Game test and review, please?
Jim Mack
Apologies if this message is inappropriate here (followups are set to
rec.puzzles). It's aimed at people who like US-style crosswords, so
just skip ahead if that isn't you.
I'm looking for input on a new free desktop word game. It's just out
of a small beta test, so it may have undiscovered issues.
Inside Straight based on a Scrabble- or crossword-style vocabulary --
IOW just about anything goes -- and uses US English spellings. If you
hate obscure words or variants, don't even look. (-:
It has a selectable level of difficulty, but at the middle level a
game should take maybe three minutes, making it great for a short work
break.
Anyone interested can D/L the installer from:
http://www.mdxi.com/other/Str8_Install.exe
You can place feedback here (rec.puzzles) if that wouldn't be
off-topic, or just email to the contact address on the About screen.
All input is welcome, from how it looks to how it plays, from the
lexicon to the fonts... anything. I'm encouraging wide downloading, so
pass it on, and if you post a link elsewhere, please let me know.
Thanks for looking!
--
Jim
Kevin Stone
> http://www.mdxi.com/other/Str8_Install.exe
Mmmmm, lets all download yet another exe from an unknown source!!
No chance, not me. I'm off chasing pigs.
--
Kev
Jim Mack
Never heard of virus checkers?
--
Jim
Kevin Stone
>>
>> Mmmmm, lets all download yet another exe from an unknown source!!
>>
>> No chance, not me. I'm off chasing pigs.
>
> Never heard of virus checkers?
We'll see just how many rec.puzzle users actually do download it then!
--
Kev
Jim Mack
Several so far, by the logs, so unless you start to see negative
reports I'd say your comfort level should rise by the hour. (-:
You're right to be concerned, of course. But the distinction between
"known" and "unknown" sources is an odd one. You can have "trusted"
vs "untrusted" sources, but even then, don't you scan everything you
download from any source? If the answer is No, I suggest that you're
too trusting. If Yes, then what does it matter if the source is
"known"?
Can I get a "trust, but verify"?
--
Jim
Peter T. Daniels
Sorry, but the very first thing they teach you in Computer Use 101 is
Never download an .exe file. Can you make it run on a website or
something for your demonstration?
Dogstar
"Jim Mack" <no-uc...@mdxi.com> wrote in message
news:DqKdnefyGPhYc7zV...@giganews.com...
The worry is not about a virus, but a Trojan horse. A program does not have
to contain viral code to do damage. One can use a virus checker to ensure
that the program is clean of viruses (i.e., one propagating itself from the
author's system), but one still needs to trust that the author has not
placed hidden malicious code in his program.
There are a couple of solutions (beyond developing trust with the author):
1) Get the source code, check it out, and, if safe, compile it yourself, 2)
Get the game in a form that works in a security "sandbox", where the code
cannot alter your system in unanticipated ways. Java applets and Flash
programs are examples of the second solution.
ObPuzzle: Assuming the user has Admin priveleges, what is the shortest
executable for Windows that will wipe out a user's hard disk, but still pass
Symantec AntiVirus checks? Just give the length in bytes, don't send any
examples. ;-)
-Dogstar
Jim Mack
> Sorry, but the very first thing they teach you in Computer Use 101
> is Never download an .exe file.
Well, there must be several folks who've taken Computer Use 202: "how
to assess threats and avoid them", because I've been distributing
games and utilities as EXEs for years with lots of downloads and no
complaints. It isn't rocket science, especially in the era of Virtual
PC.
Of course, it's entirely your call as to whether you DL this or not.
Maybe I'll only get reports from the gullible and from the
experienced. But they'll do. (-:
> Can you make it run on a website or
> something for your demonstration?
Nope. If I could have, I sure would have.
--
Jim
Kevin Stone
>> something for your demonstration?
>
Isn't a web based version more accessible anyway? What stops you developing
such a version?
--
Kev
Jim Mack
I have neither the interest nor the technology to develop a web-based
version. I "do" desktop every day -- I don't do web at all.
At some point maybe I'll find the need to do web apps and this would
make a good test case, I suppose. Meanwhile, if I get any feedback
from this version it will probably be enough to tell me where any
design faults lie.
I do understand that I'm limiting my audience. But since this is free,
not something I'm selling, I can live with that.
Those concerned that this may be some sort of evil waiting to destroy
their PCs should perform a little mental exercise and sleuthing. Is
this link found anywhere else on the internet outside of rec.puzzles?
(No) Is it even a little bit likely that someone would A) target only
the denizens of rec.puzzles, and B) hang around to discuss it? (No).
The complete details of my company including address and phone number
are on the linked site. If you so much as catch a cold after you DL
the software, you have all you need to track me down.
But we each make our own assessment of risk, and some are more
risk-averse than others. So be it.
--
Jim
Grip
You haven't caught that pig yet? That game brought me back to the
Infocom days of my adolescence.
Mike
No amount of virus checking will determine if this is the case. So even if, as appears to be the case, you are on the
"up-and-up", I wouldn't want to run the risk without some serious 'reviews' from other users first.
Mike
jonnie303
> In article <dN-dnf9ZItTAZLzVnZ2dnUVZ_hynn...@giganews.com>, no-uce-...@mdxi.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've tried it - seems absolutely fine to me
----------------
jonnie303
Sevenoaks, UK
Rich Grise
>>>> Apologies if this message is inappropriate here
>>>
>>>> http://www.mdxi.com/other/Str8_Install.exe
>>>
>>> Mmmmm, lets all download yet another exe from an unknown source!!
>>>
>>> No chance, not me. I'm off chasing pigs.
>>
>> Never heard of virus checkers?
>
> to contain viral code to do damage. One can use a virus checker to ensure
> that the program is clean of viruses (i.e., one propagating itself from the
> author's system), but one still needs to trust that the author has not
> placed hidden malicious code in his program.
>
> There are a couple of solutions (beyond developing trust with the author):
> 1) Get the source code, check it out, and, if safe, compile it yourself, 2)
> Get the game in a form that works in a security "sandbox", where the code
> cannot alter your system in unanticipated ways. Java applets and Flash
> programs are examples of the second solution.
>
> ObPuzzle: Assuming the user has Admin priveleges, what is the shortest
> executable for Windows that will wipe out a user's hard disk, but still pass
> Symantec AntiVirus checks? Just give the length in bytes, don't send any
> examples. ;-)
>
int main() {
system("del *.*");
}
Cheers!
Rich
CBFalconer
> Dogstar wrote:
>
... snip ...
>>
>> ObPuzzle: Assuming the user has Admin priveleges, what is the
>> shortest executable for Windows that will wipe out a user's
>> hard disk, but still pass Symantec AntiVirus checks? Just give
>> the length in bytes, don't send any examples. ;-)
>
> int main() {
> system("del *.*");
> }
Won't work. It's missing "#include <syslib.h>". Should also have
a "return 0;" statement. And the statement should include /S /Y /Z
:-)
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
James Dow Allen
Just when I complained about Falconer's wit-to-whine
ratio he proves he has a sense of humor after all.
On May 9, 8:05 am, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
> > Dogstar wrote:
> >> ObPuzzle: Assuming the user has Admin priveleges, what is the
> >> shortest executable for Windows that will wipe out a user's
> >> hard disk, but still pass Symantec AntiVirus checks? Just give
> >> the length in bytes, don't send any examples. ;-)
>
> > int main() {
> > system("del *.*");
> > }
>
> Won't work. ... Should ... have a "return0;" statement.
Brilliant! Self-parody is one of the best forms of humor and
Falconer succeeds admirably! Dogstar asks for a minimal program,
ANSI-compliant or not, so we pedantically increase the executable
size with a useless, but ANSI-compliant, instruction!
I don't know if Chuck thinks returning void from main
is one of those errors which
> might format your hard drive and I hope it does
but poster *asked* for a hard-drive destruction program!
Hilarious.
Thanks for the Chuckle, Chuck!
James Dow Allen
Richard Heathfield
>
> Just when I complained about Falconer's wit-to-whine
> ratio he proves he has a sense of humor after all.
>
> On May 9, 8:05 am, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Rich Grise wrote:
>> > Dogstar wrote:
>> >> ObPuzzle: Assuming the user has Admin priveleges, what is the
>> >> shortest executable for Windows that will wipe out a user's
>> >> hard disk, but still pass Symantec AntiVirus checks? Just give
>> >> the length in bytes, don't send any examples. ;-)
>>
>> > int main() {
>> > system("del *.*");
>> > }
>>
>> Won't work. ... Should ... have a "return0;" statement.
Misquote. Chuck actually said return 0; not return0;
> Brilliant! Self-parody is one of the best forms of humor and
> Falconer succeeds admirably! Dogstar asks for a minimal program,
> ANSI-compliant or not,
If batch files count as executable programs (and why not?), then
@del c:\*.*
is shorter (add danger-switches to taste). If want the shortest possible
program and don't care about suppressing echo, launch in the root of C:,
and drop the leading @. (For truly gerharsterly precision, you'd need to
write code to find out the drive letter of the main drive - it doesn't
/have/ to be C:.)
> so we pedantically increase the executable
> size with a useless, but ANSI-compliant, instruction!
In C90, failing to return a value will result in an unspecified value being
returned. (I don't know of any C99-conforming implementations for Windows,
so C99's difference here - and there is one! - is kind of moot.) A Windows
program was specifically requested, so let's talk Windows for a moment. If
the program is launched from a batch file that checks the value of
ERRORLEVEL, the behaviour of the batch file could become unpredictable (or
at least awkward).
On the other other other other other hand, by the time you've killed every
file on the system, you probably don't care how the batch file behaves.
:-)
>
> I don't know if Chuck thinks returning void from main
Failing to return a value is not isomorphic with returning void, in
grammatical terms (although the practical effect on Windows is in all
probability very similar).
> is one of those errors which
> might format your hard drive and I hope it does
Well, the ISO C Standard doesn't /forbid/ this...
> but poster *asked* for a hard-drive destruction program!
...but neither does it guarantee it. :-)
>
> Hilarious.
It seems that you are easily hilarified. Why did the chicken cross the
road?
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
George Weinberg
news:tu-dnRzx7qQ...@bt.com:
> James Dow Allen said:
>
>>
>> Just when I complained about Falconer's wit-to-whine
>> ratio he proves he has a sense of humor after all.
>>
>> On May 9, 8:05 am, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Rich Grise wrote:
>>> > Dogstar wrote:
>>> >> ObPuzzle: Assuming the user has Admin priveleges, what is the
>>> >> shortest executable for Windows that will wipe out a user's
>>> >> hard disk, but still pass Symantec AntiVirus checks? Just give
>>> >> the length in bytes, don't send any examples. ;-)
>>>
>>> > int main() {
>>> > system("del *.*");
>>> > }
>>>
>>> Won't work. ... Should ... have a "return0;" statement.
>
> Misquote. Chuck actually said return 0; not return0;
>
>> Brilliant! Self-parody is one of the best forms of humor and
>> Falconer succeeds admirably! Dogstar asks for a minimal program,
>> ANSI-compliant or not,
>
Since we're being pedantic, Dogstar very specifically requested
NOT to give examples, but only give the length in bytes of the
executable.
I think you can get a much smaller executable without using the system
command, but I don't care enough to check.
> If batch files count as executable programs (and why not?), then
>
That's an easy one. Because a batch file isn't an executable program.
The executable is the command shell, the script is just data that gets
passed to it.
George
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in
> news:tu-dnRzx7qQ...@bt.com:
>
<snip>
>
>> If batch files count as executable programs (and why not?), then
>>
>
> That's an easy one. Because a batch file isn't an executable program.
> The executable is the command shell, the script is just data that gets
> passed to it.
.exe files aren't executable programs either. They're merely scripts that
get passed to the real executable program, the fetch-execute cycle of the
hardware.
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Rich Grise wrote:
>>> Dogstar wrote:
>>>
>>>> ObPuzzle: Assuming the user has Admin priveleges, what is the
>>>> shortest executable for Windows that will wipe out a user's
>>>> hard disk, but still pass Symantec AntiVirus checks? Just give
>>>> the length in bytes, don't send any examples. ;-)
>>>
>>> int main() {
>>> system("del *.*");
>>> }
>>
>> Won't work. ... Should ... have a "return0;" statement.
>
> Brilliant! Self-parody is one of the best forms of humor and
> Falconer succeeds admirably! Dogstar asks for a minimal program,
> ANSI-compliant or not, so we pedantically increase the executable
> size with a useless, but ANSI-compliant, instruction!
>
> I don't know if Chuck thinks returning void from main is one of
> those errors which might format your hard drive and I hope it
> does but poster *asked* for a hard-drive destruction program!
>
> Hilarious.
>
> Thanks for the Chuckle, Chuck!
For the benefit of the ignorant JDA (and possibly others) following
is the actual quotation from my earlier post. Note the terminal
':-)', etc.
Rich Grise
> It seems that you are easily hilarified. Why did the chicken cross the
> road?
He was too chicken to stay on the white line. ;-)
Here's one for you: Why did the chicken cross the playground?
Cheers!
Rich
John Bailey
>On Mon, 12 May 2008 07:40:36 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>Here's one for you: Why did the chicken cross the playground?
He wanted to pick up some chicks and he heard it was a swinging
place.
??
or (???)
The road was on the other side and he figured he needed the challenge.
??
or (????)
The road was on this side and he was tired of facing tough decisions.
??
or (?????)
He was following the egg who came first.
or (??????)
He was scrambling to beat the egg.
or (??)
To get to the other slide.
??
John
Richard Heathfield
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:04:07 GMT, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 May 2008 07:40:36 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>>
>>Here's one for you: Why did the chicken cross the playground?
>
<various attempts snipped>
> or (??)
> To get to the other slide.
> ??
I think we have a winner!
Freddy Flares
news:HunUj.1$rD...@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com...
>
> "Jim Mack" <no-uc...@mdxi.com> wrote in message
> news:DqKdnefyGPhYc7zV...@giganews.com...
>> Kevin Stone wrote:
>>>> Apologies if this message is inappropriate here
>>>
>>>> http://www.mdxi.com/other/Str8_Install.exe
>>>
>>> Mmmmm, lets all download yet another exe from an unknown source!!
>>>
>>> No chance, not me. I'm off chasing pigs.
>>
>> Never heard of virus checkers?
>>
>> --
>> Jim
>
> The worry is not about a virus, but a Trojan horse. A program does not
> have to contain viral code to do damage. One can use a virus checker to
> ensure that the program is clean of viruses (i.e., one propagating itself
> from the author's system), but one still needs to trust that the author
> has not placed hidden malicious code in his program.
>
> There are a couple of solutions (beyond developing trust with the author):
> 1) Get the source code, check it out, and, if safe, compile it yourself
Could be a problem if the program is large with complex algorithms and
contains self-modifying code using the results of those algorithms.