschel) said:
<snip excellent description of how the "Concept" macro virus started>
>Barring a complete redesign of Word (which is an *excellent* idea, and
>not just because of macro viruses, either) I wish there were a better way
>to protect against these things.
The obvious solution is not to use or accept *anything* from MicroShit or
from a MicroShit product. "I do not accept Wierd documents". Total
boycott. And make sure they know it.
To paraphrase a famous statement, "Microsoft is not a necessary evil.
Microsoft is not necessary". My house and office have been Microsoft-free
zones for a very long time. It is one of the BIg Lies of this industry
that you can't get away from Billy Gates' garbage.
--
*************************************************************************
* Dann Lunsford * The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil *
* da...@greycat.com * is that men of good will do nothing. -- Cicero *
*************************************************************************
The Ultimate Windows Bug Fix: OS/2 with PROTECTONLY=YES!
Hiroshima 45 -- Chenobyl 86 -- Windows 95
Richard White
Dann Lunsford (da...@greycat.com) wrote:
> ge...@vip.net (Gene Wirchenko) said:
>
> > Dann Lunsford (da...@greycat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > To paraphrase a famous statement, "Microsoft is not a necessary
> > > evil. Microsoft is not necessary". My house and office have
> > > been Microsoft-free zones for a very long time. It is one of
> > > the BIg Lies of this industry that you can't get away from
> > > Billy Gates' garbage.
> >
> > Actually, it seems you can't. People who are anti-Microsoft don't
> > seem able to stop talking about it. Lighten up.
>
> People who are pro-Microsoft don't stop either. Every day I am bombarded
> on the net, on TV, on radio, and in snail mail with PRO-Microsoft
> propaganda. I don't want *that*. Tell *them* to "lighten up". Until
> they do, I won't.
Ob AFU Research Question: Why do you let *them* bother you?
Richard "the world's only surviving TRS-80 bigot" White.
Unknown
In <343673ea...@news.vip.net>, on 10/04/97
>Dann Lunsford (da...@greycat.com) wrote:
>>
>>To paraphrase a famous statement, "Microsoft is not a necessary evil.
>>Microsoft is not necessary". My house and office have been Microsoft-free
>>zones for a very long time. It is one of the BIg Lies of this industry
>>that you can't get away from Billy Gates' garbage.
> Actually, it seems you can't. People who are anti-Microsoft don't
>seem able to stop talking about it. Lighten up.
People who are pro-Microsoft don't stop either. Every day I am bombarded
on the net, on TV, on radio, and in snail mail with PRO-Microsoft
propaganda. I don't want *that*. Tell *them* to "lighten up". Until
they do, I won't.
--
Lon Stowell
D. Peschel <dpes...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I'm not sure if "dumb" is the right word here... "reckless," definitely. It
>annoys me that people should have to check all their files (and should have to
>know that they have to check all their files)... just because one fool at
>Microsoft decided to have self-running macros, and another jerk implemented a
Microsoft's criminal stupidity was not in the concept of auto-run
but in their implementation that never bothered to give any
special protection to their 'template' files on your computer.
Some of this is an egregious operating system lack of the
concept of files that should be protected from idiots and hackers.
The viruses work by modifying your template files and sending
the modified template [with the simple act of renaming it from
*.dot to *.doc to fool the unwary]. You can write protect your
normal.dot file for some protection from the typical non-expert
virus. Microsoft has a freebie tool that allows you to protect
your normal.dot files with passwords, but it can be fooled
easily compared to a viral shield that won't even let the viral
shield access those documents.
The current hot topic on macro viruses is that a few big research
centers [edu institutions, not viral product companies] are
claiming that SOME viruses are caused and/or mutated by the
sloppy programming in MickeySoft Office that results in ordinary
old file corruption. Needless to say, the talking heads from
Microsoft deny this, but refrain from saying it is impossible.
Gene Wirchenko
Dann Lunsford (da...@greycat.com) wrote:
>In <6159mh$gin$1...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, on 10/04/97
> at 11, dpes...@u.washington.edu (D. Peschel) said:
>
><snip excellent description of how the "Concept" macro virus started>
>>Barring a complete redesign of Word (which is an *excellent* idea, and
>>not just because of macro viruses, either) I wish there were a better way
>>to protect against these things.
>
>The obvious solution is not to use or accept *anything* from MicroShit or
>from a MicroShit product. "I do not accept Wierd documents". Total
>boycott. And make sure they know it.
>
>To paraphrase a famous statement, "Microsoft is not a necessary evil.
>Microsoft is not necessary". My house and office have been Microsoft-free
>zones for a very long time. It is one of the BIg Lies of this industry
>that you can't get away from Billy Gates' garbage.
Actually, it seems you can't. People who are anti-Microsoft
don't seem able to stop talking about it. Lighten up.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
C Pronunciation Guide:
y=x++; "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon"
x=x++; "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon"
Scott Brown
On 4 Oct 1997 11:35:45 GMT, dpes...@u.washington.edu (D. Peschel)
wrote:
>Barring a complete redesign of Word (which is an *excellent* idea, and not
>just because of macro viruses, either) I wish there were a better way to
>protect against these things.
Concept is merely the final Lovelace coefficient that completes Word's
suckiness profile. The best long-term defense against Concept is to
not use Word. Along with not using mail clients that don't or won't
ask permission before launching an attachment.
-Scott
Phil Edwards
Dave Budd <d.b...@mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
>Ray Depew wrote:
>
>> This message warns of an email virus titled "JOIN THE CREW",
>> which supposedly "will erase EVERYTHING ON YOUR HARD DRIVE!"
>
>We had that one at our site recently. I sent what I thought was a
>reasonable and polite explanation that it wasn't true and got an irate
>how-am-i-supposed-to-know-i-was-only-trying-to-help response.
M3 T00. However, I did discover in the process that my informant's
brother used to be in Uriah Heep, so it wasn't entirely wasted effort.
>otoh, my boss's boss was dumb enough not to check a Word document sent
>to him as an attachment and it had the Concept macro virus in it.
>We used to be able to tell people all this email virus stuff was junk,
>but now we have to explain that it's junk as long as you check
>executable attachments before running/opening them and don't use some
>flakey web browser to read email.
Which still leaves you with the problem of what to *do* with infected
Word attachments when you get them (and you will). I downloaded some
macros from the Microsoft Web site which warn you if you're opening
any file with a macro - very handy. Unfortunately they also stop you
opening more than one file at once, so after a while I disabled them -
& promptly got infected with Concept's smarter brother (trashes all
existing macros, disables File/Macro and Tools/Macro...) Took me the
best part of a morning to get rid of the blighter.
Phil "folklore angle to follow" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards amroth(at)zetnet.co.uk
"It's not what you've been, it's not what you've seen
It's where you're between" - SFA
Dave Budd
da...@greycat.com wrote:
>
> The obvious solution is not to use or accept *anything* from MicroShit or
> from a MicroShit product. "I do not accept Wierd documents". Total
> boycott. And make sure they know it.
Of course, the earliest virus-like entities ran on mainframes.
Louis RAPHAEL
Ben Hutchings (worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: Don't forget, the original harmless "Concept" macro virus was created by
: Microsoft itself as a demonstration sent out to developers. Due to
: insufficient warning notices around the original document it was added
: to, it and its modified clones have become the most successful computer
: virus yet.
I once got it myself - from files I took home from school? My solution? I
wiped Word, and all DOC files off my system. Never looked back... :-)
BTW, the line in my .sig is randomly chosen, but happens to be fitting to
this discussion... :-) I pilfered it from someone else a while back... I
hope the person doesn't mind...
Louis
--
To reply, either put "BYPASS" somewhere in the Subject: line, or leave
it intact ("Re: " is okay). Please support anti-spam measures: visit
http://www.cauce.org. (finger -l rap...@willy.cs.mcgill.ca for more info)
"Improve your computer - type "DELTREE C:\WINDOZE" at the DOS prompt."
Dreamer
[SNIP]
>& promptly got infected with Concept's smarter brother (trashes all
>existing macros, disables File/Macro and Tools/Macro...) Took me the
>best part of a morning to get rid of the blighter.
What's Concept's smarter brother called? or is it just a new version?
Cheers.
Dreamer
___________________________________________________________________
|_dunno(at)dial_|The Only Reason I Would Buy a PC, Is To Play QUAKE!|
|(dot)pipex(dot)|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|_ com_ //|-----=== I Proceed Alone, With No Stimulus ===-----|
|_ A1230/50_\X/_|----------=== Other Than My Dreams. ===---------|
|_______________|___________________________________________________|
Ray Depew
Ray Depew (r...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
: : > This message warns of an email virus titled "JOIN THE CREW",
: : > which supposedly "will erase EVERYTHING ON YOUR HARD DRIVE!"
I just got a message from somebody at juno.com, who received the
message from someone else at juno.com on 8/28/97. I sent a request
to the "someone else" for more information. Here's the trail so far:
my cow orker 9/29/97
spx...@juno.com 9/13
fox...@juno.com 9/12
azx...@juno.com 9/10
rjx...@juno.com 8/28
Doesn't look very promising. Yet.
R
R
Helge Moulding
Ray Depew reported:
> Here's the trail so far:
> my cow orker 9/29/97
> spx...@juno.com 9/13
> fox...@juno.com 9/12
> azx...@juno.com 9/10
> rjx...@juno.com 8/28
This seems to indicate that two people in the propagation
chain held onto the message for almost two weeks each!
Since it seemed so all-fired important, it seems to me that
these are people that don't check their juno.com email boxes
but twice a month. So just possibly we are due for another
spamming in about a week.
--
Helge "By Juno!" Moulding
mailto:h...@slc.unisys.com Just another guy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401 with a weird name
Lon Stowell
Tom Harrington <t...@rmi.net> wrote:
>
>Yes, but how many of them had the annoying cross-platform capabilities
>of Word macro viruses? That's what really gets me about them;
>viruses are vitrually unknown in the Mac world, except among
>people who use Word 6.x.
Good point. And for the PC crowd, if you think Word virii are
far too common and damaging [also Excel virii], just wait until
you see what Uncle Bill's boys want folks to be able to do with
your computer in their next virus technology...ActiveX. Just
imagine what can be done with a technology that promises full
remote configuration and operation for help desk staff.....
Virii are about to enter a new level, from common to the nasty
damaging type. Microsoft of course claims that the solution is
to only surf internet sites that are "digitally signed", as if
any kid with PGP and a sociopathic bent would let that be more than
a millisecond obstacle.
Windows/98. Practice safe computing. Oh well, maybe the carnage
will either help keep the Mac [no, don't own one] alive or result
in C-2 versions of Windows/99.
Tom Harrington
Dave Budd (d.b...@mcc.ac.uk) wrote:
: da...@greycat.com wrote:
: >
: > The obvious solution is not to use or accept *anything* from MicroShit or
: > from a MicroShit product. "I do not accept Wierd documents". Total
: > boycott. And make sure they know it.
: Of course, the earliest virus-like entities ran on mainframes.
Yes, but how many of them had the annoying cross-platform capabilities
of Word macro viruses? That's what really gets me about them;
viruses are vitrually unknown in the Mac world, except among
people who use Word 6.x. Updates to antivirus software for Macs
these days include dozens of new macro viruses, and zero in the
way of non-macro viruses. I almost suspect that the Macintosh
divisions of the companies that make these programs are behind
the macro viruses, because otherwise almost nobody would bother
to have such a program on a Mac.
--
Tom Harrington --------- t...@rmii.com -------- http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph
"I don't like your I-can-use-anything-as-an-adjective attitude."
-- Larry Wall
Cookie's Revenge: ftp://ftp.rmi.net/pub2/tph/cookie/cookies-revenge.sit.hqx
Charles A. Lieberman
worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ben Hutchings) jebgr:
| [Concept] and its modified clones have become the most successful computer
| virus yet.
Who determines this, and how? Or is it like "127 people in a billion
countries" or whatever?
I don't mean that as an insult or an attack, I'm just curious as to how this
is tracked.
Charles A. Lieberman http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/WhiteCat/25/index.html
Brooklyn, New York, USA
James Youngman
>>>>> "Ray" == Ray Depew <r...@fc.hp.com> writes:
Ray> How is it that viruses are virtually unknown in the Mac world,
Ray> and yet antivirus software for Macs has been around for some
Ray> time? Shrewd marketing?
There was a time when Mac viruses were more of a problem than DOS
viruses. The change is probably due either to the high quality of Mac
antivirals, or because the idots who write viruses ow direct their
malevolent efforts at other platforms...
Fuzzy Logic
Ray Depew (r...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
: [...]
: : [V]iruses are vitrually unknown in the Mac world, except among
: : people who use Word 6.x. Updates to antivirus software for Macs
: How is it that viruses are virtually unknown in the Mac world, and yet
: antivirus software for Macs has been around for some time? Shrewd
: marketing?
well, we do have a couple little annoyances like WDEF, but AFAIK they
never really do any damage. to not have any virus software is just
begging for someone to write a real killer. :-)
--
------------------------------------------------------
2 * 3 * 3 * 37 = the prime factorization of the Beast.
------------------------------------------------------
Chris cdoh...@skidmore.edu
------------------------------------------------------
James Linn
Hans Derycke wrote in article <343eb926...@news.mindspring.com>...
> r...@fc.hp.com (Ray Depew) cost the Net hundreds, if not thousands of
> dollars writing in <61g3rb$d...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>:
>
> >How is it that viruses are virtually unknown in the Mac world, and yet
> >antivirus software for Macs has been around for some time? Shrewd
> >marketing?
>
> The key word here is "virtually". They exist. They are just not such a
> big problem as in the Wintel world.
>
> I believe it has to do with both the hardware and OS architecture of
> the Mac, and its distinct lack of market penetration. If the Mac was
> as succesful as Windows is now, many more perverts would be devoting
> their pitiful lives to writing newer and better viruses for it.
>
> The fact that the virus protection is (or was, it's been a while)
> free, might also have something to do with its success on the Mac
> platform.
Having had some experience in a mixed Mac PC environment let me comment:
When I first worked as an independant consultant, I had clients of both Mac
and PC persausions.
At that time, the universities were a hotbed of Macdom. Some of the first
shareware telnet, FTP, and gopher software was
developed on and for macs, primarily because these were useful tools to
university students doing
work on the internet in the old days.
There were also a fanatical little band of shareware games programmer for
the Mac - I have CDs with hundreds of
those games at home.
In those days(1987-1990) I did find more Mac viruses than PC viruses. I
even got the infamous "Universal Message of Peace"
trojan which displayed itself ay Noon on April 1, 1987. It came with the
first version of Aldus Freehand (now owned by Adobe).
I had one customer who was getting constantly infected, because he loved
shareware and found the early antiviral software
(Symantec Virus for Macintsh or SAM for short) annoying, and would use it
all the time. I spent many hours at his place cleaning out
viruses and rebuilding OSs and files. Hey it was easy money, but he had
more productive uses of his time.
When I went to work for a large multinational with PC and Macs, I worked
for a time on the anti-viral/security task force.
I found the same situation, but with the rise of Windows 3.1, the pendulum
began to turn (at this point Macs had about
15% of the global market, their peek penetration). Soon, the Mac viral
updates became less and less
frequent while PC viruses became more common. One thing that you may not
realise is that many/most large corporations keep a tight lid on
any exposure to viral attacks, for fear of panicing investors or exposing
any weaknesses they might have. I've seen some of the worst ones.
In the last few years, we seem to have more hoaxes than serious viral
threats. People now see the need for anti-viral tools (if anybody ever
resistsed I always
had a real life scary story that I witnesses to pull out) and there are
probably fewer new viruses being created than previously. The newest
wrinkle is the Word Macro virus which is effective on both PCs and Macs.
So I wouldn't say that viruses are unknown in the Mac world - more like a
distant memory - just like the time when Apple sold more PCs than any other
manufacturer(including IBM and Compaq).
James Linn
The opinions expressed are mine alone and in no way represent the views of
my employer.
Unknown
r...@fc.hp.com (Ray Depew) cost the Net hundreds, if not thousands of
dollars writing in <61g3rb$d...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>:
>How is it that viruses are virtually unknown in the Mac world, and yet
>antivirus software for Macs has been around for some time? Shrewd
>marketing?
The key word here is "virtually". They exist. They are just not such a
big problem as in the Wintel world.
I believe it has to do with both the hardware and OS architecture of
the Mac, and its distinct lack of market penetration. If the Mac was
as succesful as Windows is now, many more perverts would be devoting
their pitiful lives to writing newer and better viruses for it.
The fact that the virus protection is (or was, it's been a while)
free, might also have something to do with its success on the Mac
platform.
Hansje.
--
Hans Derycke -- Address removed to avoid spam
If you take more than X hits of acid, the rest of the world becomes
illegally insane while you remain the normal, sane healthy person you
always are. -- Jim Hutchins
Ben Hutchings
In article <61ej34$pdb$3...@news1.bu.edu>,
Charles A. Lieberman <cali...@bu.edu> wrote:
>worc...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ben Hutchings) jebgr:
^^^^^
Why is this rot13'd?
>| [Concept] and its modified clones have become the most successful computer
>| virus yet.
>
>Who determines this, and how?
OK, you got me, this is just a guess, based on anecdotal evidence.
Another good reason for believing this is that Word documents get
transferred around (by e-mail, floppy disk, etc.) far more than
executables do.
--
Ben Hutchings, compsci&mathmo | ICOAmiga http://www.lapcopaintball.com/icoa/
email/finger m95...@ecs.ox.ac.uk | homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/
Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered an expert.
Lee Rudolph
"James Linn" <james...@nortel.com> writes:
>(at this point Macs had about
>15% of the global market, their peek penetration).
Hey, this is a family froup. Take it to alt.sex.voyeurism, okay?
Lee "PEEK is safer than POKE when it comes to viruses" Rudolph
Ray Depew
ajgroos (ajgroos...@maworldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Sarcasm, very effective.
I wasn't being sarcastic. I was serious.
Thanks to those of you who gave serious answers.
: On 8 Oct 1997 14:03:23 GMT, r...@fc.hp.com (Ray Depew) wrote:
:
: >I'm interested in the apparent contradiction in Tom Harrington's
: >(t...@longhorn.uucp) words:
: >: [V]iruses are vitrually unknown in the Mac world, except among
: >: people who use Word 6.x. Updates to antivirus software for Macs
: >: these days [...]
: >>How is it that viruses are virtually unknown in the Mac world, and yet
Robert Billing
In article <61itph$26...@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>
t...@rmi.net "Tom Harrington" writes:
> I expect it's more due to market penetration than anything else.
The converse may also be true, more people *want* to destroy Microsoft
than Apple.
--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"
Rick Hawkins
In article <61itph$26...@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>,
Tom Harrington <t...@rmi.net> wrote:
>: The key word here is "virtually". They exist. They are just not such a
>: big problem as in the Wintel world.
>Right-- currently there are about 35 known Mac viruses. Even that
>overstates the problem, though, because many of them ceased to function
>when System 7 was introduced back in 1991. I believe that Word
>macro viruses now number in the thousands.
iirc, *all* existing virii broke on system 7. See where not following
the interface rules gets you :)
>: I believe it has to do with both the hardware and OS architecture of
>: the Mac, and its distinct lack of market penetration. If the Mac was
>: as succesful as Windows is now, many more perverts would be devoting
>: their pitiful lives to writing newer and better viruses for it.
>I expect it's more due to market penetration than anything else.
>After all, viruses DO exist on the Mac. I don't think there's
>anything inherent in the system design that makes viruses any
>more of a technical challenge. Like DOS and Windows, any running
>code has the equivalent of root access to the system.
There is a significant advantage on the mac: disk insertion causes an
event, triggering the virus checker to run. When using proper
protection (safe computing? :), this makes it harder to get infected,
slowing down the spread of the virus--it's that many more machines that
can't infect the next.
--
R E HAWKINS
rhaw...@iastate.edu
These opinions will not be those of ISU until they pay my retainer.
Coach
> I'm interested in the apparent contradiction in Tom Harrington's
> (t...@longhorn.uucp) words:
>
>
> [...]
> : [V]iruses are vitrually unknown in the Mac world, except among
> : people who use Word 6.x. Updates to antivirus software for Macs
> : these days [...]
>
> How is it that viruses are virtually unknown in the Mac world, and yet
> antivirus software for Macs has been around for some time? Shrewd
> marketing?
Yes and no. There are around fifteen different types of virus out there on
the Mac, with maybe forty variants. They're out there, and some of them are
pretty damn nasty, but there aren't that many.
/Coach
Tom Watson
In article <61itph$26...@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>, t...@rmi.net wrote:
<<<deletia regarding viri on many platforms>>>
>
> Disinfectant is still free. It hasn't been updated in a few years,
> but that's because no new viruses have been discovered in that time.
>
Yes, it is still free. But it has been updated. Presently it is at
version 3.7.1 (at least the version I have) and is dated July of this
year.
Advice to a Mac user: Get it. Install the init.
Typically if a new virus breaks out, other than silly word macro things, a
new release of Disinfectant is floating around in less than a day. The
writers don't have a chance. Probably the reason they go for PC things.
P.S. If you use a reasonable (older) version of Word, or some other word
processor, you have less of a chance of these macro viri.
--
t...@cagent.com (Home: t...@johana.com)
Please forward spam to: anna...@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do.
David J Richardson
In article <61gg3l$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
ajgroos...@maworldnet.att.net (ajgroos) wrote:
>While there are thousands of variations of a few methods to "infect"
>DOS/Windows machines the Apple Macintosh was/is the target of choice
>since there are many more methods of infecting the machines, more
>hiding places but fewer variations.
For the record, as per the help file in Disinfectant, there are 18 (count
'em!) different virii for the Mac (though many of them have a variation or
two). If you're feeling very generous, call it a total of 50.
What's more, most of these virii broke when System 7 was introduced some
five years ago (ie. the WDEF virus).
To be honest, it's been literally years since I've had a virus on my mac
(with MUCH contact from net and otherwise).
Of course, trojan horses or nasty scripted things are a different thing
altogether.
--
David J Richardson
bo...@crafti.com.au & http://www.crafti.com.au/~borad/
SOPHIE ALDRED (ACE IN DR WHO) MELBOURNE NOV 21-23 - ASK ME ABOUT IT!
The Philosopher's Stone
an obviuos thought just occured to me (re: the macs vs pc virii thread).
The better viral protection softs get the less virus authors there'll be
(survival of the fittest). At least theoretically. As a result of that
there'll be less viruses... less viruses make for simpler antivirals.
If there are no viruses then there are no anti-virals that get
sold... could it be that Billy boy is getting the microserfs to "dull
down" the antivirals so that they keep selling?
Jonathan "I know its dreadful reasoning but what the fuck" McCalmont.
A small island of fury in a world of whores...
D.M. Procida
Ray Depew <r...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
> How is it that viruses are virtually unknown in the Mac world,
The question of Apple Macintosh computer viruses is best answered with
reference to the Ramones' and Talking Heads' first European tour in
1977.
When Talking Heads (the now sadly-defunct vehicle for David Byrne's
hips) played to audiences in Britain they discovered a music scene that
was amongst other things notable for the disgusting and unhygenic custom
of 'gobbing'. Chiefly this was a signal employed by audiences to
demonstrate their approval of the band, at whom - indeed, in whose faces
- the gobbing was directed, but some bands at any rate bands were often
happy to reciprocate. Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols would accede to
requests for an autograph by gobbing on the hand of requester.
Some bands, such as the Ramones, seemed to attract veritable rainstorms
of gob. Joey Ramone had to pull his long fringe over his face and carry
on grimly as the gob flew past. But when Talking Heads played for some
reason the gobbing stopped. "Possibly the spitters were lurking in the
back of the audience during their set," Tommy Ramone said once, "but I
don't think so. They just didn't make you want to spit."
I think the situation is on the whole similar with the Mac: it just
doesn't make you want to write viruses.
>and yet antivirus software for Macs has been around for some time?
>Shrewd marketing?
I know this didn't answer your question at all really, but I was anxious
that someone else might make the Mac:DOS::Talking Heads:Ramones analogy
before I did.
I don't think it can be shrewd marketing, because the only anti-virus
software I've ever come across for the Mac is free.
ObDavid Byrne: I have recently read one or two passing remarks in the
press to David Byrne's "disgusting personal habits". I presume they
don't mean the nasty whiny voice he has adopted since about 1992. What
do they mean?
D.M. Procida
--
"...the so-called support act, The Awkward Moments, climbed onstage
unsmilingly, not even looking at the audience. They only played one
song: "Autobahn". In German. For twenty minutes. Then they swaggered
off, not once having acknowledged the crowd. Conceited arrogant swine."
Simon Slavin
In article <19971012145157187146@[131.251.122.243]>,
pro...@cf.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
> Ray Depew <r...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > How is it that viruses are virtually unknown in the Mac world,
>
> The question of Apple Macintosh computer viruses is best answered with
> reference to the Ramones' and Talking Heads' first European tour in
> 1977. [hysterical spitting metaphor snipped. I enjoyed it greatly.]
>
> >and yet antivirus software for Macs has been around for some time?
> >Shrewd marketing?
It's pretty easy to write a good Mac virus. It's also pretty easy
to write a program that stops a Mac virus from spreading and
/fairly/ easy to get it to eradicate the virus. It's so easy it's
not much fun -- whichever program the operating system loads first
gets most of the control over the computer.
The anti-virus packages for the Mac are mostly members of suites.
Symantec does the most famous one and it's branded with the rest of
their Macintosh range. The kind of company which feels they want
an anti-virus package probably already uses Symantec's utilities
package (equivalent to Norton for the PC) so they buy Symantec's
anti-virus package. The second most famous one is probably the
one from S&S Enterprises (Dr. Solomon's company). They make anti-
virus packages for every platform going (including Netware and OS/2)
so they're definitely trading on their branding image -- companies
who already have the Windows version will buy the Mac version for
their Macs.
However, by far the most frequently used package is John Norstad's
one called 'Disinfectant' which is both free and updated every time
a virus comes out that it can't already cope with. This killer
combination makes writing Mac viruses unrewarding because in less
than a week after identification a new version of Disinfectant will
be available free from all the usual Mac internet sites. Of all
the Mac anti-viral utilities, 'Disinfectant' is the smallest,
fastest, least obtrusive and simplest to use. The only things it
can't cope with is Microsoft Macro viruses (and their old Hypercard
equivalents) and quite frankly anyone who runs a Microsoft program
on a Mac deserves everything they get.
John Norstad is one of the patron saints of the Mac community and
does a whole host of good works for us. I've paid for quite a bit
of shareware from him over the years. I believe he currently works
for Northwestern U., Illinois.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | The mind abhors a vacuum. Without
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | facts, they'll fill their heads with
Check email address for spam-guard. | fantasies.
Junk email not welcome at this site. | -- Jonathan Kellerman: _Time Bomb_
Joseph M. Newcomer
Microsoft's ActiveVirus technology is perhaps the most immoral use I
have ever seen of an otherwise useful concept, the ActiveX control. I
have been urging everyone to obey the dictum:
"ActiveX: Just Say No"
and to complain, loud and long, to any site that includes ActiveX
controls in a Web page. Fortunately, most browsers allow you to turn
off ActiveX downloads, and a good firewall will never let an ActiveX
control pass, period.
joe
]On 7 Oct 1997 20:15:43 -0700, lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com (Lon
Stowell) wrote:
>Tom Harrington <t...@rmi.net> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, but how many of them had the annoying cross-platform capabilities
>>of Word macro viruses? That's what really gets me about them;
>>viruses are vitrually unknown in the Mac world, except among
>>people who use Word 6.x.
>
> Good point. And for the PC crowd, if you think Word virii are
> far too common and damaging [also Excel virii], just wait until
> you see what Uncle Bill's boys want folks to be able to do with
> your computer in their next virus technology...ActiveX. Just
> imagine what can be done with a technology that promises full
> remote configuration and operation for help desk staff.....
>
> Virii are about to enter a new level, from common to the nasty
> damaging type. Microsoft of course claims that the solution is
> to only surf internet sites that are "digitally signed", as if
> any kid with PGP and a sociopathic bent would let that be more than
> a millisecond obstacle.
>
> Windows/98. Practice safe computing. Oh well, maybe the carnage
> will either help keep the Mac [no, don't own one] alive or result
> in C-2 versions of Windows/99.
Joseph M. Newcomer
newc...@flounder.com
http://www3.pgh.net/~newcomer
Allan Murphy
D.M. Procida wrote:
> Chiefly this was a signal employed by audiences to
>demonstrate their approval of the band, at whom - indeed, in whose faces
>happy to reciprocate.
This reminds me of a UL about The Damned, from back in the days of
gobbing (The Damned of course suffering a Ramones-like fate at the
hands of the crowd).
Legend has it that on one tour The Damned employed a group of nuns /
people dressed as nuns as part of their show; if the gob intensity got
too great the band would retire to the back of the stage and the nuns
would dance on in a line, can can style and gob on the audience.
I recently saw the lead singer of Ocean Colour Scene storm off stage in
Glasgow after being hit by a perfectly hygenic pint of water - pah, singers
today, I don't know.
Allan 'how they spat that pint I'll never know' Murphy
--
Allan Murphy
Software Engineer
allan@nospampleasewe'rebritish.innerworkings.co.uk
Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal
In article <3441c254...@192.189.54.145>,
Rotes Sapiens <r...@redplanet.mars.com.cy> wrote:
>In all seriousness, one of the reasons that there are so many viruses
>available for DOS is that it is easier (so I understand) to write
>viruses for a command line type OS. Trying to write viruses for a
>windowing GUI type OS like Mac OS is a lot harder because GUIs usually
>have a lot more protection built in.
GUI = security?
Macro viruses for WinWord and (as I recall...) AmiPro run in windowy
environments exclusively, and I invite you to locate a single piece of
"protection built in" to Win95, a WYmpiWYG extravaganza. You are
furthermore invited to write or cite viruses for Unix and VMS: as
hardcore command-line interfaced OSes, they must surely be a snap to
subvert.
Or, to put it more succinctly, I disagree.
As *I* understand it, Macs were spared viruses (until the recent accursed
macro craze) due to their limited popularity among haqr d00dz and the
fact that the OS is more complicated (a little? a lot?) to deal with from
a virus programming point of view. It sounds reasonable
>That's my story and I'm sticking
>to it.
Did you make it up all by yourself? Those are the best kind.
--Eric Smith
Ian Stirling
In alt.folklore.computers Allan Murphy <al...@innerworkings.co.uk> wrote:
: D.M. Procida wrote:
: > Chiefly this was a signal employed by audiences to
: >demonstrate their approval of the band, at whom - indeed, in whose faces
: > the gobbing was directed, but some bands at any rate bands were often
: >happy to reciprocate.
<snip>
: I recently saw the lead singer of Ocean Colour Scene storm off stage in
: Glasgow after being hit by a perfectly hygenic pint of water - pah, singers
: today, I don't know.
Quite a lot of bands at glastonbery got mud thrown at them this time round.
The mud was quite thick.
Some bands objected :)
--
Ian Stirling. Designing a linux PDA, see http://www.mauve.demon.co.uk/
----- ******* If replying by email, check notices in header ******* -----
Two fish in a tank: one says to the other, you know how to drive this thing??
Rotes Sapiens
On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:51:57 +0000, pro...@cf.ac.uk (D.M. Procida)
wrote:
>Ray Depew <r...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>> How is it that viruses are virtually unknown in the Mac world,
>The question of Apple Macintosh computer viruses is best answered with
>reference to the Ramones' and Talking Heads' first European tour in
>1977.
>When Talking Heads (the now sadly-defunct vehicle for David Byrne's
>hips) played to audiences in Britain they discovered a music scene that
>was amongst other things notable for the disgusting and unhygenic custom
>of 'gobbing'. Chiefly this was a signal employed by audiences to
>demonstrate their approval of the band, at whom - indeed, in whose faces
>- the gobbing was directed, but some bands at any rate bands were often
>happy to reciprocate. Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols would accede to
>requests for an autograph by gobbing on the hand of requester.
Even worse for the sucker (sic) who later shook hands with the
autographee.
>Some bands, such as the Ramones, seemed to attract veritable rainstorms
>of gob. Joey Ramone had to pull his long fringe over his face and carry
>on grimly as the gob flew past. But when Talking Heads played for some
>reason the gobbing stopped. "Possibly the spitters were lurking in the
>back of the audience during their set," Tommy Ramone said once, "but I
>don't think so. They just didn't make you want to spit."
Talking Heads fans are too cool and cultivated to gob.
>I think the situation is on the whole similar with the Mac: it just
>doesn't make you want to write viruses.
Somehow I can't imaging people writing virus for MSDOS to show their
approval.
>>and yet antivirus software for Macs has been around for some time?
>>Shrewd marketing?
>I know this didn't answer your question at all really, but I was anxious
>that someone else might make the Mac:DOS::Talking Heads:Ramones analogy
>before I did.
In your dreams... |-)
>I don't think it can be shrewd marketing, because the only anti-virus
>software I've ever come across for the Mac is free.
The amount of anti-virus software for the Mac may be the same
proportion as the amount of anti-virus software for DOS relative to
the number of packages available for DOS computers.
In all seriousness, one of the reasons that there are so many viruses
available for DOS is that it is easier (so I understand) to write
viruses for a command line type OS. Trying to write viruses for a
windowing GUI type OS like Mac OS is a lot harder because GUIs usually
have a lot more protection built in. That's my story and I'm sticking
to it.
The five food groups are not beer, pizza, burgers, chips and
chocolate.
Robert Billing
In article <3441c254...@192.189.54.145>
r...@redplanet.mars.com.cy "Rotes Sapiens" writes:
> In all seriousness, one of the reasons that there are so many viruses
> available for DOS is that it is easier (so I understand) to write
> viruses for a command line type OS. Trying to write viruses for a
> windowing GUI type OS like Mac OS is a lot harder because GUIs usually
> have a lot more protection built in. That's my story and I'm sticking
> to it.
Unfortunately this is not true. It is perfectly possible to write
simple viruses for GUI based systems with inadiquate protection, such
as the Amiga. What makes it difficult is a separation between user and
system, which means that a program running in user state can't, for
example, write to the boot block.
Where an OS does make this distinction, security holes may exist, but
they can be plugged without upsetting anything that a legitimate
application needs to do.
I've never heard of a VMS or RSX virus, and I'm not sure that there is
any such thing as a LINUX or UNIX virus either.
Grey Cloak
On Wed, 15 Oct 97 17:17:57 GMT,
Robert Billing cause to appear:
>In article <3441c254...@192.189.54.145>
> r...@redplanet.mars.com.cy "Rotes Sapiens" writes:
>
>> In all seriousness, one of the reasons that there are so many viruses
>> available for DOS is that it is easier (so I understand) to write
>> viruses for a command line type OS. Trying to write viruses for a
>> windowing GUI type OS like Mac OS is a lot harder because GUIs usually
>> have a lot more protection built in. That's my story and I'm sticking
>> to it.
>
> Unfortunately this is not true. It is perfectly possible to write
>simple viruses for GUI based systems with inadiquate protection, such
>as the Amiga. What makes it difficult is a separation between user and
>system, which means that a program running in user state can't, for
>example, write to the boot block.
>
> Where an OS does make this distinction, security holes may exist, but
>they can be plugged without upsetting anything that a legitimate
>application needs to do.
>
> I've never heard of a VMS or RSX virus, and I'm not sure that there is
>any such thing as a LINUX or UNIX virus either.
As for Linux, there is a virus called bliss. Short lived. The thing about
unixes is that they run with security as a major concern. Most programs
when ran as a user will only effect the stuff that a user can effect.
It is harder but not impossiable for a virus to exist in this enviroment. When
one does strike, it usually does little damage.
As for gui's Last I heard their was about 1,000 viruses for win95 many more for
Mac, and moany more again for DOS.
The only difference between a gui and a command line system is user
interaction. A gui is designed to be a point and click and to
ease learning curve. It also handles the graphics for the programmer.
Where a commandline, the programmer has to handle the graphic, interface
and the meat of the program. A gui also ismore Ram (memory) intensed
to run.
--
Grey Cloak
---------------------------------------------
.###########. Change spamtrap to grycloak, to email me.
##'___ ___`## Wizard.FAQ v2.0 send blank Email to:
## * > < * ## wiza...@greycloak.access.one.net
### ) | | ( ### For other documents served
###\_-===-_/### Docs...@greycloak.access.one.net
# ~!!!~ #
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7614
http://w3.one.net/~grycloak/dreams/dream.htm
Mr Pre
Robert Billing wrote:
>
> In article <3441c254...@192.189.54.145>
> r...@redplanet.mars.com.cy "Rotes Sapiens" writes:
>
> I've never heard of a VMS or RSX virus, and I'm not sure that
> there is any such thing as a LINUX or UNIX virus either.
It strikes me that the very non-commercial nature of Linux means
people are less inclined to do something to damage it.
With other operating systems, if there's a deficiency, a user might
feel rather disgruntled that they had to pay for it. Any bugs in
a free OS such as Linux (or FreeBSD and its ilk, for that matter)
can simply be written off on the grounds it didn't cost anything
to start with (although the Caldera releases could tip the balance
here).
Maybe the social-inadequates that write viruses haven't got enough
of a clue to write virii for unices?
--
Junk mail: p...@pre.org
Bandwidth: http://pre.arkham.to
Occupation: detonation of cars, motorcycles and intel processorss
Matthew Crosby
>available for DOS is that it is easier (so I understand) to write
>viruses for a command line type OS. Trying to write viruses for a
>windowing GUI type OS like Mac OS is a lot harder because GUIs usually
>have a lot more protection built in. That's my story and I'm sticking
>to it.
Bah. GUIness and security are completely orthogonal. MacOS and AmigaOS
both lack any security, memory protection or what have you, yet have guis.
Unix, Tenex, Multics, VMS and practically every other real OS have commandlines
but have security. You'll find I think that most all of the B and A level
OSs are command line based.
On top of that, what exactly is a "GUI" os anyway? Is unix a command line
OS or a GUI os? Bear in mind that my Unix box comes straight up to xdm.
How about Windows 95, given that it is still based on dos? How about systems
like BeOS or the Amiga, which have underlying GUIs but provide nice command
lines?
This is a fairly artificial distinction; you have an OS, which may have one
or many interfaces, and some may be GUIs, and some may not be.
--
Matthew Crosby cro...@cs.colorado.edu
Disclaimer: It was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.
Mike Holmans
On 16 Oct 1997 16:18:23 GMT, cro...@nordsieck.cs.colorado.edu (Matthew
Crosby) wrote:
>Bah. GUIness and security are completely orthogonal.
Nonsense. Guinness is perfectly safe in moderate quantities, such as
pint glasses. By the bucketful can be slightly hazardous.
Mike "ebony nectar" Holmans
El Sig is a stout fellow
David Griffith
Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal (cs...@blaze.trentu.ca) wrote:
: In article <3441c254...@192.189.54.145>,
: Rotes Sapiens <r...@redplanet.mars.com.cy> wrote:
: >In all seriousness, one of the reasons that there are so many viruses
: >available for DOS is that it is easier (so I understand) to write
: >viruses for a command line type OS. Trying to write viruses for a
: >windowing GUI type OS like Mac OS is a lot harder because GUIs usually
: >have a lot more protection built in.
: GUI = security?
Ooo.. so NT must be loads more secure than, say, MVS? ;-)
: Macro viruses for WinWord and (as I recall...) AmiPro run in windowy
: environments exclusively, and I invite you to locate a single piece of
: "protection built in" to Win95, a WYmpiWYG extravaganza. You are
: furthermore invited to write or cite viruses for Unix and VMS: as
: hardcore command-line interfaced OSes, they must surely be a snap to
: subvert.
: Or, to put it more succinctly, I disagree.
: As *I* understand it, Macs were spared viruses (until the recent accursed
: macro craze) due to their limited popularity among haqr d00dz and the
: fact that the OS is more complicated (a little? a lot?) to deal with from
: a virus programming point of view. It sounds reasonable
Until MacOS 7 came out, when a disk was inserted, the Mac would execute
some code in the boot sector. That right there was a wide-open barn door
that let a lot of nasties in. The forked files with Mac was apparently a
deterrent to much virus-writing.
: >That's my story and I'm sticking
: >to it.
: Did you make it up all by yourself? Those are the best kind.
: --Eric Smith
Nice for a chuckle.
--
David Griffith
dgr...@ultrix6.cs.csubak.edu
John Hendrickx
In article <EI478L.EB...@news.trentu.ca>, cs...@blaze.trentu.ca
says...
> As *I* understand it, Macs were spared viruses (until the recent accursed
> macro craze) due to their limited popularity among haqr d00dz and the
> fact that the OS is more complicated (a little? a lot?) to deal with from
> a virus programming point of view. It sounds reasonable
>
virus. It was designed to fool the popular freeware antivirus program
Disinfectant but was caught up by undocumented checksum routines in
ClarisWorks or some other Claris product. Anyway, it was detected within
a day or two and the d00dz were apprehended, kicked out of Cornell, and
sentence to a year community service. Their voices would have gone way up
if some Mac users had been in the jury ...
David Kurtz
In article <slrn64c1js....@greycloak.access.one.net>,
spam...@greycloak.access.one.net (Grey Cloak) wrote:
> As for gui's Last I heard their was about 1,000 viruses for win95 many
more for
> Mac, and moany more again for DOS.
There are about 18 viruses on the Mac (not counting macro viruses). Many
of them don't work with System versions newer than 6.0.7. At least
according to the latest version of Disinfectant (3.7.1).
--
David Kurtz * da...@ucla.edu * http://www.lightside.net/~david/
Tom Harrington
Grey Cloak (spam...@greycloak.access.one.net) wrote:
: As for gui's Last I heard their was about 1,000 viruses for win95 many more for
: Mac, and moany more again for DOS.
You mean "many fewer" for Mac. There are only about 35 known Mac viruses,
and many of those were broken by the upgrade to System 7 (back in '91).
The others are so rare that they've nearly been eradicated. The monthly
updates to commercial antivirus software for Macs are exclusively new
Word macro viruses these days.
: The only difference between a gui and a command line system is user
: interaction. A gui is designed to be a point and click and to
: ease learning curve. It also handles the graphics for the programmer.
Besides which, a virus doesn't have to use GUI elements to have a
destructive effect. In fact it's probably better if they don't,
as a virus that ignores the graphical interface would likely be
harder for most users to detect.
--
Tom Harrington --------- t...@rmii.com -------- http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph
"The less I seek my source for some definitive, the closer I am
to fine." -Indigo Girls, "Closer to Fine"
Cookie's Revenge: ftp://ftp.rmi.net/pub2/tph/cookie/cookies-revenge.sit.hqx
Laurence Doering
In article <slrn64c1js....@greycloak.access.one.net>,
Grey Cloak <spam...@greycloak.access.one.net> wrote:
>
>As for gui's Last I heard their was about 1,000 viruses for win95 many more for
>Mac, and moany more again for DOS.
Oh really? Last *I* heard, there were only about 23 known viruses for
the Mac, and a number of them (WDEF and CDEF, for example) only work
on Macs running System 6 and earlier.
Of course, thanks to the great wisdom of the Dear Leader, Chairman
Gates, Word macro viruses can also infect Macs running an appropriate
version of Microsoft's flagship word processor.
>The only difference between a gui and a command line system is user
>interaction. A gui is designed to be a point and click and to
>ease learning curve. It also handles the graphics for the programmer.
>
>Where a commandline, the programmer has to handle the graphic, interface
>and the meat of the program. A gui also ismore Ram (memory) intensed
>to run.
Well, yes, a GUI does require more system resources. I'm not sure what
exactly that has to do with viruses, though.
As far as I know, viral code that runs on PCs doesn't need to be Windows-
specific. Since Windows 95 runs on top of a version of DOS, many DOS
viruses can infect W95 systems. The reason there are far more viruses
for the PC than the Mac is partly because there are many more PCs out
there for aspiring virus writers to play with, and partly because it's
a lot easier to sneak viral code into DOS than it is into the Mac system
software - it doesn't have anything in particular to do with the Mac's
GUI.
Larry "not that I've ever experimented with viruses or nuthin'" Doering
Coach
In article <slrn64c1js....@greycloak.access.one.net>,
spam...@greycloak.access.one.net (Grey Cloak) wrote:
> As for gui's Last I heard their was about 1,000 viruses for win95 many
more for
> Mac, and moany more again for DOS.
There aren't that many Mac-only viruses. Maybe thirty to forty strains of
about fifteen viruses, half of which quit working with System 7 anyway.
Then you have a few HyperCard viruses, and the everpresent MS macroviruses
that are just sort of there anyway (they don't really count, because
they're cross-platform).
/Coach
David Kurtz
In article <wyg3em0...@serpens.nada.kth.se>, Gustaf Erikson
<f92...@nada.kth.se> wrote:
> Some people say that GPL:ed software is a form of virus. And I learn
> from the Hackers Dictionary that some organizations refrain from using
> GNU software for fear of 'hidden' viruses.
Nonsense! Isn't that the whole reason shource is often distributed along
with GPL software (and lots of other UNIX utils too)--so that you can
examine the code yourself for bugs, viruses and backdoors. IMHO, much of
the concept is a result of paranoid delusion, but really; for someone to
be fearful of using GNU software because of potential viruses *when the
source is right in front of them* is rather silly.
Ben Hutchings
In article <876935...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> I've never heard of a VMS or RSX virus, and I'm not sure that there is
>any such thing as a LINUX or UNIX virus either.
There *was* the Internet worm back in 1988, which used one of the many
holes in sendmail if I remember correctly. Some would say that a worm
is not the same as a virus, but then most of the programs called viruses
are worms so I'd class them as such.
--
Ben Hutchings, compsci&mathmo | ICOAmiga http://www.lapcopaintball.com/icoa/
email/finger m95...@ecs.ox.ac.uk | homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/
You can't have everything. Where would you put it?
Gustaf Erikson
wi...@netcom.com (Wim Lewis) writes:
>
> In article <876935...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
> Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've never heard of a VMS or RSX virus, and I'm not sure that there is
> >any such thing as a LINUX or UNIX virus either.
>
> There was the Bliss virus recently (sometime this year?), which was
> extroardinarily simple and straightforward --- sounded to me more like
> a proof-of-concept virus. ("Unix can't have viruses!" "Oh yeah? *code code
> code* What's this?") It could only propagate if the machine's operator
> was being pretty thoroughly lazy about security, though.
>
>
> --
> Wim Lewis * wi...@hhhh.org * Seattle, WA, USA
> PGP 0x27F772C1: 0C 0D 10 D5 FC 73 D1 35 26 46 42 9E DC 6E 0A 88
Some people say that GPL:ed software is a form of virus. And I learn
from the Hackers Dictionary that some organizations refrain from using
GNU software for fear of 'hidden' viruses.
/g.
--
Gustaf Erikson <---*---> 59*19'N 18*05'E
<http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~f92-ger/>
Kin Hoong CHUNG
: > How is it that viruses are virtually unknown in the Mac world,
<deleted>
: Some bands, such as the Ramones, seemed to attract veritable rainstorms
: of gob. Joey Ramone had to pull his long fringe over his face and carry
: on grimly as the gob flew past. But when Talking Heads played for some
: reason the gobbing stopped. "Possibly the spitters were lurking in the
: back of the audience during their set," Tommy Ramone said once, "but I
: don't think so. They just didn't make you want to spit."
: I think the situation is on the whole similar with the Mac: it just
: doesn't make you want to write viruses.
That actually makes sense... how many viruses are there for any flavour
of UNIX for any platform? There are many people who are quite capable
of creating nasties (eg. internet worm) for UNIX (there is always the
problem of getting root privileges though), but it is rarely done.
There are also much older, less secure OS'es than UNIX (as well as older,
_more_ secure ones), yet there are only a few celebrated stories (like
the Robin Hood/Friar Tuck---if I remember---one).
The hard question is why? Is it a cultural thing?
Cheers,
Kin Hoong
Wim Lewis
In article <876935...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I've never heard of a VMS or RSX virus, and I'm not sure that there is
>any such thing as a LINUX or UNIX virus either.
There was the Bliss virus recently (sometime this year?), which was
extroardinarily simple and straightforward --- sounded to me more like
a proof-of-concept virus. ("Unix can't have viruses!" "Oh yeah? *code code
code* What's this?") It could only propagate if the machine's operator
was being pretty thoroughly lazy about security, though.
There's the famous RTM Internet Worm (1988?), which is close enough
to a virus for the purposes of this discussion. I'd guess that any
practical Un*x-based self-replicating software would end up looking
more like a worm than a virus anyway, simply because of the facilities
available, though of course a worm could "lay eggs" in executables to
make it harder to eradicate.
And there's Ken Thompson's Turing award speech (published as "Reflections
on Trusting Trust", CACM v27 #8 (August 1984)[1]) which points out just how
devious an infection can really be. Of course, this kind of thing isn't
limited to Un*xes; it's just that this level of sophistication isn't
*needed* on your usual microcomputer OS without any real protection
(DOS, Mac, Windows, Amiga, etc.). I would have thought that this attack
was purely theoretical, but apparently Ken Thompson did actually do
it[2,3]. I am impressed.
[1] http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/
[2] news:<3nv66j$b...@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
Do a DejaNews search for "The Thompson Login Trojan: The REAL Story"
[3] http://www.wins.uva.nl/~mes/jarg311/b/backdoor.html
Kirk Is
Wim Lewis (wi...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <876935...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
: Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: > I've never heard of a VMS or RSX virus, and I'm not sure that there is
: >any such thing as a LINUX or UNIX virus either.
: There was the Bliss virus recently (sometime this year?), which was
: There's the famous RTM Internet Worm (1988?), which is close enough
: to a virus for the purposes of this discussion. I'd guess that any
: practical Un*x-based self-replicating software would end up looking
: more like a worm than a virus anyway, simply because of the facilities
: available, though of course a worm could "lay eggs" in executables to
: make it harder to eradicate.
This is exactly what I was thinking up 'til now... people berate DOS/
Win95 for not seperating the user and the system, but historically they
haven't been as multiuser as, say, Unix. And the system that are
multiuser are usually on networks, which means the bad guys work on
different forms of attacks.
(On the other had, this Word Macro thing is just *stupid*-- how often do
you want to transfer macros along with documents? And why was the default
'autorun macros' set to on? And I'm not an avid microsoft basher, but
what I've sen about ActiveX and Microsofot's insistance that people want
power, power, raw power in the form of direct system access to applet
style things off the net is sick, with or without certificates.)
--
Kirk Is | Romeo was restless
kisrael@ | he was ready to kill
alienbill.com | Jumped out the window
| 'cause he couldn't sit still
| Juliet was waitin'
| with a safety net-
| said "don't bury me
| 'cause I'm not dead yet"
| --Elvis Costello, "Mystery Dance"
Kirk Is
Robert Billing (uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <62eb85$h9f$2...@news3.tufts.edu>
: kis...@allegro.cs.tufts.edu "Kirk Is" writes:
: > This is exactly what I was thinking up 'til now... people berate DOS/
: > Win95 for not seperating the user and the system, but historically they
: > haven't been as multiuser as, say, Unix. And the system that are
: At this point my 3rd year comp sci supervisor (Dr Cheney (sp?)) would
: have shouted "orthogonal concepts" at me. Just because they don't
: support multiple simultaneous users there is no reason why they
: shouldn't make a root/user distinction, to protect the user from doing
: something silly and trashing the system.
Added what seemed like gratuitous complexity. One user, assumed to
be competent, one computer. I'm not saying it was the best layout, but
it made some sense at the time.
: After all the *original* PDP-11 DOS had user numbers, user groups and
: file protection bits which were settable so that only "root", or as we
: called it then [1,1] could get at system files destructively, and that
: was 10 years or so before M$ propagated DOS.
Maybe you missed my point. It wasn't a matter of the age of DOS.
It was the purpose of DOS. True, even some TRS-80 (I think) filesystems
had some (easily broken) file protection, but that didn't catch on.
And the other hand, machines that are traditionally on networks have a
much bigger history of other forms of security attacks.
--
Kirk Is | Ringo: Really nice apartment, Chris.
kisrael@ | Chris: Thanks. Uh, I know you guys know him--
alienbill.com | what do you think of Mick Jagger?
| John: Turrific lips.
| Paul: Gives me an erection joost watchin' 'im chew goom.
| --from Beat the Meatles, Chris Miller
Tom Harrington
Wim Lewis (wi...@netcom.com) wrote:
: [1] http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/
Thanks for the pointer; I had heard of this paper but had never read
it before.
: [2] news:<3nv66j$b...@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
: Do a DejaNews search for "The Thompson Login Trojan: The REAL Story"
I was unable to turn anything up. Can you supply some more detail
as to when/where this would have appeared? That would help in
searching.
--
Tom Harrington --------- t...@rmii.com -------- http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph
"I found it hard, it was hard to find, oh well, whatever, nevermind."
-Nirvana
Kirk Is
David Given (dg@) wrote:
: In article <62fsan$358$1...@news3.tufts.edu>,
: Kirk Is <kis...@allegro.cs.tufts.edu> wrote:
: [...]
: >Added what seemed like gratuitous complexity. One user, assumed to
: ^^^^^^^^^^
: >be competent, one computer. I'm not saying it was the best layout, but
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >it made some sense at the time.
: [...]
: (emphasis mine)
: This may have applied to a user of an original IBM PC... but does it apply
: to a random user of Win 95?
Good point... it's amazing how many people don't seperate Win95 from
MS-Office. In some ways, though, I think this is somewhat of a good
thing. Seriously. In some ways, the more computers start looking like
other appliances, the better of society is.
: Sure, DOS then fitted the job. Unfortunately, we're *still* using DOS now,
: albeit prettified considerably, but the job's changed.
I don't want to get into the "*does* Win95 == DOS++ ?", but it's every
generation's backwards compatability that slows progress. And not even
all the way back to DOS (though that's nice in its own way) but just to
the generation before: Win95 users wanted to be able to use the Win3.1
stuff, Win3.1 users wanted to use DOS stuff, and to a lesser extent, Win
2.x stuff, etc. It's a tough cycle to break. On the other hand, I don't
think the situation is quite as bad as most of the AFC brethren do...
--
Kirk Is |
kisrael@ | "if time heals all wounds then why do we all have bellybuttons?"
alienbill.com |
JoAnne Schmitz
>In article <62eb85$h9f$2...@news3.tufts.edu>
> kis...@allegro.cs.tufts.edu "Kirk Is" writes:
>
>> This is exactly what I was thinking up 'til now... people berate DOS/
>> Win95 for not seperating the user and the system, but historically they
>> haven't been as multiuser as, say, Unix. And the system that are
>
> At this point my 3rd year comp sci supervisor (Dr Cheney (sp?)) would
>have shouted "orthogonal concepts" at me. Just because they don't
>support multiple simultaneous users there is no reason why they
>shouldn't make a root/user distinction, to protect the user from doing
>something silly and trashing the system.
>
> After all the *original* PDP-11 DOS had user numbers, user groups and
>file protection bits which were settable so that only "root", or as we
>called it then [1,1] could get at system files destructively, and that
>was 10 years or so before M$ propagated DOS.
And that, along with the availability of PC's over minicomputers, is why
people liked writing for a DOS environment. You could touch everything if
you knew how, from any program run by any user.
"Getting at system files destructively" is the same as "getting at system
files constructively" dontcha know.
JoAnne "remembers [000,000] and octal" Schmitz
Peter Kerr
kis...@allegro.cs.tufts.edu (Kirk Is) wrote:
> and Microsofot's insistance that people want
> power, power, raw power in the form of direct system access to applet
> style things off the net is sick, with or without certificates.)
>
haired success story... ;-)
--
Peter Kerr bodger
School of Music chandler
University of Auckland NZ neo-Luddite
Rick Hawkins
In article <877332...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <62eb85$h9f$2...@news3.tufts.edu>
> kis...@allegro.cs.tufts.edu "Kirk Is" writes:
>
>> This is exactly what I was thinking up 'til now... people berate DOS/
>> Win95 for not seperating the user and the system, but historically they
>> haven't been as multiuser as, say, Unix. And the system that are
> At this point my 3rd year comp sci supervisor (Dr Cheney (sp?)) would
>have shouted "orthogonal concepts" at me. Just because they don't
>support multiple simultaneous users there is no reason why they
>shouldn't make a root/user distinction, to protect the user from doing
>something silly and trashing the system.
cpm had a very limited version, with 16 user numbers. but filenames
were unique, iirc, so user 3 could overwrite user 4's file without
knowing it.
Generally, though, there was a space and time problem for a "good" file
system. You might even get an amazing 50k left on your only disk after
the dos. and you didn't have much processing power to do the checking
with, either.
The microcomputer disk wasn't a spinoff of the minicomputer os; it was a
bigger & faster tape drive--you didn't have to position the cassette!
(this isn't to excuse ms-dos not doing something more intelligent when hard
disks came out)
rick
--
R E HAWKINS
rhaw...@iastate.edu
These opinions will not be those of ISU until they pay my retainer.
ERMREY
> : Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> : > I've never heard of a VMS or RSX virus, and I'm not sure that there is
> : >any such thing as a LINUX or UNIX virus either.
>
language, and on any platform. No platform in use today is inherently
immune to computer viruses.
This is not to say that UNIX isn't lot safer than MAC/DOS. Boot sector
viruses are extremely common on the MAC/DOS side, while I've never heard
of one on any flavor of UNIX.
>
> (On the other had, this Word Macro thing is just *stupid*-- how often do
> you want to transfer macros along with documents? And why was the default
> 'autorun macros' set to on? And I'm not an avid microsoft basher, but
> what I've sen about ActiveX and Microsofot's insistance that people want
> power, power, raw power in the form of direct system access to applet
> style things off the net is sick, with or without certificates.)
>
Not to come too forcefully to the defense of Microsoft, but the autorun
macro is active by default for a reason. Microsoft in their infinite
wisdom figured everyone would be customizing their environment in
Word/Excel/Access using their Visual Basic. Having that autorun macro
enabled guaranteed that anyone who wrote an applciation in any of these
application would be able to distribute it to anyone else using those
packages, and have the thing run without having to push a 'start'
button. Thousands of developers took advantage of this very feature, too
bad all of them used it to propigate viruses.
Lon Stowell
ERMREY <sch...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Why not? A program with 'virus-like' properties can be written in any
>language, and on any platform. No platform in use today is inherently
>immune to computer viruses.
Possibly true at the pedantically nitpicking level. However
there are chips that can protect files and memory right down
at the hardware level,,, IF this capability and protection
of the facility is implemented in the operating system.
However, there are some platforms that have hardware enforced
storage protection keys on all memory locations. If something
inside that computer [a piece of code or even the I/O controller]
tries to access a physical memory location, it must have the
same protection key. If the keys don't match, the access doesn't
happen. The ability to set storage keys is pretty well hidden
inside the privileged area of the operating system, so I guess
you could write a virus if you can hack object code on that machine.
Great news if the Channel controller needed to access either
instructions or user data and the storage protect keys didn't
match...nice red lights every where and things halt.
This capability has been around since at least the late 60's as
it was built into the RCA Spectra series....and the 360/370
architecture as well, e.g. the 370/195 which had a problem
with one subsystem protecting on a word basis with hardware
that could only do it on a double-word basis.
>Not to come too forcefully to the defense of Microsoft, but the autorun
>macro is active by default for a reason. Microsoft in their infinite
>wisdom figured everyone would be customizing their environment in
>Word/Excel/Access using their Visual Basic. Having that autorun macro
>enabled guaranteed that anyone who wrote an applciation in any of these
>application would be able to distribute it to anyone else using those
>packages, and have the thing run without having to push a 'start'
>button. Thousands of developers took advantage of this very feature, too
>bad all of them used it to propigate viruses.
Hmmmm, this is not the only major screwup in Microsoft's
truly stupid view of computing.
The macro capability may be nice, but was it necessary to allow
it full access to files, including operating system configuration
files, that are NOT at all related to the Office suite?
Oh yes, it would be nice if you open a PowerPoint document and
it can turn on your MIDI and play a file.....and guess what, there
is STILL nothing that it needs to do that would require a properly
implemented operating system to allow it to WRITE to a system
file...like a macro virus can do.
And then there is "Active-X". If you think Macro virii are
nasty, wait until you see what Active-X will allow websites
or poorly written applications to do to your operating system.
The only reason this type of crap exists is that Microsoft frankly
doesn't have a clue when it comes to operating system and
application security....and there is nothing in security that
conflicts with an application being able to invoke or use the
services of another application without screwing up your machine
or getting into files where the applications or viruses have no
business being.
Dave Budd
Saw a nice one coupla days back: some guy couldn't install some software
on his portable, so asked staff here to help. Seems he used to work for
a company that had several bad virus problems, so they'd implemented a
policy of 'all machines owned by the company or used for company
business will have <productX> installed', and this productX stopped you
reading any disk that hadn't had a vaidation code put on it by one of
several approved in-house machines. Only this guy had left the company
without getting productX de-installed......
So after a bit of messing about, personY here edited a line out of the
autoexec.bat and......the machine could no longer read its C drive and
locked us out of the BIOS......it's been put in a drawer while we think
about it for a bit....
--
Sent me email but no reply? You may have forgotten to edit out
the antispam part of the address, or perhaps you'd like to try
zlsiida @ fs1.mcc.ac.uk instead. http://www.man.ac.uk/~zlsiida
The UK private poker game & player registries need more data:
http://www.man.ac.uk/~zlsiida/gambling/poker
Rob
In article <david-16109...@s197-32.resnet.ucla.edu>,
da...@ucla.edu (David Kurtz) wrote:
> In article <slrn64c1js....@greycloak.access.one.net>,
> spam...@greycloak.access.one.net (Grey Cloak) wrote:
>
> > As for gui's Last I heard their was about 1,000 viruses for win95 many
> more for
> > Mac, and moany more again for DOS.
>
> There are about 18 viruses on the Mac (not counting macro viruses). Many
> of them don't work with System versions newer than 6.0.7. At least
> according to the latest version of Disinfectant (3.7.1).
Well, it depends on how you define "virus". There aren't many BINARY
viruses for the Mac, but almost all of the MACRO viruses (of which there
are hundreds or thousands by now) will at least pass through the Mac and
some of them will do damage.
Here's the deal: MACRO viruses are by far the big problem these days.
New ones are coming along to the tune of several PER DAY. They're very
easy to write and it's trivial to take one made by someone else and mutate
it a little and release it.
So, why doesn't Microsoft take ANY heat for publishing the worlds best
virus-spreading programs? Symantec, McAfee, et al, make HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS of dollars a year off of us, all to fix a problem that is really
MICROSOFTS fault.
Just another case where MS can get away with anything they like.
Marvin L. Jones
Valdis Kletnieks (valdis.k...@vt.edu) wrote:
: The Systems 360 model 20 had a unique twist - you could update the
: microcode on an IBM 029 card punch.
Don't you mean the IBM Sys/360 model 30? As an ol' hardware C.E.
I got many a 'paper' cut pulling those ROS 'cards' out and stuffing
new ones in on engineering updates. They were called CCROS (or CROS?)
for (?) Capacitive Card Read Only Storage.
<alt.folklore.urban removed for follow-up>
Jonesy
MainFrame IBM since 1966
--
Marvin L Jones | Denver, Colo: az736<AT>freenet.uchsc.edu
Jonesy | Gunnison, Colo: jonz<AT>rmi.net
W3DHJ DM68mn | CompuServe: 72103,443
| snail-mail: 81230-1371
John Whipple
Dave Budd (d.b...@example.com) wrote:
[snip]
: So after a bit of messing about, personY here edited a line out of the
: autoexec.bat and......the machine could no longer read its C drive and
: locked us out of the BIOS......it's been put in a drawer while we think
: about it for a bit....
... and let the CMOS battery drain and the BIOS settings clear? =)
--
( Slackware 3.2 )( finger johnboy[AT]sonic.net for PGP )( not a minimalist )
Wim Lewis
In article <62g45m$pt...@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>,
>: Do a DejaNews search for "The Thompson Login Trojan: The REAL Story"
>
>I was unable to turn anything up. Can you supply some more detail
>as to when/where this would have appeared? That would help in
>searching.
Well, I had to select the "old" database in DejaNews. Lessee...
it isn't archived on DejaNews itself, but two articles which
quote it in its entirety are archived. Here it is again:
From: j...@news.IntNet.net (Jay Ashworth)
Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10,alt.folklore.computers,comp.lang.lisp,alt.os.multics
Subject: The Thompson Login Trojan: The REAL Story
Date: 30 Apr 1995 01:11:47 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <3nv66j$b...@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
Keywords: horse, mouth
fho...@us.oracle.com (Forrest Howard) writes:
>In article <3n0hac$j...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jhe...@herbie.unl.edu (jhesse) wrote:
>> Peter da Silva (pe...@bonkers.taronga.com) wrote:
>> : In article <WGD.95Ap...@martigny.ai.mit.edu>,
>> : Bill Dubuque <w...@zurich.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>> : >"The actual bug I planted in the compiler would match code in
>> : >the UNIX "login" command..."
>> : I always heard he implemented it but didn't distribute it.
>> What did "it" do?
>Actually I think it was distributed. Ken talked about it at the 2nd? unix
>users group meeting at columbia. In my faded recollection I believe he
>said there was code in cpp that
>
>a) inserted code when compiling login.c (or was it init.c or gtty.c?) that
> added code to recognize a particular username/password independent of
> /etc/passwd.
>b) reinserted the trojen horse when recompiling cpp.c
Proving that the real Mrs. Robinson stood up.
It occured to me last week that k...@research.att.com is _still_ a valid
address, 25 years later... so I asked. Here, from Ken himself, is the
Real Story<tm>:
) From k...@plan9.att.com Sun Apr 23 14:42 EDT 1995
) Received: from plan9.att.com by IntNet.net (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
) id AA19375; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 14:42:51 -0400
) Message-Id: <9504231842.AA19375@ IntNet.net>
) From: k...@plan9.att.com
) To: j...@IntNet.net
) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 14:39:39 EDT
) Content-Type: text
) Content-Length: 928
) Status: RO
)
) thanks for the info. i had not seen
) that newsgroup. after you pointed it
) out, i looked up the discussion.
)
) writing to news just causes more
) misunderstandings in the future. there
) is no way to win.
[ note: I asked him if he minded my posting the reply, he had no objection ]
) fyi: the self reproducing cpp was
) installed on OUR machine and we
) enticed the "unix support group"
) (precursor to usl) to pick it up
) from us by advertising some
) non-backward compatible feature.
) that meant they had to get the
) binary and source since the source
) would not compile on their binaries.
)
) they installed it and in a month or
) so, the login command got the trojan
) hourse. later someone there noticed
) something funny in the symbol table
) of cpp and were digging into the
) object to find out what it was. at
) some point, they compiled -S and
) assembled the output. that broke
) the self-reproducer since it was
) disabled on -S. some months later
) the login trojan hourse also went
) away.
)
) the compiler was never released
) outside.
)
) ken
Everyone: please save this post, so the next time the question comes up,
you can just go look. :-)
Cheers,
-- jr 'will bug legends for food' a
--
Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth
Designer Linux: The Choice of a GNU Generation & Associates
ka1fjx/4 "I minored in babbling in college... and got +1 813 790 7592
j...@baylink.com honors in it." --Brian Heath NIC: jra3
Nick Spalding
Marvin L. Jones wrote:
> Valdis Kletnieks (valdis.k...@vt.edu) wrote:
>
> : The Systems 360 model 20 had a unique twist - you could update the
> : microcode on an IBM 029 card punch.
>
> Don't you mean the IBM Sys/360 model 30? As an ol' hardware C.E.
> I got many a 'paper' cut pulling those ROS 'cards' out and stuffing
> new ones in on engineering updates. They were called CCROS (or CROS?)
> for (?) Capacitive Card Read Only Storage.
>
> <alt.folklore.urban removed for follow-up>
>
The /30 it was. I still have one of those cards which caused me a
great deal of trouble in 1967. The machine would stop dead with red
lights blazing about once a week. The problem card was ever so
slightly off-punch and one or two of the holes had a tiny sliver of
metal remaining which now and again picked an extra bit. By the time
the machine actually stopped the micro-program had gone on several
steps. I finally found it by wiring in a few extra gates to detect
the problem a bit earlier and hard wiring it to stop the clock.
I never had anything to do with the /20 so can't say what it had in
the way of microprogram.
The /25's microprogram was loaded into core memory via the card reader
from a deck of conventional punched cards - one deck made it behave
(approximately) like a /20 and another like a /30.
--
Nick Spalding
Nick Spalding
Lisa or Jeff wrote:
>
> How often would it be necessary to update the microcode on a S/360?
>
> I would think the machine would be relatively stable once manufactured.
Not if you had serial number 30. Its microprogram unit was so
unstable that they shipped us a new one complete.
> If the customer wanted a new feature, say 1401 emulation, wouldn't
> the factory provide a set of pre-punched cards rather than have a
> C/E dicker with a key punch in the field?
That is quite true - however (see another post in the original thread
that spawned this) it was possible to have faulty cards and then you
simply used a keypunch to make a good one - a bit noisy as there were
many multipunched columns. Also some emergency ECs were simply a
telex saying change columns x through y of card z to whatever. A
supply of blanks came with the machine.
> It would seem to be field keypunching of something so fundamental as
> microcode wouldn't be prudent or necessary. I'd be quite surprised
> if machines had custome built microcode.
I never encountered any but I toyed with the idea of adding a couple
of opcodes to a model 40, where again we had a supply of blank tapes
for the TROS microprogram unit.
--
Nick Spalding
Isaac Wingfield
"Valdis" == Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.k...@vt.edu> writes:
>
> Valdis> IBM originally developed the 8" floppy drive as a means of
> Valdis> delivering microcode updates for their mainframe computers
> Valdis> and peripherals. Was certainly easier to download new
> Valdis> microcode off a floppy than it was to open the box up and
> Valdis> replace ROMs, or diode arrays.
>
> Indeed, IBM's AS/400s (which are fairly new) still have eight inch
> floppies for this reason. However, all the times I downloaded new
> microcode, it was from tape (this circa 1989, London, England).
In about 1976-77, when I got my first micro - a Z80 running CP/M - 8"
floppies were well over $100 per box of 10. One day I was grousing about
that with my brother, who at the time was nursemaiding a '360[1] for some
Government agency.
He said "I have a whole drawer full of microcode update disks that we've
already applied, and don't need any more. Do you want 'em?"
"Sure!"
The box I received a few days later contained about 75 8" floppies, all
with IBM labels, all in IBM-printed shucks. Truly a lifetime supply.
So I guess IBM did in fact provide a considerable number of updates on
those disks.
FWIW, I believe that it was the floppy disk, with its low-cost random
storage, that produced the "microcomputer revolution" to a much greater
extent than the uP itself. There's lots of ways to compute on the cheap,
but storage, prior to the floppy, was outrageously expensive.
Isaac
[1] A *big* '360; the laserprinter was in the next room, and that's *all*
that was in there. Filled it right up.
TMOliver
Kirk Kerekes wrote:
>
> In article <62pj48$pds$1...@nntp.pe.net>, "Rush Strong" <rps[NOSPAM]@pe.net> wrote:
>
> . Valdis Kletnieks wrote in message ...
> . >rhaw...@iastate.edu (Rick Hawkins) writes:
> .
> .
> . >The Systems 360 model 20 had a unique twist - you could update the
> . >microcode on an IBM 029 card punch.
> .
> . I didn't know that card punch machines had updateable microcode.
>
> What Rick was referring to is the fact that many models in the 360 series
> actually used special plastic+foil Hollerith cards as ROM.
Of ancient storage devices now (in this case, blessedly) having bit the
dust....
The legenday CRAM of the noted but not long lamented NCR 315,
semi-contemporary (but unwanted non-relative) of the 360, sort of coat
racks bearing long chunks of mylar(?) to be read/writ upon....
--
Famous "BigSig" on leave of absence at nearby "FatFarm" seeking
substantial
shrinkage....
OLIVERSENDS/OPIMMEDIATE
AES
> What Rick was referring to is the fact that many models in the 360 series
> inserted into a special reader-slot in the computer. As a result, you
> could update this "microcode" by taking blank cards and punching new
> "code" into them on a standard card punch. The cards were a translucent
> plastic with copper foil patterns on them, and the punches selectively
> broke the foil circuitry.
I encountered an ancient coin-operated washing machine in the basement
laundry room of a Munich apartment house in 1987 in which the wash cycle
was selected, not by changing knob settings or punching appropriate
buttons, but by choosing the appropriate card from a set of thin stiff
metal foil Hollerith cards -- they appeared to be the same dimensions as
the usual "IBM cards" -- and inserting it into a kind of card reader
on top of the machine, which slowly drew the card through during the
machine's operating cycle.
I remember a German woman remarking, on seeing it, "Dass ist ein
Ur-alt Machine!".
Simon Slavin
In article <62opnu$1o$1...@ultra.sonic.net>,
no-...@sonic.net (John Whipple) wrote:
> Dave Budd (d.b...@example.com) wrote:
> [snip]
> : So after a bit of messing about, personY here edited a line out of the
> : autoexec.bat and......the machine could no longer read its C drive and
> : locked us out of the BIOS......it's been put in a drawer while we think
> : about it for a bit....
>
> ... and let the CMOS battery drain and the BIOS settings clear? =)
Won't help. The hard disk is encrypted. Do a low-level format and
start again.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | The mind abhors a vacuum. Without
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | facts, they'll fill their heads with
Check email address for spam-guard. | fantasies.
Junk email not welcome at this site. | -- Jonathan Kellerman: _Time Bomb_
Robert Schuldenfrei
j...@os2.bbs.com (John Varela) wrote:
>Tape storage on an audio cassette, as used with the TRS-80 Model 1, was pretty
>cheap. Slow and unreliable, but cheap.
>
Hi John,
I had a TRS-80 mod 1 which I used quite a bit in the years 1979-1983. I started
out with 2 tape drives and found it was slow and cheap, but not unreliable.
Note that I always sprang for the data tapes. They had no leader, and thus were
good, even after a rewind.
I kind of used them for sysin and sysout, like a REAL computer of the day :)
Even got a 2 tape sort going, but that was very slow for files of any size. In
those days, just owning your own computer was a thrill.
In the 1972 time frame I had a PDP-8 in my office, but that belonged to the
University of Rhode Island. It really was not my office either, but the corner
of what passed for the computer lab of the business school. Since I was the
only person who played with the 8, I felt it was my personal computer, before
the letters PC stood for anything at all.
Bob
Robert Schuldenfrei
S. I. Inc.
32 Ridley Road
Dedham, MA 02026
Voice: (781) 329-4828
FAX: (781) 329-1696
E-Mail: b...@s-i-inc.com
WWW: http://www.tiac.net/users/tangaroa/index.html
Jim M. Pierce
John Varela wrote:
[] Tape storage on an audio cassette, as used with the TRS-80 Model 1,
[] was pretty cheap. Slow and unreliable, but cheap.
Back when I had a Sinclair ZX-81, it took 6 minutes for a audio
cassette to load a 16 kilobyte program.
I can just imagine [pause for my laughter] how long it would take
Windoze to load from cassette tape.
JimP.
--
Jim
" Don't get discouraged...remember, when Cher first started going to the
spa, she already looked like Cher." Jake Vest.
Jay R. Ashworth
On 23 Oct 1997 15:59:16 -0400,
Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.k...@vt.edu> wrote:
> rhaw...@iastate.edu (Rick Hawkins) writes:
> > The microcomputer disk wasn't a spinoff of the minicomputer os; it was a
> > bigger & faster tape drive--you didn't have to position the cassette!
>
> microcode updates for their mainframe computers and peripherals. Was
> certainly easier to download new microcode off a floppy than it was
> to open the box up and replace ROMs, or diode arrays.
>
> The Systems 360 model 20 had a unique twist - you could update the
How _did_ you get the diskette into the punch?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth j...@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an
Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
Tom Watson
In article <m3u3e5i...@phrodo.texas.net>, Al Castanoli
<afc...@texas.net> wrote:
> j...@os2.bbs.com (John Varela) writes:
>
> > In <isw-ya023080002...@nntp.best.com>, i...@witzend.com
> >(Isaac Wingfield) writes:
> >
> > >extent than the uP itself. There's lots of ways to compute on the cheap,
> > >but storage, prior to the floppy, was outrageously expensive.
> >
> > Tape storage on an audio cassette, as used with the TRS-80 Model 1, was
> > pretty cheap. Slow and unreliable, but cheap.
>
> Before that, the TeleType mod 40 used cassette tapes, too. The medium was
> cheap, but the TeleType cassette recorder was pretty expensive.
Then there was the TI "Silent 700" goodies. They used casette tapes, and
some boxes had TWO of them. You could do offline editing and all that.
Given that the big bulky units were going in the surplus store for
something like $25 or so, I picked up one (or two) and they are now stored
away (want one??). We refered to them as "Noisy 90's" in "polite
conversation". They were quiet (compared to 33/35 teletypes of the day),
but that wasn't saying much. The thermal paper was a BIG PAIN. Now days
we have CRT monitors which are easier to deal with, but at the time....
(it was the 70's, you had to be there...).
--
t...@cagent.com (Home: t...@johana.com)
Please forward spam to: anna...@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do.
Isaac Wingfield
In article <630bdu$71r$3...@thorn.cc.usm.edu>, jmpi...@medea.gp.usm.edu (Jim
M. Pierce) wrote:
> John Varela wrote:
> [] Tape storage on an audio cassette, as used with the TRS-80 Model 1,
> [] was pretty cheap. Slow and unreliable, but cheap.
>
> Back when I had a Sinclair ZX-81, it took 6 minutes for a audio
> cassette to load a 16 kilobyte program.
>
> I can just imagine [pause for my laughter] how long it would take
> Windoze to load from cassette tape.
>
Yes, but think what a better place the world would be...
Isaac
Jim M. Pierce
Isaac Wingfield wrote:
[] jmpi...@medea.gp.usm.edu (Jim M. Pierce) wrote:
[] > I can just imagine [pause for my laughter] how long it would take
[] > Windoze to load from cassette tape.
[]
[] Yes, but think what a better place the world would be...
[]
[] Isaac
Yes, Windoze would be dead... waaay too many people would be
returning it due to the long load time for Microsloth to stay in
business.
JimP.
--
Jim jmpi...@medea.gp.usm.edu Disclaimer: Standard.
Book: War with the Newts
Rick Hawkins
In article <3453CB5A...@his.com>, Maury Merkin <mer...@his.com> wrote:
>> Tape storage on an audio cassette, as used with the TRS-80 Model 1, was
>I had one of those things and have a few questions:
>
>Does anyone remember what RAM came with it?
choice of 4k or 16k in base unit; up to 32k additional in expansion
interface.
>Also, it had a BASIC interpreter. Was that the thing that Gates & co.
>wrote?
Level 1 basic was not; it was Dartmouth "Kings Basic"
Level II basic was msoft, yes
>Finally, what was the name of the operating system (if it had a name)?
trs-dos
Robert Schuldenfrei
rhaw...@iastate.edu (Rick Hawkins) wrote:
>In article <3453CB5A...@his.com>, Maury Merkin <mer...@his.com> wrote:
>>Also, it had a BASIC interpreter. Was that the thing that Gates & co.
>>wrote?
>Level 1 basic was not; it was Dartmouth "Kings Basic"
>Level II basic was msoft, yes
Rick, I buy the Level II from Microsoft, but what is your reference for Level I
being Dartmouth "Kings Basic." I was at Dartmouth in the 1965-1967 time frame.
Although the flow charts for DTSS were available to anyone who wanted them free
for nothing, I wonder if that was the source for the TRS-80 BASIC. I say that
because DTSS BASIC was a compiler, not an interpretor. Never heard of "Kings
Basic." Please fill me in.
Cheers,
Bob
.
Bill Marcum
In message <3453CB5A...@his.com>,
mer...@his.com (Maury Merkin) wrote:
>I had one of those things and have a few questions:
>
>Does anyone remember what RAM came with it?
>
http://www.kjsl.com/trs80.html
>Thanks.
>
>Maury Merkin
>
>John Varela wrote:
>
>> In <isw-ya023080002...@nntp.best.com>, i...@witzend.com (Isaac Wingfield) writes:
>>
>> >extent than the uP itself. There's lots of ways to compute on the cheap,
>> >but storage, prior to the floppy, was outrageously expensive.
>>
>> Tape storage on an audio cassette, as used with the TRS-80 Model 1, was pretty
>> cheap. Slow and unreliable, but cheap.
>>
>> John Varela
>> (delete . between os2 and bbs to e-mail me)
>
>
>
--
Bill Marcum
"Well, actually, the Internet has been cream-filled for years" (Over the Hedge)
Robert Schuldenfrei
rhaw...@iastate.edu (Rick Hawkins) wrote:
>In article <633b6e$a...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>Robert Schuldenfrei <sail...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>rhaw...@iastate.edu (Rick Hawkins) wrote:
>>>Level 1 basic was not; it was Dartmouth "Kings Basic"
>>
>>Rick, I buy the Level II from Microsoft, but what is your reference for Level I
>>being Dartmouth "Kings Basic." I was at Dartmouth in the 1965-1967 time frame.
>>Although the flow charts for DTSS were available to anyone who wanted them free
>>for nothing, I wonder if that was the source for the TRS-80 BASIC. I say that
>>because DTSS BASIC was a compiler, not an interpretor. Never heard of "Kings
>>Basic." Please fill me in.
>I doubt that it was the source code. However, the Dartmouth dialect was
>sometimes referred to by something along the lines of "Kings Basic,"
>especially by those trying to sell it :) There was something about this
>in the manuals for that machine, iirc.
>Anyway, it claimed to be exactly source compatible with dartmouth
>(though there were a couple of extensions).
This can not possibly be true. Just one example. Level I BASIC on the TRS-80
had no string variables. DTSS BASIC had dynamically allocated string variables.
This means that it does not matter if your string is one character long or
100,000 characters you would just use the string token (ie: 100 LET A$= "This is
my string.") Level II had strings, but there was a limit on the length, 255
characters iirc.
The algorithm for strings was very clever. If anyone is interested there are
people far more knowledgable than I who might shed some light on the subject.
String variables are just one of the major differences. Now the folks at
Dartmouth tried to market something called "True BASIC", but it never got off
the ground.
Rick Hawkins
In article <637c6t$c...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>Anyway, it claimed to be exactly source compatible with dartmouth
>>(though there were a couple of extensions).
>This can not possibly be true. Just one example. Level I BASIC on the TRS-80
>had no string variables. DTSS BASIC had dynamically allocated string variables.
>This means that it does not matter if your string is one character long or
>100,000 characters you would just use the string token (ie: 100 LET A$= "This is
>my string.") Level II had strings, but there was a limit on the length, 255
>characters iirc.
If memory serves, it had two: A$ and B$. But it's been about 20 years,
so . . .
Eric Fischer
Rick Hawkins <rhaw...@iastate.edu> wrote:
> >Also, it had a BASIC interpreter. Was that the thing that Gates & co.
> >wrote?
>
> Level 1 basic was not; it was Dartmouth "Kings Basic"
Level 1 Basic was Li-Chen Wang's implementation of "Tiny Basic",
as printed in the first volume of Dr. Dobb's Journal.
eric
DoN. Nichols
In article <346c075a....@206.210.64.12>,
Joseph M. Newcomer <newc...@flounder.com> wrote:
>I remember an article in CACM from about that era, of someone
>programming an EULER language interpreter directly into the 360/30
>microcode. I think it even had photos of the microstore showing the
>punched cards. ROM technology was pretty primitive by our modern
>standards.
If you *really* want to see a primitive ROM -- open up the left-hand
end of a 120-bass Piano Accordion. There are twelve valves selected in
differing groups by the mechanical ROM in there.
--
NOTE: spamblocking on against servers which harbor spammers.
Email: <dnic...@d-and-d.com> | Donald Nichols (DoN.)|Voice (703) 938-4564
My Concertina web page: | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Joseph M. Newcomer
On 29 Oct 1997 16:43:15 -0500, dnic...@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:
>In article <346c075a....@206.210.64.12>,
>Joseph M. Newcomer <newc...@flounder.com> wrote:
>>I remember an article in CACM from about that era, of someone
>>programming an EULER language interpreter directly into the 360/30
>>microcode. I think it even had photos of the microstore showing the
>>punched cards. ROM technology was pretty primitive by our modern
>>standards.
>
> If you *really* want to see a primitive ROM -- open up the left-hand
>end of a 120-bass Piano Accordion. There are twelve valves selected in
>differing groups by the mechanical ROM in there.
I have a friend who rebuilt a reproducing player piano. The
difference between a regular player piano and a reproducing player
piano was that the reproducing player piano had two extra tracks on
the roll that controlled piano dynamics, so had four volume levels it
could play at. He's a serious EE-type PhD, and came over one day to
show me the "oldest commercial DAC". It consisted of two bellows, one
of which extended 1 unit of angular dimension (I think it was about 15
degrees, but it has been 20 years since I saw this), and the second of
which extended 2 units of angular dimension. The two bellows shared a
common middle board and were all hinged the same at the bottom. The
one bellows opened when the one dynamic hole opened, the other opened
when the second dynamic hole opened, and both were closed when both
holes were closed (actually, it could have been the inverse, but the
idea is the same), so the angular displacement was 0, 1, 2 or 3 units.
The one end of the bellows was bolted to the piano, the other end was
connected to a lever that was connected to the dynamic level control.
(This was a little friendlier than the last time we had discussed a
DAC; he had come up to me in the hall and said "Joe, do you know the
pin numbers on an Xyzzy-9120 [or some such number] DAC?" (we had both
used it). "Sure", I said, "1, 2, 3, ...". He then threatened to feed
the DAC to me in pieces...)
Joseph M. Newcomer
newc...@flounder.com
http://www3.pgh.net/~newcomer
Ian Stirling
In alt.folklore.computers Lon Stowell <lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com> wrote:
: ERMREY <sch...@geocities.com> wrote:
: >Why not? A program with 'virus-like' properties can be written in any
: >language, and on any platform. No platform in use today is inherently
: >immune to computer viruses.
: Possibly true at the pedantically nitpicking level. However
: there are chips that can protect files and memory right down
: at the hardware level,,, IF this capability and protection
: of the facility is implemented in the operating system.
Chips as rare and unobtainable as the 386 upwards.
Sigh.
--
Ian Stirling. Designing a linux PDA, see http://www.mauve.demon.co.uk/
----- ******* If replying by email, check notices in header ******* -----
If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science, it is opinion.
Robert A Heinlein.
George Byrd
Speaking of "Re: Floppy disk origins"
in <alt.folklore.computers> on Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:32:26 -0800,
<t...@cagent.com (Tom Watson)> said:
>Then there was the TI "Silent 700" goodies. They used casette tapes, and
>some boxes had TWO of them. You could do offline editing and all that.
>Given that the big bulky units were going in the surplus store for
>something like $25 or so, I picked up one (or two) and they are now stored
>away (want one??). We refered to them as "Noisy 90's" in "polite
>conversation". They were quiet (compared to 33/35 teletypes of the day),
>but that wasn't saying much. The thermal paper was a BIG PAIN. Now days
>we have CRT monitors which are easier to deal with, but at the time....
>(it was the 70's, you had to be there...).
Those "Silent 700s" were tough too, at least those with the moral
equivalent of Samsonite clamshell carrying cases. In about 1970 I was
on a small team that wrote software to gather statistical interview
data from a fleet (what else should I call it?) of Silent 700s. The
interviewers, of which there were about 50-100, would go to the homes
of the interviewees, connect to the XDS 940 through the built-in
handset cradle modem, log in, and conduct the interview: 940 transmits
question, interviewer asks interviewee, then types in answer.
One interviewer lost control of the luggage cart carrying his 700 at
the top of a hill near the Seattle waterfront. The thing went end
over teakettle down to the bottom. The 700 worked just fine after he
retrieved it as I recall.
George "it didn't even stop at the Monk's Cellar for a beer on its way
down the hill"
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc. & are NOT legal advice.
"Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side?
An' hain't that a big enough majority in any town?"
<< Mark Twain, _Huckleberry_Finn_ >>
Robert Billing
In article <345d1...@tcnntp.trader.com> Rom...@trader.com "Romial" writes:
> I'm not sure you would call it a virus (worm is closer) but there are indeed
> programs that can do things to an opsys like Unix. They are called attack
However this sort of thing depends on security holes in the system,
which can be plugged without hindering the normal operation of the
system. OTOH M$ systems *depend* on all apps having effective root
access.
--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"
Romial
In article <EJ0yB...@xcski.com>, ptom...@xcski.com says...
>
>In a previous article, hgibbons@_stic.net (Hugh Gibbons) said:
>>In article <0000344FD...@mauve.demon.co.uk>, Ian Stirling
>><0000344FD...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In alt.folklore.computers Lon Stowell <lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com>
>>wrote:
>>> : ERMREY <sch...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>> : >Why not? A program with 'virus-like' properties can be written in any
>>> : >language, and on any platform. No platform in use today is inherently
>>> : >immune to computer viruses.
>>>
>>> : Possibly true at the pedantically nitpicking level. However
>>> : there are chips that can protect files and memory right down
>>> : at the hardware level,,, IF this capability and protection
>>> : of the facility is implemented in the operating system.
>>
>>programs in memory, but how does it protect files residing on your
>>hard disk? I can't think of an operating system that won't let a
>>program open files and modify them, and that's all that's
>>required to make a virus.
>
>And I can't think of an operating system worthy of the name (and no, nothing
>by Microsoft is worthy of the name) that doesn't have the concept of file
>ownership and permissions. It would be possible to write a unix trojan horse,
>for example, that could delete the files of the person who was tricked into
>running it, but it couldn't delete or modify files important to the running of
>the system. And because nobody but certain priviledged users can modify those
>system files, a virus would have to somehow arrange to run as a privileged
>user to install itself into system files.
I hate leaving so much in before I add a little to it but..
I'm not sure you would call it a virus (worm is closer) but there are indeed
programs that can do things to an opsys like Unix. They are called attack
programs and its amazing what you can trick an opsys into doing. I have seen
them in operation and they work quite well. If you want more details call the
NSA. They saw one work once also. But I don't think they like to talk about it.
Robert "I know nothing about it" Alston
anborg
> <t...@cagent.com (Tom Watson)> said:
>
> >Then there was the TI "Silent 700" goodies. They used casette tapes, and
> >some boxes had TWO of them. You could do offline editing and all that.
> >Given that the big bulky units were going in the surplus store for
> >something like $25 or so, I picked up one (or two) and they are now stored
> >away (want one??). We refered to them as "Noisy 90's" in "polite
> >conversation". They were quiet (compared to 33/35 teletypes of the day),
> >but that wasn't saying much. The thermal paper was a BIG PAIN. Now days
> >we have CRT monitors which are easier to deal with, but at the time....
> >(it was the 70's, you had to be there...).
>
TV receiver. This was about 1978-9. Fairchild would only support the
development system in media that would run on the TI-700 or one other
device which was much more costly. Loading the code into the Fairchild
box at 300 baud took over an hour at the start of each work day. However
one thing that impressed us with this "silent 700" was the fact that
although it was silent enough with the thermal printer, It made enough
EMI to wipe out every TV receiver in our end of the lab. This was before
the FCC put down limits on EMI. I suspect that the 300 baud killed it
before the feds regulated it out of existance.
Best regards,
Art Borg
Lon Stowell
In article <345d1...@tcnntp.trader.com>, Romial <Rom...@trader.com> wrote:
>
>I hate leaving so much in before I add a little to it but..
Unfortunately, you left off the phrases about "PROPERLY
ADMINISTERED" unix.
>
>I'm not sure you would call it a virus (worm is closer) but there are indeed
>programs that can do things to an opsys like Unix. They are called attack
>programs and its amazing what you can trick an opsys into doing. I have seen
>them in operation and they work quite well. If you want more details call the
>NSA. They saw one work once also. But I don't think they like to talk about it.
Hmmmm, check out the phrase "CERT Advisory".
Romial
In article <63lt0d$1...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com>,
lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com says...
>
>In article <345d1...@tcnntp.trader.com>, Romial <Rom...@trader.com> wrote:
>>
>>I hate leaving so much in before I add a little to it but..
>
> Unfortunately, you left off the phrases about "PROPERLY
> ADMINISTERED" unix.
Actually someone else left it off. The only thing I *didn't* quote were the
headers.
>>
>>I'm not sure you would call it a virus (worm is closer) but there are indeed
>>programs that can do things to an opsys like Unix. They are called attack
>>programs and its amazing what you can trick an opsys into doing. I have seen
>>them in operation and they work quite well. If you want more details call the
>>NSA. They saw one work once also. But I don't think they like to talk about
it.
>
>
>
> Hmmmm, check out the phrase "CERT Advisory".
>
Been there done that. It all depends on whether I want to read your drive or
just obliterate it. Accessing it is harder than data destruction. But there are
indeed programs out there that if the user has any sort of access to your
drives (they still require that initial crack) can be run that will boost
themselves in access level till they can wipe your drive. I will admit to the
rather faint hope that the programs are not in the hands of some *hacker* (1)
somewhere.
(1) I still think of a hacker as a good programmer and the idiots most people
call hackers as crackers.
Robert "it is amazing what a well placed rm can do" Alston