Dear D. Baruth:

"D. Baruth" wrote in message
m...
....
P.S. I'm aware of the computer-pests problem. But what can we do?
All computer programs are executables. However, small DOS programs
can not infect Windows with viruses or other such vermine. D.B.

They can and do. One of the master strokes, was creating a
self-replicating virus that fit in a single data packet. You don't do that
with Windows "dll" libraries. It looks just like a small DOS program.

Java so far cannot perform virus-like activites. If you were to publish in
Java, it would be much safer, and you wouldn't be limited to Intel or
Intel-clone architecture.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear D. Baruth:

"D. Baruth" wrote in message
m...
...
P.S. I'm aware of the computer-pests problem. But what can we do?
All computer programs are executables. However, small DOS programs
can not infect Windows with viruses or other such vermine. D.B.

They can and do. One of the master strokes, was creating a
self-replicating virus that fit in a single data packet. You don't do
that
with Windows "dll" libraries. It looks just like a small DOS program.

Java so far cannot perform virus-like activites. If you were to publish
in Java, it would be much safer, and you wouldn't be limited to Intel or
Intel-clone architecture.

David A. Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but do you remember Strange Brew?
mw

Thanks for getting back...

(D. Baruth) wrote in message om...
(Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message . com...
Tom Roberts wrote in message ...
D. Baruth wrote:
In order to test a (precise and very fast) library of transcendental
functions, together with a graphical interface for real-time
analysis, selected functions are being made available to the public
for evaluation and critique.

This is most definitely a troll, and probably a virus or other nasty
critter. The poster has not a clue about the state-of-the-art, the
existing open-source scientific libraries, or how to write or distribute
code in the modern world (e.g. such a function MUST be a library, not an
executable).

No you don't need a library, I can compute the gamma function
to high accuracy using a short qBasic program, the equation is,

oo
GAMMA(s)= $ x^(s-1) e^-x dx
0

that's a simple step/sum/interation.
Ken S. Tucker
PS: I do agree downloading an executable is not good.
Hopefully the OP will be back, he seems honest to me.

Evaluating this integral is very slow and inacurate. You
better calculate 1/Gamma(x)... Anyway, with my Gamma function
we are talking 17 decimal digits precision and function calculation
time of about 5E-7 secons (on a AMD Athlon 1700+, 1.43 GHz).

Yes, certainly better algorithms exist as you've studied.

A library is a collection of computational tools (object files).
When you write a computer program (in any language except Assembly),
you have to use libraries that translate your simple one-line-
problem-presentation into procedures that are meaningful to the
hardware.

Or compile from high level.

Using my libraries would allow you to use a one-liner like:

y = Gamma(x) [or Gamma(ReZ,ImZ) for a complex number Z]

D. Baruth

That's new to me, I thought the Gamma applied only to positive
integers, are you saying one can apply it to complex numbers?
(you're evidentally an expert)

P.S. I'm aware of the computer-pests problem. But what can we do?
All computer programs are executables. However, small DOS programs
can not infect Windows with viruses or other such vermine. D.B.

Trust but Verify
Ken S. Tucker

(D. Baruth) wrote in message om...
(Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message . com...
Tom Roberts wrote in message ...
D. Baruth wrote:
In order to test a (precise and very fast) library of transcendental
functions, together with a graphical interface for real-time
analysis, selected functions are being made available to the public
for evaluation and critique.

This is most definitely a troll, and probably a virus or other nasty
critter. The poster has not a clue about the state-of-the-art, the
existing open-source scientific libraries, or how to write or distribute
code in the modern world (e.g. such a function MUST be a library, not an
executable).

No you don't need a library, I can compute the gamma function
to high accuracy using a short qBasic program, the equation is,

oo
GAMMA(s)= $ x^(s-1) e^-x dx
0

that's a simple step/sum/interation.
Ken S. Tucker
PS: I do agree downloading an executable is not good.
Hopefully the OP will be back, he seems honest to me.

Evaluating this integral is very slow and inacurate. You
better calculate 1/Gamma(x)... Anyway, with my Gamma function
we are talking 17 decimal digits precision and function calculation
time of about 5E-7 secons (on a AMD Athlon 1700+, 1.43 GHz).

A library is a collection of computational tools (object files).
When you write a computer program (in any language except Assembly),
you have to use libraries that translate your simple one-line-
problem-presentation into procedures that are meaningful to the
hardware.

Using my libraries would allow you to use a one-liner like:

y = Gamma(x) [or Gamma(ReZ,ImZ) for a complex number Z]

D. Baruth

P.S. I'm aware of the computer-pests problem. But what can we do?
All computer programs are executables.

What an absurd statement.

Dear Marcus Wellpoth:

"Marcus Wellpoth" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
....
P.S. I'm aware of the computer-pests problem. But what can we do?
All computer programs are executables. However, small DOS programs
can not infect Windows with viruses or other such vermine. D.B.

They can and do. One of the master strokes, was creating a
self-replicating virus that fit in a single data packet. You don't do
that
with Windows "dll" libraries. It looks just like a small DOS program.

Java so far cannot perform virus-like activites. If you were to publish
in Java, it would be much safer, and you wouldn't be limited to Intel or
Intel-clone architecture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but do you remember Strange Brew?

Ayfirmative. I'm a little dense though, so...

David A. Smith

"Marcus Wellpoth" wrote in message
...
| YBM wrote:
|
| Androcles a écrit :
| Roberts' paranoia is scarcely justified when there is a tracable
source.
| I put the code through a debugger and it's clean.
|
| How could anyone believe that *you* are able to use a debugger ?
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Well, using a debugger is surely the simplest thing on earth.
| But does he know what the assembler he gets really means?
| mw

Children, I was writing machine code for two PDP 11/55 's running Kuwait's
Boeing 747 flight simulator while you were still ****ting in your diapers.
That simulator was later stolen by Iraq and recovered after the Gulf War.
I seriously doubt either of you would have an inkling of how to read a
Zilog Z80 8-bit binary instruction, the simplest there ever was, let alone
write a disassembler.
Pssst.... DISASSEMBLER, moron.
Androcles.

"Bill Rowe" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| (D. Baruth) wrote:
|
| P.S. I'm aware of the computer-pests problem. But what can we do?
|
| The only thing to be done about such problems is use a good up to date
| virus program and avoid running executeables from unknown sources.

1) Nobody is preventing you from doing so.
2) The source is not unknown.
So what point were you making?

|
| All computer programs are executables. However, small DOS programs
| can not infect Windows with viruses or other such vermine. D.B.
|
| This last piece of misinformation doesn't inspire confidence.

Here I'll agree. My first (benign) virus was written in DOS/machine code as
an exercise when I first heard of people writing destructive code.
It attached itself to one of my executables, announced its presence
when the executable was first run, attached a copy to the next executable
and then destroyed itself.
Here's how.
1) Scan the disk for the next *.exe. (as you would for any data file)
2) Open the file found as data.
3) Search for the data string "Kilroy was here, I'm a virus". If found, goto
restore.
A malicious virus won't do this.
4) Save a copy of the file as '.pur'(e) for later restoration. (It can be a
hidden file)
A malicious virus won't do that either.
5) Search for the entry point of the executable code. Save this instruction
(in RAM)
6) Insert a jump instruction pointing to the end of file.
7) Open a second file, a copy of the virus itself, as data from the disk.
8) Copy that to the end of the first file.
9) Save the modified .exe to disk as the .exe.
10) Close all files, the virus is now installed in a .exe.
11) Move the instruction saved in RAM back to the start point in RAM.
12) Jump to start. The program runs normally, virus undetected. Normal exit.
(I've left a bug here... can you see what it is? Answer at the bottom of the
page)
=======================================
Resto If here, an executable is running with the virus attached.
This makes the virus benign.
13) Close the file.
14) Delete the .exe from disk.
15) Rename the .pur as .exe. (the next time this is run, it is unharmed)
16) Announce "Kilroy was here, I'm a virus" at the console.
17) Go to step 1)

The virus has changed its home. Obviously it can be written in any number
of ways, but they are all simple to implement.
How large is it? Less than 1Kbyte to delete your entire disk, including
iself.
Get into your BIOS and you'll be even worse off.


What can we do? Simple, really. Do what banks do to protect their money.
Employ a lock and key into every program written or downloaded, with
checksums.
How that is implemented is for me to know and you to pay for. :-)
No? Pay Norton instead, over and over. Like all good businessmen he wants
repeat business and your suggestion, "use a good up to date virus program"
is exactly what he wants to hear.

A cure for the common cold? Not while we can continue treating the symptoms
and make money!
People are so naive it is laughable.
|
| --
| To reply via email subtract one hundred nine
..
..
..
..
..
The bug... there is a minor problem if the virus attaches to itself.
It caught me out the first time I ran it.

Androcles

Ken S. Tucker wrote in message
om...
: Thanks for getting back...

At least one person was trusting his intuition.

:
: Using my libraries would allow you to use a one-liner like:
:
: y = Gamma(x) [or Gamma(ReZ,ImZ) for a complex number Z]
:
: D. Baruth
:
: That's new to me, I thought the Gamma applied only to positive
: integers, are you saying one can apply it to complex numbers?
: (you're evidentally an expert)
:
... Gamma(1/2) = Squrt(pi)

The Gamma function (Euler's integral of the second kind):

Gamma(z) = I[0,oo]{e^(-t) t^(z-1)dt} [Rez0]

Generalization for z not an integer:

Gamma(z) = (-1/2isin(pi*z))*I[C]{(-t)^(z-1)e^(-t)dt} ,

where the contour C encompasses the real axis.

See Abramowitz & Segun or Gradshteyn & Ryzhik

D. Baruth

: P.S. I'm aware of the computer-pests problem. But what can we do?
: All computer programs are executables. However, small DOS programs
: can not infect Windows with viruses or other such vermine. D.B.
:
: Trust but Verify
: Ken S. Tucker

No doubt, it is easy to do great damage with a DOS program. And
the more you know about programming the better you can conceal
malicious intensions and inflict damage.

I'm sure there are many ways to write viruses; however, I can't see
how the virus you have written would spread through Windows to
other computers. There's a real barrier between DOS and Windows:
DOS is a real 16 bit operating system, Windows a 32 bit operating
system running in protected mode. Windows runs DOS programs
in "Virtual 8086 mode", thus capturing all direct interrupt and port
accessing requests for internal processing.

The Windows virus writers are interested in spreading their perversity
over the internet and cannot use DOS programs (particularly small ones).
Also, no serious (programming) professional will ever dream of using
his/her expertise for such purposes.

I also agree to this: Do not run computer programs you don't know where
they came from.

D. Baruth


Androcles wrote in message
...
:
: "Bill Rowe" wrote in message
: ...
: | In article ,
: | (D. Baruth) wrote:
: |
: | P.S. I'm aware of the computer-pests problem. But what can we do?
: |
: | The only thing to be done about such problems is use a good up to date
: | virus program and avoid running executeables from unknown sources.
:
: 1) Nobody is preventing you from doing so.
: 2) The source is not unknown.
: So what point were you making?
:
: |
: | All computer programs are executables. However, small DOS programs
: | can not infect Windows with viruses or other such vermine. D.B.
: |
: | This last piece of misinformation doesn't inspire confidence.
:
: Here I'll agree. My first (benign) virus was written in DOS/machine code
as
: an exercise when I first heard of people writing destructive code.
: It attached itself to one of my executables, announced its presence
: when the executable was first run, attached a copy to the next executable
: and then destroyed itself.
: Here's how.
: 1) Scan the disk for the next *.exe. (as you would for any data file)
: 2) Open the file found as data.
: 3) Search for the data string "Kilroy was here, I'm a virus". If found,
goto
: restore.
: A malicious virus won't do this.
: 4) Save a copy of the file as '.pur'(e) for later restoration. (It can be
a
: hidden file)
: A malicious virus won't do that either.
: 5) Search for the entry point of the executable code. Save this
instruction
: (in RAM)
: 6) Insert a jump instruction pointing to the end of file.
: 7) Open a second file, a copy of the virus itself, as data from the disk.
: 8) Copy that to the end of the first file.
: 9) Save the modified .exe to disk as the .exe.
: 10) Close all files, the virus is now installed in a .exe.
: 11) Move the instruction saved in RAM back to the start point in RAM.
: 12) Jump to start. The program runs normally, virus undetected. Normal
exit.
: (I've left a bug here... can you see what it is? Answer at the bottom of
the
: page)
: =======================================
: Resto If here, an executable is running with the virus attached.
: This makes the virus benign.
: 13) Close the file.
: 14) Delete the .exe from disk.
: 15) Rename the .pur as .exe. (the next time this is run, it is unharmed)
: 16) Announce "Kilroy was here, I'm a virus" at the console.
: 17) Go to step 1)
:
: The virus has changed its home. Obviously it can be written in any number
: of ways, but they are all simple to implement.
: How large is it? Less than 1Kbyte to delete your entire disk, including
: iself.
: Get into your BIOS and you'll be even worse off.
:
:
: What can we do? Simple, really. Do what banks do to protect their money.
: Employ a lock and key into every program written or downloaded, with
: checksums.
: How that is implemented is for me to know and you to pay for. :-)
: No? Pay Norton instead, over and over. Like all good businessmen he wants
: repeat business and your suggestion, "use a good up to date virus program"
: is exactly what he wants to hear.
:
: A cure for the common cold? Not while we can continue treating the
symptoms
: and make money!
: People are so naive it is laughable.
: |
: | --
: | To reply via email subtract one hundred nine
: .
: .
: .
: .
: .
: The bug... there is a minor problem if the virus attaches to itself.
: It caught me out the first time I ran it.
:
: Androcles
:
:
:
:

No doubt, it is easy to do great damage with a DOS program. And
the more you know about programming the better you can conceal
malicious intensions and inflict damage.

I'm sure there are many ways to write viruses; however, I can't see
how the virus you have written would spread through Windows to
other computers. There's a real barrier between DOS and Windows:
DOS is a real 16 bit operating system, Windows a 32 bit operating
system running in protected mode. Windows runs DOS programs
in "Virtual 8086 mode", thus capturing all direct interrupt and port
accessing requests for internal processing.

The Windows virus writers are interested in spreading their perversity
over the internet and cannot use DOS programs (particularly small ones).
Also, no serious (programming) professional will ever dream of using
his/her expertise for such purposes.

I also agree to this: Do not run computer programs you don't know where
they came from.

D. Baruth


Androcles wrote in message
...
:
: "Bill Rowe" wrote in message
: ...
: | In article ,
: | (D. Baruth) wrote:
: |
: | P.S. I'm aware of the computer-pests problem. But what can we do?
: |
: | The only thing to be done about such problems is use a good up to date
: | virus program and avoid running executeables from unknown sources.
:
: 1) Nobody is preventing you from doing so.
: 2) The source is not unknown.
: So what point were you making?
:
: |
: | All computer programs are executables. However, small DOS programs
: | can not infect Windows with viruses or other such vermine. D.B.
: |
: | This last piece of misinformation doesn't inspire confidence.
:
: Here I'll agree. My first (benign) virus was written in DOS/machine code
as
: an exercise when I first heard of people writing destructive code.
: It attached itself to one of my executables, announced its presence
: when the executable was first run, attached a copy to the next executable
: and then destroyed itself.
: Here's how.
: 1) Scan the disk for the next *.exe. (as you would for any data file)
: 2) Open the file found as data.
: 3) Search for the data string "Kilroy was here, I'm a virus". If found,
goto
: restore.
: A malicious virus won't do this.
: 4) Save a copy of the file as '.pur'(e) for later restoration. (It can be
a
: hidden file)
: A malicious virus won't do that either.
: 5) Search for the entry point of the executable code. Save this
instruction
: (in RAM)
: 6) Insert a jump instruction pointing to the end of file.
: 7) Open a second file, a copy of the virus itself, as data from the disk.
: 8) Copy that to the end of the first file.
: 9) Save the modified .exe to disk as the .exe.
: 10) Close all files, the virus is now installed in a .exe.
: 11) Move the instruction saved in RAM back to the start point in RAM.
: 12) Jump to start. The program runs normally, virus undetected. Normal
exit.
: (I've left a bug here... can you see what it is? Answer at the bottom of
the
: page)
: =======================================
: Resto If here, an executable is running with the virus attached.
: This makes the virus benign.
: 13) Close the file.
: 14) Delete the .exe from disk.
: 15) Rename the .pur as .exe. (the next time this is run, it is unharmed)
: 16) Announce "Kilroy was here, I'm a virus" at the console.
: 17) Go to step 1)
:
: The virus has changed its home. Obviously it can be written in any number
: of ways, but they are all simple to implement.
: How large is it? Less than 1Kbyte to delete your entire disk, including
: iself.
: Get into your BIOS and you'll be even worse off.
:
:
: What can we do? Simple, really. Do what banks do to protect their money.
: Employ a lock and key into every program written or downloaded, with
: checksums.
: How that is implemented is for me to know and you to pay for. :-)
: No? Pay Norton instead, over and over. Like all good businessmen he wants
: repeat business and your suggestion, "use a good up to date virus program"
: is exactly what he wants to hear.
:
: A cure for the common cold? Not while we can continue treating the
symptoms
: and make money!
: People are so naive it is laughable.
: |
: | --
: | To reply via email subtract one hundred nine
: .
: .
: .
: .
: .
: The bug... there is a minor problem if the virus attaches to itself.
: It caught me out the first time I ran it.
:
: Androcles
:
:
:
: