1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 18 Jun 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 337       Contents:. Re: Adding Win2003 Server to Pathworks Network1 Re: Anyone here using products from this company?  Re: Creating a New User Account  Re: delete directory recursive Re: delete directory recursive  Split I/Os to contiguous file??? Re: SWS-2.0 (Apache) & CGI ??? Re: SWS-2.0 (Apache) & CGI ???+ Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... + Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ... & Re: VMS Gets Short Shrift at HP World.  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 18 Jun 2004 01:26:56 -07007 From: andrew.leprevost@skanco.co.uk (Andrew Le Prevost) 7 Subject: Re: Adding Win2003 Server to Pathworks Network < Message-ID: <e442d0d8.0406180026.3412939@posting.google.com>   Many thanks for your help.  F The company involved has been bought by a larger company and has to beF  intergrated into it's Active Directory organisation.  The new companyF uses a Windows/SQL based stock management system so I presume that theF existing VMS system will soon be going and used by the smaller companyB instead.  I don't particulary want to intergrate them to closely -D just wanting to make sure that both networks will run alongside each+ other on the same network for a short time.   
 All the best.    Andrew.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:21:47 +0200 2 From: martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender): Subject: Re: Anyone here using products from this company?; Message-ID: <40d324ab.524144494f47414741@radiogaga.harz.de>   7 Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER (peter@langstoeger.at) wrote: 6 > martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender) writes:7 > >I wasn't aware of a port of Tk to VMS. Is there one?  > 0 > If you mean TCL/TK, yes there is (or was) one. > . > ftp://sapodilla.rsmas.miami.edu/pub/VMS-tcl/  % Yes, of course, I meant Tcl (not Tk). ) Thanks for the pointer. I'll have a look.    cu,    Martin --  @                           | Martin Vorlaender  |  OpenVMS rules!3  Cetero censeo            | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de F  Redmondem delendam esse. |   http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/:                           | home: martin@radiogaga.harz.de   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Jun 2004 02:28:03 -07002 From: mcaccavone@manfinancial.com (Mark Caccavone)( Subject: Re: Creating a New User Account= Message-ID: <c667babc.0406180128.47b9e08e@posting.google.com>   v koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote in message news:<VqtYA5uHN5w4@eisner.encompasserve.org>...e > In article <1e101a47.0406161003.494e0b0a@posting.google.com>, aroma@stny.rr.com (Andy Roma) writes: $ > > I'm new to VMS, so here it goes. > > > > > I've managed to create a new user account under VMS using: > > @SYS$EXAMPLES:ADDUSER.COM  > @ >    Where does ADDUSER think it's putting the user's directory? > ? > > I then create the directory for the user (as system user):   > >  > > create/directory [new_user]  > > >    That creates a directory owned by SYSTEM.  You should add< >    the /owner=username quailifier, but ADDUSER should have< >    already done it for you.  Since you didn't tell it whatC >    disk to use it was whereever your default was set at the time, , >    likely not a good place for user files. > 5 >    You can fix it using the SYSTEM account by doing 1 >      set file/owner=username [new_user...]*.*;*  > > F > > When I login as the new user and try to create a directory or edit% > > files, I get the following error:  > > C > > %DIRECT-E-OPENIN, error opening SYS$SYSDEVICE:[*]*.*;* as input C > > -RMS-E-PRV, insufficient privilege or file protection violation  > A >    Sounds like ADDUSER is expecting the user files to be on the B >    system disk.  Not good, and not where you most likely put the >    directory.  > H > > I am assuming that when I create the directory (as system), I am not> > > giving the new user permissions. Any idea how to fix this? > * >    HELP create/directory is your friend.  O ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F Firstly ADDUSER.COM uses SYS$SYSDEVICE as the DEFAULT DISK , make sure= that you are creating the directory on SYS$SYSDEVICE: and not 
 elsewhere?  9 e.g $CREATE/DIRECTORY/OWN=NEWUSER SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NEWUSER]   , Also the problem lies with the protection on! SYS$SYSDEVICE:[000000]NEWUSER.DIR   ? So doing a $SET FILE/OWN=NEWUSER [NEWUSER...]*.*;* will not fix  anything  F Try doing a :- $SET FILE/OWN=NEWUSER SYS$SYSDEVICE:[000000]NEWUSER.DIRB if this does not work then this would suggest that NEWUSER has notC been setup with its own identifier in RIGHTSLIST.DAT. Try rerunning ? ADDUSER and ensure that the UIC given is unique for that group.      Mark Caccavone VMS Support  MAN Fianancial Ltd   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Jun 2004 10:55:49 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) ' Subject: Re: delete directory recursive 3 Message-ID: <G2nnbpuq1MaQ@eisner.encompasserve.org>   n In article <b096a4ee.0406171804.24515e74@posting.google.com>, spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) writes: > D > This can also fail if there are multiple versions of the same .DIR1 > file, in which case repeating ,;* would fix it.   >    No.  Legitimate directory files must be version ;1.  If youA    have multiple versions the contents of the other versions will 4    never be deleted until you correct the situation.   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Jun 2004 10:54:32 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) ' Subject: Re: delete directory recursive 3 Message-ID: <h4qPnU$wpzI0@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ] In article <slrncd411e.pf.thierry@MARS.Family>, Thierry Dussuet <thierry@MARS.Family> writes:  > " > Directory MULTINET_ROOT:[000000] > Q > SYSCOMMON.DIR;5     SYSCOMMON.DIR;4     SYSCOMMON.DIR;3     SYSCOMMON.DIR;2      > SYSCOMMON.DIR;1       B    MULTINET_ROOT is defined as a "rooted" logical name, it has theC    appropriate attributes and ends in ".]".  Such logical names can C    be used as if they were devices.  Another example is SYS$SYSTEM.   *    Try "show logical multinet_root /full".   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Jun 2004 10:24:59 -0700$ From: gspamtackett@yahoo.com (Galen)) Subject: Split I/Os to contiguous file??? = Message-ID: <bdc65a53.0406180924.49bc3df0@posting.google.com>   > My application performs write QIOWs to a single multi-gigabyteD contiguous file (created contiguous-best-try but actually contiguous= since it has only one mapping pointer in its header). MONITOR F PROCESS/TOPDIO shows that it is the only process doing any significant direct I/O.   F When the application is running, MONITOR IO shows a high rate of split8 I/Os, about 200-300 per second. Using some browser-based> instrumentation built into one of my disk controllers (a KZPDCC SmartArray 5304A) I can see that the largest I/O being performed at B the controller is only 256 blocks, while my application issues its. QIOs for multiple thousands of blocks per I/O.  B This same behavior apparently occurs using an identical file via aD vanilla internal builtin SCSI controller and drive. (I can't observeD the actual I/O sizes for this hardware, but I can see that the levelD of split I/Os and the DIO rate both are similar to what I see on the KZPDC.)   C What is causing the I/Os to be split, when the file is contiguous?? @ Does the "magic" 256-block maximum actual I/O provide any clues?  ? This is an OpenVMS V7.3-2 EV6 500MHz ES40 with 1 GB RAM that is D current on ECOs, except that my FIBRE_SCSI V2 may not be the newest.@ (The release notes for the newest FIBRE_SCSI don't appear to sayF anything that might be related to this issue.) It is not clustered andD I am the only user, running the only "user" application (the rest is3 HP TCP/IP, DECnet and Web-Based Management Agents.)    ------------------------------    Date: 18 Jun 2004 07:44:46 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)' Subject: Re: SWS-2.0 (Apache) & CGI ??? = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0406180644.385006f6@posting.google.com>   k "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<g5rAc.34818$nY.1115294@news20.bellglobal.com>...  > J > I've got a lot of fond memories cutting my teeth on Purveyor so I reallyL > don't want to knock it. But I don't think we'll ever see server-side Java,J > SOAP, or cool web services developed for it. Now if you don't need these& > features then Purveyor is a shoe in. >  > Neil Rieck > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  > Ontario, Canada.# > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/   = for xml, synergy dbl (dibol) supports that so with javascript 8 in purveyor, we have all we need ... also perl runs from; purveyor, so again you have adequate tools to work with ...    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:26:08 +0200 2 From: martin@radiogaga.harz.de (Martin Vorlaender)' Subject: Re: SWS-2.0 (Apache) & CGI ??? ; Message-ID: <40d325b0.524144494f47414741@radiogaga.harz.de>   ) Bob Ceculski (bob@instantwhip.com) wrote: . > "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> wrote...L > > I've got a lot of fond memories cutting my teeth on Purveyor so I reallyN > > don't want to knock it. But I don't think we'll ever see server-side Java,L > > SOAP, or cool web services developed for it. Now if you don't need these( > > features then Purveyor is a shoe in. > ? > for xml, synergy dbl (dibol) supports that so with javascript : > in purveyor, we have all we need ... also perl runs from= > purveyor, so again you have adequate tools to work with ...   F Much as I liked to work with Purveyor, I remember that using Perl withD it was a royal PITA. As Purveyor didn't change since, I presume that hasn't changed,    cu,    Martin --  @                           | Martin Vorlaender  |  OpenVMS rules!3  Cetero censeo            | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de F  Redmondem delendam esse. |   http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/:                           | home: martin@radiogaga.harz.de   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:29:17 +0200 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net>4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...+ Message-ID: <2jfgdtF103876U1@uni-berlin.de>     Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:r > In article <C3mAc.6600$4d3.1457@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, Michael Austin <maustin@firstdbasource.com> writes: >  >>Nigel Barker wrote:  >>K >>>On 17 Jun 2004 07:01:45 -0700, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote:  >>>  >>>>OpenVMS Stability K >>>>deemed unhackable at DEFCON 9 (2001) and told never to return to DEFCON  >>> Q >>>Not totally correct. They actually changed the rules so that only systems with O >>>Intel CPUs were eligible to play. Of course that is more interesting for VMS  >>>today:-)  >>C >>.... like that is any challenge given the OS's currently on that  G >>platform.  So, who's going to put together an Itanium with VMS to go  
 >>"play"?? >  > L > I assume they will then change the rules again to allow only IA32 CPUs ;-) >   % Charon-VAX or SIMH to the rescue? ;-)    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:58:41 -0400   From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...4 Message-ID: <1040618025643.404F-100000@Ives.egh.com>  - On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Barry Treahy, Jr. wrote:    > Nigel Barker wrote:  > K > >On 17 Jun 2004 07:01:45 -0700, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote:  > >  > >    > >  > >>OpenVMS Stability K > >>deemed unhackable at DEFCON 9 (2001) and told never to return to DEFCON  > >>     > >> > > Q > >Not totally correct. They actually changed the rules so that only systems with O > >Intel CPUs were eligible to play. Of course that is more interesting for VMS  > >today:-)  > >    > > E > It would also be interesting to see how they felt about CHARON-VAX   > running on a X86 processor...  >  > Barry   ? No problem.  Just crack the X86 OS and then erase the container = file with the VMS file system, or if a separate disk, have NT 2 write a "harmless" signature on it.  Weakest link.     --   John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------   Date: 18 Jun 2004 08:18:31 GMT1 From: schroedingerzkat@aol.com (SchroedingerzKat) 4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...: Message-ID: <20040618041831.26668.00000177@mb-m03.aol.com>  J >Not totally correct. They actually changed the rules so that only systems >with M >Intel CPUs were eligible to play. Of course that is more interesting for VMS 	 >today:-)   5 Once FreeVMS is pretty useable it would qualify.  :-)    Michael    ------------------------------   Date: 18 Jun 2004 08:21:41 GMT1 From: schroedingerzkat@aol.com (SchroedingerzKat) 4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...: Message-ID: <20040618042141.26668.00000178@mb-m03.aol.com>  A >... like that is any challenge given the OS's currently on that  F >platform.  So, who's going to put together an Itanium with VMS to go 	 >"play"??   M I was gonna bring Commodore 64 LNG (Lunix) or HanoiOS.  No one would know WTF M to do with them.  By Bob's logic that would make them the most secure systems  on the planet.  N FWIW, Dockmaster ran on Trusted Multics for years.  There must be something toH running old school OS with good security from the ground up.  (like VMS)   Michael    ------------------------------   Date: 18 Jun 2004 08:44:27 GMT1 From: schroedingerzkat@aol.com (SchroedingerzKat) 4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...: Message-ID: <20040618044427.26668.00000180@mb-m03.aol.com>  F >> It would also be interesting to see how they felt about CHARON-VAX   >> running on a X86 processor... >>   >> Barry > @ >No problem.  Just crack the X86 OS and then erase the container> >file with the VMS file system, or if a separate disk, have NT3 >write a "harmless" signature on it.  Weakest link.   M CharonVAX uses emulation no?  But this should be similar to breaking out of a N VM ala VMware.  This is light years beyond most crackers, and I applaud anyoneO who can do it in the time constraints of a con, under the influence of alcohol, G and with whatever they brought on their lappie.  Not impossible, but an L incredible feat well beyond defeating stackguards and breaking chroot jail. J I'd guess that with the increasing use of UML (user mode linux) and VMware= server that these type of attacks will become more developed.   N Or is it easier than they make it out to be?  (Yes I should get off my a** and  make a VMware honeypot and see.)   Michael    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:47:10 +0100 * From: Nic Clews <sendspamhere@[127.0.0.1]>4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...' Message-ID: <caudri$okd$1@lore.csc.com>    John Santos wrote: > / > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Barry Treahy, Jr. wrote:  >  > > Nigel Barker wrote:  > > M > > >On 17 Jun 2004 07:01:45 -0700, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote:  > > >    > > >>OpenVMS Stability M > > >>deemed unhackable at DEFCON 9 (2001) and told never to return to DEFCON  > > >>  S > > >Not totally correct. They actually changed the rules so that only systems with Q > > >Intel CPUs were eligible to play. Of course that is more interesting for VMS 
 > > >today:-)  > > > F > > It would also be interesting to see how they felt about CHARON-VAX! > > running on a X86 processor...  > > 	 > > Barry  > A > No problem.  Just crack the X86 OS and then erase the container ? > file with the VMS file system, or if a separate disk, have NT 4 > write a "harmless" signature on it.  Weakest link.  G I'm not sure that would count. The objective is to create a file (flag) 7 in a "root level" protected area (i.e. SYS$SYSTEM etc.)    --  ? Regards, Nic Clews a.k.a. Mr. CP Charges, CSC Computer Sciences  nclews at csc dot com    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:36:02 -0600  From: Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net> 4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...0 Message-ID: <At-dnQFCJolfZ0_dRVn-tw@onewest.net>   Nigel Barker wrote: J > On 17 Jun 2004 07:01:45 -0700, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote: >  >  >>OpenVMS Stability I >>deemed unhackable at DEFCON 9 (2001) and told never to return to DEFCON  >  > P > Not totally correct. They actually changed the rules so that only systems withN > Intel CPUs were eligible to play. Of course that is more interesting for VMS
 > today:-) >    simh anyone?   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Jun 2004 10:58:06 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...3 Message-ID: <hHrQnIp2OCnV@eisner.encompasserve.org>   U In article <40D20529.2090009@MMaz.com>, "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> writes:   E > It would also be interesting to see how they felt about CHARON-VAX   > running on a X86 processor...   F    Easy.  First they hack into Windows, then they can do anything theyC    want to the applications running on it and their data, including %    hardware emultors like Charon-VAX.    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:18:00 -0700 + From: "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> 4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...' Message-ID: <40D315B8.5030901@MMaz.com>    Bob Koehler wrote:  V >In article <40D20529.2090009@MMaz.com>, "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@MMaz.com> writes: >  >    > E >>It would also be interesting to see how they felt about CHARON-VAX   >>running on a X86 processor...  >>     >> > G >   Easy.  First they hack into Windows, then they can do anything they D >   want to the applications running on it and their data, including& >   hardware emultors like Charon-VAX. >  >    >   H I believe the basis of this opinion is assuming that Windows is running D TCP/IP, Netbeui, or Netbios, however, if Windows is running none of > these stacks, please educate me on how it will be compromised?    I To setup Windows, in a secure manner, to run CHARON-VAX, you only need a  G single NIC.  The *ONLY* protocol bound to that NIC is NDIS5 which then  F allows the CHARON-VAX hardware emulator to latch and startup the OS's ? host based protocols (ie. with VMS, TCP/IP, LAT, LAVC, DECnet).     I So, the only weak point could be the NDIS5 driver, which is small enough  A that if it hasn't already been hardened, would be a small effort.     $ So, how would this compromise occur?     Barry      --    > Barry Treahy, Jr                       E-mail: Treahy@MMaz.com> Midwest Microwave                          Phone: 480/314-1320> Vice President & CIO                         FAX: 480/661-7028                            ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:18:34 GMT < From: "John E. Malmberg" <Malmberg@dskwld.zko.dec.compaq.hp>4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...2 Message-ID: <KtFAc.4252$Ow3.2294@news.cpqcorp.net>   Nigel Barker wrote: J > On 17 Jun 2004 07:01:45 -0700, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote: >    >>OpenVMS Stability I >>deemed unhackable at DEFCON 9 (2001) and told never to return to DEFCON  > P > Not totally correct. They actually changed the rules so that only systems withN > Intel CPUs were eligible to play. Of course that is more interesting for VMS
 > today:-)  G To be more specific, as I understand what I was told by Pat J. (Opcom)  A and the late John Wiz., the DECON organizers now require using a  E specific "hardened" LINUX kernel obtained by them as the OS when you  G signed up, and only certain modifications are allowed  That is what is   limiting it to x86 systems.   E This is because apparently the organizers of DEFCON are specifically  H trying to find holes in that kernel so they can either sell it or their  expertise in security LINUX.  G I do not know if there are any restrictions on what applications could  3 run be on top of that LINUX kernel by participants.   F I also do not know how much in advance of the conference that you get ( the LINUX kernel to set up your machine.   -John ! malmberg@dskwld.zko.dec.compaq.hp  Personal Opinion Only    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:41:00 GMT F From: lederman@star.enet.dec.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.com (Bart Z. Lederman)4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...2 Message-ID: <MOFAc.4258$HG3.3801@news.cpqcorp.net>  @ As mentioned elsewhere, even an emulator probably isn't allowed:@ though you might get away with running the emulator under Linux.  ? My understanding of the Charon setup (subject to correction) is > that it normally requires it's own Ethernet adaptor to hook upC to an external network.  As long as you only connected that adaptor C to the external network, and not any adaptor used by the underlying C OS (Windows or Linux), the external network will only "see" OpenVMS E and it wouldn't matter what the underlying OS was, or what networking  it was running.    --  (  B. Z. Lederman   Personal Opinions Only  8  Posting to a News group does NOT give anyone permission8  to send me advertising by E-mail or put me on a mailing  list of any kind.  5  Please remove the "DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL" if you have a 5  legitimate reason to E-mail a response to this post.    ------------------------------    Date: 18 Jun 2004 10:34:56 -07001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) 4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story ...= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0406180934.6a8455af@posting.google.com>   a Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> wrote in message news:<5fo3d0d44l88nnv05j9392j8gf1jq05l8h@4ax.com>... ; > They actually changed the rules so that only systems with N > Intel CPUs were eligible to play. Of course that is more interesting for VMS
 > today:-)  3 Not just Intel -- x86. And also Linux is specified.   @ DefCon 12 is slated for July 30 to August 1, 2004 in Lost Wages,A Nevada. :-) See http://defcon.org/html/defcon-12/dc-12-index.html   @ The rules for this year's Capture The Flag (CTF, a.k.a. Root Fu); contest are posted on the Web. The base set of rules is at: - http://www.ghettohackers.net/rootfu/rules.htm  with this year's updates at:$ http://www.ghettohackers.net/rootfu/  @ (Unfortunately, that page says registration for CTF at DefCon 12B closed June 4. So it's probably too late to participate this year. Maybe next year?)   C The rules include using a supplied Linux distribution on an x86 box E (actually, two distros this year). I think it would still be possible B to meet the rules and yet highlight OpenVMS"s superior security byF taking one of the VAX emulators, run one of those on top of Linux, andD then run OpenVMS VAX on top of that, turning off everything possible  down at the underlying Linux OS.  C I think the trickiest part would be to reverse-engineer the scripts C and services that are included with the supplied distros (and which E the scoring system relies on) so that those same script functions and C services could be securely provided up at the OpenVMS level, rather A than down at the Linux level. Perhaps study of the network traces @ captured each year could allow one to see how the scoring systemF worked last year and thus predict how the scoring system might work inC the current contest. See "Capture the Capture-the-Flag" (CCTF), aka 7 Capture the Root Fu (CRF) at http://www.shmoo.com/cctf/    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:44:32 -0400 2 From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <squayle@insight.rr.com>4 Subject: Re: Unhackable OpenVMS - a defcon story .... Message-ID: <40D2F1C0.16544.9D30A38@localhost>  0 On 18 Jun 2004 at 17:41, Bart Z. Lederman wrote:A > My understanding of the Charon setup (subject to correction) is @ > that it normally requires it's own Ethernet adaptor to hook up > to an external network.   F You can "share" a network adapter by installing IPCAP.  That puts the ; interface in promsiscous mode, and packets are sent to all  + applications to be dealt with as necessary.   = Since every packet on the wire would be going to the host OS  @ (Windows!), that would be a Very Bad Thing.  And performance is 	 horrible.   F CHARON-VAX doesn't support this any more.  Heck, cheap NIC's for PC's @ are less than $10.  Might as well get a separate interface.  My F laptop has 3 network interfaces (okay, only two are built-in, one's a 	 PC Card).   
 --Stan Quayle  Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------- Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  +1 614-868-1363 3 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA 0 stan-at-stanq-dot-com       http://www.stanq.com   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Jun 2004 10:22:19 -0700- From: soccer13player@yahoo.com (Nom de Plume) / Subject: Re: VMS Gets Short Shrift at HP World. = Message-ID: <f401eb7f.0406180922.7f4a3033@posting.google.com>    "John Smith" wrote: J > If not a .ppt presentation, then perhaps we should each send carly(tm) aG > brick via USPS (just to keep VMS involved) along with a cover letter:  >  > Dear carly(tm),  > G > The enclosed brick is being sent to you by an irate OpenVMS customer.  > G > We are disgusted at the lack of marketing and advertising HP does for 
 > OpenVMS. > I > I'd have come in person to deliver this brick but I fear that I will be J > laid-off as our company migrates from OpenVMS to Windows & Linux on DellM > hardware, so I didn't really think I could afford the trip to California at  > this time. > N > Please throw this brick through the window nearest to your office to attempt' > to understand my frustration with HP.  >  > Sincerely, >  > etc...  
 I love it.   JMOD   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.337 ************************