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
:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:48:45 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"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.


It is the 21st century, Androcles.

Given your complete ignorance in math, i wouldn't be surprised if you
were completely ignorant in programming. Im sure YBM has something
amusing to say about that...

Androcles wrote:


"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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDP's are out and Linux Clusters are in. You are obsolete ****head.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That simulator was later stolen by Iraq and recovered after the Gulf War.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really think i would believe your war-stories ****head?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had an C128 to play with (It wasn't my own but i could play with it).
Reading binaries is a bit to uncomfortable for me, i prefer mnemonics aka
assembler ****head.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pssst.... DISASSEMBLER, moron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disassembling is what the debugger does and assembler is what you get
****head.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craprocles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mw

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:48:45 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"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.


It is the 21st century, Androcles.

Given your complete ignorance in math, i wouldn't be surprised if you
were completely ignorant in programming. Im sure YBM has something
amusing to say about that...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we see what Craprocles has done to physics i wouldn't be surprised if
he was the real head behind qdos and ms-dos.
mw

"D. Baruth" wrote in message
m...
| 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.

It was never intended to do so. I was demonstrating how
simple it is to attach code. The issue here was to defend you
against the malicious rumour-mongering initiated by Roberts.

| 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.

Of course. However, the algorithm I provided was written in C and assembler
and can easily be recompiled to suit a 32-bit system.
It is really no different to obtaining a text file into Notepad, pasting
this message in and saving it, except the file isn't ASCII.

|
| 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.

Quite so.

|
| I also agree to this: Do not run computer programs you don't know where
| they came from.
|
| D. Baruth
As do I. The most recent barrage of virus attempts I've received ( afew
months ago now) were via email, masquerading as an upgrade to Windows.
However, the text is not the executable, and it was discarded. Currently my
ISP discards such before I ever see them.
There was a form of danger floating around about a year ago from
a paranoid individual who, having a problem, located an obscure
..exe in Windows and promptly determined the file was infected. He then
emailed a friend of mine (and everyone else on his mailing list) advising
them to delete the file immediately. She then forwarded it to me, and I
advised her not to shoot her dog because the dog down the road has fleas.
|
|
| 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
| :

In article ,
(Ken S. Tucker) wrote:

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)

If the gamma function only applied to positive integers it would be no
different than the factorial function. The gamma function applies to
almost any number in the complex plane. There are points at which it is
ill-behaved such as 0, -1, -2

--
To reply via email subtract one hundred nine

In article ,
"Androcles" wrote:

"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?

No point. My comments were simply an answer to the poster's question. As
far as my usage is concerned, why would I want to invest time reviewing
the source code to verify the lack of viruses and general suitability?
Surely, anyone doing serious work requiring access to a good library of
mathematical software already as access to numerous tools. I certainly
already have access to reliable mathematical software tools and have far
better uses for my time then reviewing someone's source code that only
duplicates tools I already know to work. And given the rather clueless
comments about viruses, I've little expectation the source code is
likely to be better than the tools I have on hand.

| 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.

--
To reply via email subtract one hundred nine

"Marcus Wellpoth" wrote in message
...
| Androcles wrote:
|
|
| "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.
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| PDP's are out and Linux Clusters are in. You are obsolete ****head.

As I said, I was writing code when you were ****ting in your diapers.
It seems you still are.


| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| That simulator was later stolen by Iraq and recovered after the Gulf
War.
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Do you really think i would believe your war-stories ****head?

I don't expect you to beleive the truth, ****. You wouldn't know it if
it bit you in the arse.

| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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.
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| I had an C128 to play with (It wasn't my own but i could play with it).
| Reading binaries is a bit to uncomfortable for me, i prefer mnemonics aka
| assembler ****head.

That's what I said. You couldn't do it. You don't know ****.

| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Pssst.... DISASSEMBLER, moron.
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Disassembling is what the debugger does and assembler is what you get
| ****head.

Proving you are full of ****.
An assembler is an executable file that takes ASCII code as input and
converts mnemonics to a binary file as output.

A disassembler is an executable file that takes a binary and converts it to
ASCII mnemonics in a text file, which is called "assembly code", not
"assembler" as you seem to imagine.

A debugger sets breakpoints, moron, and the binary code executes and will
single step, usually displaying register contents as it does so.
You clearly have no idea what you are babbling about, farting out of your
mouth.

| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Craprocles.
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| moron ******.

Your have to be one of the most stupidest ****s I've ever has the misfortune
to encounter, second only to the fumble mumbler.
Don't bother to reply, I won't be reading it.
*plonk*
Androcles.

"Bill Rowe" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| "Androcles" wrote:
|
| "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?
|
| No point.

Ok.
Androcles.