0 INFO-VAX	Sun, 01 Feb 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 63      Contents: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem  Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem  Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem $ Re: Disabling VRFY and EXPN in TCPIP2 Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP? Re: Hobbyist questions?  Re: Hobbyist questions? P RE: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications         performance  P Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications  performance          MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO RE: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO0 Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.comP Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response! respo# Re: Slow volume under Fibre Channel 0 Re: [TCPIP V5.4] DHCP client problem/observation  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:21:00 +0100 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>$ Subject: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem0 Message-ID: <401CE11C.2B4CD721@sture.homeip.net>  ! covendotartdottalk21dotcom wrote:  > @ > "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message, > news:ad6dnX9EqrC4eIfdRVn-hA@comcast.com...H > > I seem to recall that the logicals used by SYSUAF must be defined inF > > EXECUTIVE_MODE.   They need not be in the system table but must beH > > /EXEC.  This applies to  SYSUAF, RIGHTSLIST, NETPROXY and NET$PROXY. > : > Unfortunately, I've tried /EXEC too, but still no cigar. > F > I'm loathe to temporarily remove the defintion from the system tableH > on my development system (because I'm not the only person who uses it,H > and deassigning it would cause a few login problems for everyone else,@ > let alone the batch jobs that run at unpredictable intervals). > E > However, it would at least prove whether or not $GETUAI()/$SETUAI() H > only uses the system table definition, or whether or not it then falls, > back to using any other logical defintion. >   * I have a program here which calls $GETUAI:  9 $ def sysuaf sys$login:x.tmp ! process logical for SYSUAF  $ show log sysuaf/full;    "SYSUAF" [super] = "SYS$LOGIN:X.TMP" (LNM$PROCESS_TABLE) G    "SYSUAF" [exec] = "SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]SYSUAF.DAT" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)  $ 4 $ mcr authorize              ! create a local SYSUAFD %UAF-E-NAOFIL, unable to open system authorization file (SYSUAF.DAT) -RMS-E-FNF, file not found# Do you want to create a new file? y 
 UAF>  Exit2 %UAF-I-DONEMSG, system authorization file modifiedA %UAF-I-NAFNOMODS, no modifications made to network proxy database : %UAF-I-RDBNOMODS, no modifications made to rights database UAF> show */brief D        Owner         Username           UIC       Account  Privs Pri	 Directory   D                      DEFAULT         [200,200]             Normal  4 Disuser D SYSTEM MANAGER       SYSTEM            [1,4]      SYSTEM   All     4 SYS$SYSROOT 	 :[SYSMGR]   F Running my $GETUAI program with a username which is in my main SYSUAF,C but not in the "local" one returns a success. IOW, $GETUAI is still  accessing the main SYSUAF.  D However, defining an EXEC logical at the process level does redirect $GETUAI to the "local" file:  , $ define/process/exec sysuaf sys$login:x.tmp$ $ run myprog		! (prompts edited out) User authorization failure %SYSTEM-F-ABORT, abort $ show log/full sysuaf:    "SYSUAF" [exec] = "SYS$LOGIN:X.TMP" (LNM$PROCESS_TABLE)G    "SYSUAF" [exec] = "SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]SYSUAF.DAT" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)  $   > So I conclude that my tests corroborate Richard's memory here.  < Now, here's a wrinkle, which confused me while testing this.  1 $ deass sysuaf		! get rid of previous assignments 0 $ deass /exec sysuaf	! ""          ""         """ $ def sysuaf /exec sys$login:x.tmp $ show log/fu sysuaf:    "SYSUAF" [exec] = "SYS$LOGIN:X.TMP" (LNM$PROCESS_TABLE)G    "SYSUAF" [exec] = "SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]SYSUAF.DAT" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE) ( $ def sysuaf  sys$login:another_file.dat $ show log/fu sysuafF    "SYSUAF" [super] = "SYS$LOGIN:ANOTHER_FILE.DAT" (LNM$PROCESS_TABLE)G    "SYSUAF" [exec] = "SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]SYSUAF.DAT" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)  $ deass sysuaf $ show log/fu sysuaf:    "SYSUAF" [exec] = "SYS$LOGIN:X.TMP" (LNM$PROCESS_TABLE)G    "SYSUAF" [exec] = "SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]SYSUAF.DAT" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE)  $   C Note that when both are present, the display from SHOW LOGICAL only - lists the SUPER assignment, not the EXEC one.   B Perfectly logical (pardon the pun) behaviour, but confusing during testing nevertheless.   H > The only thing I can see as a possibility would be going back to Bob'sD > response(ish), in that you can specify an optional context used toI > maintain an open channel to the authorisation file;  if it was possible G > to hijack usage of this, and somehow get UAF to use a.n.other channel F > that one manually opens to the remote UAF - but I've no idea how theD > "channel" is actually opened by $GETUAI() or $SETUAI(), although I% > would guess it is probably $OPEN().  > G > As for then setting up the FAB for indexed file access - well, that's F > unchartered territory for me, filled with potential landmines if oneG > doesn't get it right (related to which is the $GETUAI() documentation F > warning about not using the context returned by it, as a context forF > then passing to $SETUAI();  for what I'm sure is a very good reason,F > even if the developers or documentation authors chose not to explain > why).  >  > Mark   --     --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Feb 2004 07:48:58 -0600 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) $ Subject: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem3 Message-ID: <kzO4pYdQXv9J@eisner.encompasserve.org>   o In article <9JWdndpAE7B9xYHdRVn-gw@brightview.com>, "covendotartdottalk21dotcom" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> writes:  > < > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message/ > news:rAoPF48Tifny@eisner.encompasserve.org... 6 >> In article <pO2dnUvFieDoQIbd4p2dnA@brightview.com>,= > "covendotartdottalk21dotcom" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> writes: G >> $SETUAI transfers the entire UAF record to disk, because that is the H >> nature of RMS records.  Rethink your desired use of RMS between nodes0 >> and you will realize this has to be the case. > E > You are of course, presuming that I know the format of UAF records, C > and that a user "record" is not actually comprised of a number of A > other smaller "records".  The $GETUAI()/$SETUAI() documentation . > doesn't indicate the format of the UAF file.  " 	$ SEARCH SYS$LIBRARY:LIB.REQ UAF$  I >> Yes, and that is quite straightforward.  VMS Password Security depends D >> on two mechanisms that are not available in this threat scenario: >> >> 1. Secrecy of the salt  >> 2. VMS Breakin Evasion  > H > Again, you're making a presumption (in #2) that access from any DECnetE > or IP address is permitted to these systems.  It's not.  Permitted/ ) > trusted nodes can be (and are) defined.   H Breakin attempts do not require a "node".  A personal computer emulatingF a terminal will do just fine.  If you have no terminals or connectionsE to non-VMS computers, then your users are all at VMS workstations, so : _those_ computers are not secured from unprivileged users.  H SET EXECUTOR DEFAULT ACCESS NONE is a great idea, but it does not defend against all threats.  I >> > programming skills available to them to make use of $HASH_PASSWORD).  >>G >> Or programming skills on a non-VMS system.  I would not be surprised G >> if there is hacker code to do the VMS password algorithm on windows.  > G > I don't have a set of VMS source code, so I don't know whether or not G > $HASH_PASSWORD() code is included (in its entirety), but I would have  > thought this unlikely.  A And I think your network consisting entirely of secured computers ? with no connections to the outside world but yet with some risk ! of password sniffing is unlikely.   C > Is $HASH_PASSWORD()'s functionality generic (not specifically the ? > algorithms that are used), or is (some of) the implementation  > VMS-specific?   = Anything that takes VMS descriptors as input is VMS Specific.   G >> Those system services (not "perfectly good" due to never implemented > >> AST capabilities) did not exist when Authorize was written. > C > That's as may be, but instead of repeating your argument, why not F > indicate whether or not that is still the case, or whether Authorize' > has, in fact, "moved with the times"?   D I think you should revise your strategy of presuming that posters toB comp.os.vms do not know what they are talking about.  Admittedly ID was unclear in my first post about the need for an attacker to mount1 a dictionary attack, but the risk really is ther.   G > I don't see any reference to "I've got a set of VMS sources, and I've F > looked for AUTHORIZE, and it does exist on the CD" in your statementB > "What makes you think MCR AUTHORIZE uses those system services ?6 > It can do wildcards and the system services cannot." > E > Self-belief of implication is one thing, but it doesn't necessarily E > follow that everyone else will infer the same thing, especially for ? > those for whom [American] English is not their mother tongue.   F The mechanism upon which you should rely is the self-correcting natureD of comp.os.vms discussions.  You can count on others who are equallyF knowledgeable to pounce on false claims made here.  This is not one ofD the Itanium-vs-Power-vs-Sun-vs-Gartner political threads that people- simply killfile and move on with their lives.   B > Instead of bitching about the fact that I'm trying to achieve anE > automated way of changing passwords on thousands of accounts across H > hundreds of systems, have you got any *useful* suggestions on how thisG > might be achieved (in a different way to the way I have been trying)?   K I would suggest you start by getting a subscription to the source listings.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:10:48 GMT 4 From: Mike Rechtman <michael.rechtman.nospam@hp.com>$ Subject: Re: $SETUAI() Query/Problem& Message-ID: <401D2506.75218E7C@hp.com>  ! covendotartdottalk21dotcom wrote:  > H > I was wondering whether or not anyone might be able to point me in the$ > direction of the error of my ways? > G > I'm writing some software that is intended to run on NODEA and change D > passwords on NODEB, but avoiding sending the password in cleartext@ > form across the network to NODEB (i.e. NOT some kind of remote' > submission of MC AUTHORIZE commands).  > D > When I define SYSUAF locally on NODEA within DCL (making sure I do7 > /PROCESS to avoid causing anyone else problems) to be > > NODEB::SYS$SYSTEM:SYSUAF.DAT, I can then quite happily do MCF > AUTHORIZE, and examine/modify NODEB's UAF (NODEB has a proxy defined' > for the account I am using on NODEA).  > E > From within a program (DEC C), I can quite happily create a logical D > name of SYSUAF with a value of NODEB::SYS$SYSTEM:SYSUAF.DAT in the7 > process name table, in supervisor mode on NODEA with:  > C >     SYS$CRELNM() (if I give the account on NODEA the SYSNAM priv) E >     LIB$SET_LOGICAL() (if the account on NODEA does not have SYSNAM  >                        priv) > % > or in executive mode on NODEA with:  > C >     SYS$CRELNM() (if I give the account on NODEA the SYSNAM priv)  > A > However, when I attempt to use $SETUAI() or $GETUAI, the system C > services always seem to pick up the definition in the SYSTEM name  > table, not the PROCESS one.  > C > Am I trying to achieve the impossible, or is there something that @ > you need to set up in order to get $SETUAI()/$GETUAI() to play > ball?  > A > My point is that if you define the logical, then you can use it @ > with MC AUTHORIZE and it works, but not if you call the system2 > services directly - i.e. inconsistent behaviour. > ? > I've probably missed out some step that I can't see in any of D > the documentation I've looked at (specifically system services and> > RTL LIB$ manuals, I didn't check if the OVMS Security manual? > discusses $SETUAI/$GETUAI calls, and I'm not in a position to ; > check that just now), so I'm quite happy to be corrected!  > 
 > Regards, >  > Mark.   E Instead of trying to change passwords over the net, could you perhaps A create some sort of usernanme/password list - protected, encoded,  guarded by fierce F dragons, whatever - and securely copy it over to NODEB, where it would4 serve as input data to a password-updating program?    Mike   --  E --------------------------------------------------------------------- E Usual disclaimer: All opinions are mine alone, perhaps not even that. ? Mike Rechtman                            *rechtman@tzora.co.il* F Kibbutz Tzor'a.                          Voice (home): 972-2-9908337  B   "20% of a job takes 80% of the time, the rest takes another 80%"E ---------------------------------------------------------------------  -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----  Version: 3.1: GCM/CS d(-)pu s:+>:- a++ C++ U-- L-- W++ N++ K? w--- V+++$6 PS+ PE-- t 5? X- tv-- b+ DI+ D-- G e++ h--- r+++ y+++@ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:26:59 GMT 5 From: "Karol Z" <zielonkono-spam-plz@ucx.lkg.dec.com> - Subject: Re: Disabling VRFY and EXPN in TCPIP 2 Message-ID: <Tv4Tb.13531$pZ7.781@news.cpqcorp.net>   Hi,   3 This is now documented in the 5.4 Management Guide.   H http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/732final/documentation/pdf/aa-lu50m-te.pdf   Karol    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:25:39 -0500 $ From: "vax,3900" <vax3900@yahoo.com>; Subject: Re: Does iSCSI infringe on any MSCP patents or IP? : Message-ID: <bvj9a3$rb8$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>   Jack Peacock wrote:   J > While reading a newsletter about how well iSCSI is now working as far asJ > vendor interoperability, it struck me that DEC has done this before withI > the MSCP protocol, sending command packets for storage access to remote 
 > machinesL > across a network interconnect.  While the command specifics may not match,K > is that enough for there to be no hidden big hammer waiting at HP to come J > down on storage vendors if iSCSI takes off in a big way?  Did HP inherit > any J > patents or trade secrets for MSCP, and what is their status now?  Has HPI > made any announcements regarding MSCP?  It's been my understanding that L > MSCP was regarded as a proprietary protocol and trade secret, one that DEC" > did not release for general use. >    Jack Peacock   L MSCP patent will expire in 2004 anyway (If all patent expire in 20 years). I have a copy of that patent.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:00:18 +0100 " From: Didier Morandi <no@spam.com>  Subject: Re: Hobbyist questions?4 Message-ID: <401cb2af$0$32630$626a54ce@news.free.fr>   Russ Dittmer wrote:  > Hello  > G > I applied for the associate membership with http://www.montagar.com/.  > < > Where does one acquire the CD-Roms for VMS 7.3-2 and such? > K > I understand I'll receive the hobbyist licenses and such after I register = > with HP, which will happen when I receive my membership ID.   Q You don't exactly need to "register with HP", you need to be a registered member  A of a HP users group to be eligible to get anything from Montagar.   N Today, you have two choices. Either join HP Interex, the DEC/Compaq/Tandem/HP O USers Group, http://www.hp-interex.org/, or VAXUS, a new VAX/VMS Users Society  Q recently created, which mainly focuses on VMS, http://www.vaxus.org/index_en.htm.   N Both memberships are free of charge. Some local Users Groups ask for a fee to Q receive complementary information and access to their internal messaging system.  G For example DECUS France asks for 100 euros/year. http://www.decus.fr/.   Q Then, with your membership number, you go to the Montagar site and order your CD  M (VAX or Alpha) $$$ and your licences (free). You get the CD via mail and the  Q licences via email as a DCL command procedure which will load the PAKs into your   system.   % Welcome to a wonderful unnknown land.    D. --  2 VAXUS - Your new helpful friend in the DEC Family!2 EHQ: 19 chemin de la Butte, 31400 Toulouse, France/       Phone: +336 7983 6418 Fax: +335 6154 1928 $                 http://www.vaxus.org   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 20:44:57 +1100' From: "alphadoc" <all.the.fun@the.fair>   Subject: Re: Hobbyist questions?< Message-ID: <401cc97c$0$29132$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>  L I bought the CD myself not long ago, and it cost US$30.00. The site acceptedI paypal, a really great arrangement if you are not in the USA. (I am not).  The CD arrived very promptly. H Getting the licenses installed when they were mailed to me from MontegarE site was much more fun, though!! (required help from this newsgroup).  Thanks.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:14:16 -0800# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> Y Subject: RE: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications         performance   9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECICEACCMAA.tom@kednos.com>   D Interesting.  What used to be called unaligned access they now referC ro as misaligned access, a fundemnetal flaw in their thinking.  IBM + did not make the mistake with the Power PC.      -----Original Message-----2   From: Daniel Gustafsson [mailto:daniel@mimer.se])   Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 7:37 AM    To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com E   Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications    performance on Itanium    7   "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message 0   news:<BPGdncX6Vu9w24bd4p2dnA@metrocast.net>...;   > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message &   > news:401ACDA2.9BD6FEE@istop.com...>   > > >   applications will be carried out in software. At run   time, the IA-32 C   > > >   Execution Layer software translates the IA-32 application    code into B   > > >   native Itanium architecture code and allows it to run as   native code.   > > @   > > Considering that half the IA64 architecture resides in the   EPIC compilers,    >  is C   > > it fair to state that any code compiled on and for 8086 would 
   not be able 	   >  take C   > > advantage of any of the fancy performance stuff of IA64 since 
   there would    >  be 3   > > no explicit parralelism built into the code ?    > A   > Actually, a software mechanism (akin to FX!32) *can* probably    mung what itA   > interprets from the x86 binary code to take more advantage of    EPIC features ?   > (such as they are) than the current hardware emulation can.    That may be one 0   > of the reasons it's faster, for that matter.   > @   > IIRC FX!32 had a profiling-like facility which could massage   the munged code <   > based on execution characteristics.  Now, I think that I   vaguely rememberL   > that the new Itanic software emulator doesn't produce a permanent native<   > binary (to keep with the x86 binary), but I also seem to   remember that itC   > *may* still improve the native binary as it executes.  Oh, hell    - someone ?   > who actually knows something about all this would be a much    better source of,   > information than I am:  anyone?  Anyone?   > 
   > - bill  /   There is a good paper that describes IA32-EL.   @   IA-32 Execution Layer: a two-phase dynamic translator designed9   to support IA-32 applications on Itanium-based systems D   http://www.microarch.org/micro36/html/pdf/goldenberg-IA32Execution	 Layer.pdf   D It doesn't save any native translations on disk that FX!32 did. It'sC behaviour is not that far off to what current Java virtual machines  with hotspot optimizations do.   Regards  Daniel Gustafsson 2 Mimer SQL for OpenVMS -> http://developer.mimer.se   --- & Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Feb 2004 07:37:10 -0800 ) From: daniel@mimer.se (Daniel Gustafsson) Y Subject: Re: Intel and Microsoft provide higher 32-bit applications  performance          = Message-ID: <de4cfd03.0402010737.6c199538@posting.google.com>   d "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<BPGdncX6Vu9w24bd4p2dnA@metrocast.net>...9 > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message $ > news:401ACDA2.9BD6FEE@istop.com...L > > >   applications will be carried out in software. At run time, the IA-32K > > >   Execution Layer software translates the IA-32 application code into M > > >   native Itanium architecture code and allows it to run as native code.  > > N > > Considering that half the IA64 architecture resides in the EPIC compilers, >  is M > > it fair to state that any code compiled on and for 8086 would not be able  >  take M > > advantage of any of the fancy performance stuff of IA64 since there would  >  be 1 > > no explicit parralelism built into the code ?  > L > Actually, a software mechanism (akin to FX!32) *can* probably mung what itM > interprets from the x86 binary code to take more advantage of EPIC features N > (such as they are) than the current hardware emulation can.  That may be one. > of the reasons it's faster, for that matter. > N > IIRC FX!32 had a profiling-like facility which could massage the munged codeK > based on execution characteristics.  Now, I think that I vaguely remember J > that the new Itanic software emulator doesn't produce a permanent nativeK > binary (to keep with the x86 binary), but I also seem to remember that it K > *may* still improve the native binary as it executes.  Oh, hell - someone N > who actually knows something about all this would be a much better source of* > information than I am:  anyone?  Anyone? >  > - bill  - There is a good paper that describes IA32-EL.   > IA-32 Execution Layer: a two-phase dynamic translator designed7 to support IA-32 applications on Itanium-based systems K http://www.microarch.org/micro36/html/pdf/goldenberg-IA32ExecutionLayer.pdf   D It doesn't save any native translations on disk that FX!32 did. It'sC behaviour is not that far off to what current Java virtual machines  with hotspot optimizations do.   Regards  Daniel Gustafsson 2 Mimer SQL for OpenVMS -> http://developer.mimer.se   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Feb 2004 08:21:54 -0800 . From: fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br (Fabio Cardoso)! Subject: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO = Message-ID: <f30679fb.0402010821.3565c66b@posting.google.com>   ; Today the SCO site suffered a massive attack of the MyDoom.   , I am just imaginig if Microsoft buys SCO... : Imagine a Microsoft Linux :-)  or Microsoft UnixWare ! :-)1 What kind of impact it can cause in the market ?  ? IF MS decides to merge products of Windows Server and UnixWare. 5 May be a version of Linux called Windows UniXP  ! :-)      Regards    FC   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:17:40 -0800# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> % Subject: RE: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO 9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIKEACCMAA.tom@kednos.com>   * IIRC Microsft at one time owned 20% of SCO     -----Original Message-----7   From: Fabio Cardoso [mailto:fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br] )   Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 8:22 AM    To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com #   Subject: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO       =   Today the SCO site suffered a massive attack of the MyDoom.    .   I am just imaginig if Microsoft buys SCO... <   Imagine a Microsoft Linux :-)  or Microsoft UnixWare ! :-)3   What kind of impact it can cause in the market ?  A   IF MS decides to merge products of Windows Server and UnixWare. 7   May be a version of Linux called Windows UniXP  ! :-)       	   Regards       FC      --- (   Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).B   Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004    --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:43:46 -0500 7 From: Roy Kidder <RoyKidder@remove-this-part.yahoo.com> % Subject: Re: MyDoom = Microsoft + SCO G Message-ID: <pan.2004.02.01.17.43.46.777892@remove-this-part.yahoo.com>   8 On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 08:21:54 -0800, Fabio Cardoso wrote:G > I am just imaginig if Microsoft buys SCO... Imagine a Microsoft Linux J > :-)  or Microsoft UnixWare ! :-) What kind of impact it can cause in theJ > market ? IF MS decides to merge products of Windows Server and UnixWare.7 > May be a version of Linux called Windows UniXP  ! :-)   I Would there be a product called OpenXP? If there was, would anyone really  want to look at the source?    Excuse me while I go yack.   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Feb 2004 07:52:23 -0800 % From: a.greig@virgin.net (Alan Greig) 9 Subject: Re: New Variant MyDoom.B targeting Microsoft.com = Message-ID: <af3b9b31.0402010752.1c96ca59@posting.google.com>   j a.greig@virgin.net (Alan Greig) wrote in message news:<af3b9b31.0401311741.473a4223@posting.google.com>...  H > The SCO website appears to have been taken offline by this DDOS attack2 > already. Stats at www.netcraft.com confirm this:  C And SCO have now confirmed this. It has been pointed out (jokingly) E that SCO could just point DNS records for wwww.sco.com at anyone else   in the world they don't like :-)  @ http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/01/technology/mydoom.reut/index.htm
  [Extract]F LONDON (Reuters) - The MyDoom Internet worm claimed its first scalp onA Sunday, paralyzing the Web site of software firm SCO Group with a  massive data blitz.   ? In a statement issued on Sunday morning, the Utah-based company = confirmed MyDoom knocked its site, http://www.sco.com, out of  commission.   D "Internet traffic began building momentum on Saturday evening and by@ midnight Eastern Time the SCO Web site was flooded with requestsF beyond its capacity," the statement read. "While we expect this attack> to continue throughout the next few weeks, we have a series of= contingency plans to deal with this problem and we will begin D communicating those plans on Monday morning," Jeff Carlon, worldwideF director of Information Technology infrastructure, The SCO Group, said in the statement.   B The speed and severity of the attack surprised security officials.  @ "It was spectacularly successful," said Mikko Hypponen, research, manager at Finnish anti-virus firm F-Secure.  @ As intended, Sco.com was the only discernible victim on Sunday.   [End Extract]   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:16:25 +0100  From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>Y Subject: Re: OpenVMS vs unix security ... Andrew, the IBM guy awaits your response! respo 2 Message-ID: <bvidee$qvg$1@news4.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>   Hi Bob,   Q I suppose this is a reaction on some earlier message by Andrew ? Which one is it  N ? (there are some many). If you can gibe me date and time, that would be nice.     Bob Ceculski wrote: E > Yes, but first redesign and rewrite your unix to cleanly catagorize  > and separateH > Kernel Mode from Supervisor Mode and from User Mode. Three modes are a	 > minimum F > for a correct ring protection system. The use of three or more rings > happens toE > be a fully patented methodology by OpenVMS Engineering. OpenVMS has  > four. G > OpenVMS also has 40 groups of higher mode functionality classified as  > requiring  > special named privileges.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 10:28:40 -0500, From: "Dave Pampreen" <dave@davesdotcom.com>, Subject: Re: Slow volume under Fibre Channel0 Message-ID: <vZWdnTtFjs7ThoDdRVn-gQ@comcast.com>   Fabio,   I have a similar scenario...  J FC with 2 storage works shelves.  One of my disks would do the same thing.J It was a disk that had several thousand files being created/deleted daily.C It turned out to be extremely fragmented.  This disk was about 70GB  (partition.)  J I defragged this disk, and the response came back to normal.  You may wantL to check that out.  I believe you get get Raxco's perfect disk and run it in< "lite" mode to tell you how bad things are before buying it.   Dave  ; "Fabio Cardoso" <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message 7 news:f30679fb.0401290257.5a9195d8@posting.google.com... D > For more than week one specific disk containing Oracle RDB StorageE > Areas was intermitently slow. EMC didnt discover any problem in the > > EMC DMX and the FC Switch (no error in Fibre, disks, etc...)D > I was trying a SHOW DEVICE/FILE and the output paused a few times.B > The command DIR/SIZE=ALL VOLUME:[000000...]  paused/freezed too. > I > Yesterday the developemt team rebooted the server and today, looks like  > OK.  > K > Today I noticed that one specific value of the SHOW DEVICE /FULL changed. E > Yesterday the " Blocks in extent cache  " was with the value almost  > in the Maximum.  > D > Is this Extent cache the XFC cache activated in my server ? Or any specific$ > memory cache in the FC controller: > 	 > Points:  > , > Alphaserver 4100 5/600 + 3 CPUs + 3 GB RAM  > OpenVMS 7.3 with XFC activated > VMS FIBRE_SCSI 3.0F > Emulex LP-9000 (with firmware upgrade) - not KGPSA official - I will change.  >  > % > The volume output today: 29/01/2004  >  > K > Disk $1$DGA1772: (S62001), device type EMC SYMMETRIX, is online, mounted,  file- H >     oriented device, shareable, available to cluster, error logging is enabled. > > >     Error count                    0    Operations completed 2174164 3 >     Owner process                 ""    Owner UIC  [SYSTEM]2 >     Owner process ID        00000000    Dev Prot S:RWPL,O:RWPL,G:R,W = >     Reference count              115    Default buffer size  512 2 >     Current preferred CPU Id       2    Fastpath 1 = >     WWID   01000010:6006-0480-0002-8740-0126-5359-4D36-4539 ; >     Total blocks           141419520    Sectors per track  96= >     Total cylinders            15345    Tracks per cylinder  96& >     Allocation class               1 > @ >     Volume label           "DISCO12"    Relative volume number 0 ; >     Cluster size                 136    Transaction count  115 ? >     Free blocks             61083584    Maximum files allowed  5161295 >     Extend quantity                5    Mount count  1 4 >     Mount status              System    Cache name "_S62001$DRA0:XQPCACHE" H >     Extent cache size             64    Maximum blocks in extent cache 6108358 @ >     File ID cache size            64    Blocks in extent cache 299608F >     Quota cache size               0    Maximum buffers in FCP cache 39942 >     Volume owner UIC           [1,1]    Vol Prot S:RWCD,O:RWCD,G:RWCD,W:RWCD  > L >   Volume Status:  ODS-2, subject to mount verification, write-back caching >       enabled.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:50:50 GMT 5 From: "Karol Z" <zielonkono-spam-plz@ucx.lkg.dec.com> 9 Subject: Re: [TCPIP V5.4] DHCP client problem/observation 4 Message-ID: <eS4Tb.13533$F_7.12190@news.cpqcorp.net>   Peter,   Unrelated to this case but...   > Your email is broken. langstoeger.at is showing no MX records.   Karol    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.063 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                            t.

      By the way, Our Lady Heidi Klum flew from Germany to be in London tonight
for the Evening Standard British Film Awards:

http://imgdb01.liaisonphoto.com/Forms/HighRes/psi_Preview_Page_OREJMEJMEJM
EHHEHMEHJEHBEJAEHBEJMEJMEJMEJDENDEDMENB.jpg*p**p**preview**preview*jpg*thu
mb**thumb*.jpg

      Take a look at her feet, there's so much to love!


^~00001437:0000127517:007505:From: "N2trains" <n2trains@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: alt.games.diablo
References: <yWKdnce15a3tq6CjXTWcpA@comcast.com> <7xb%9.90729$xv1.1223375@news.chello.at> <5Ac%9.3615$6P2.435524@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <rOucnYcV9fQOwKCjXTWcrg@comcast.com> <H3f%9.4533$ek4.414295@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <7bGdnRWfUuc4D6CjXTWc3w@comcast.com> <dt6r3v4ui20v27cak6golfabsaoohnbm3k@4ax.com> <dMCdnYgL-uaCMKCjXTWc2Q@comcast.com> <bsbr3vo8e432pquvvaun20jrqjvr161gr9@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: THE bow
Lines: 9
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By 