1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 15 Jul 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 391       Contents:D Complexity of calling $ACM (was: Any Way to Validate Username & PassH Re: Complexity of calling $ACM (was: Any Way to Validate Username & Pass  Re: PCI-IDE Interface for Alphas& Re: The possibility of vms opening up?E Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing) E Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 15 Jul 2006 05:54:39 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) M Subject: Complexity of calling $ACM (was: Any Way to Validate Username & Pass 3 Message-ID: <mC7sM6yluw3m@eisner.encompasserve.org>   g In article <e99civ$4rm$1@news-02.connect.com.au>, "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:   J > I don't wish to appear unwaveringly negative, but I personally find $ACMN > the most *NON* VMS System Service I have ever seen :-( Is this where all theN > engineers that wrote $IPC and $DNS went to die? You know; the guys who won'tN > do something with 10 SSs if they can possibly shoe-horn it all into one withL > 52 parameters, morphing-iterations and oodles of flags. (After "SeperatingK > Form and Function" that was also a big thing for DECForms wasn't it? "And N > FMS has just far too many routines!", bizarre!) And if you're not interestedK > in Windows authentication why would you voluntarily call this routine? If   ; Because you wanted a VMS interface guaranteed to handle all 8 possible authentication situations.  There is no messing< with creating your own detached process (and more important," reacting when they are not there).  A For _years_ developers wrote their "own" authentication code, and B immediately found VMS adding a new feature to authentication whichC they now did not cover.  This includes layered products within DEC.   ? All the requirements for authentication make for a very complex B mix.  The $ACM implementation gives one an incredibly large amountD to think about, and each piece is required for _some_ authentication	 scenario.   ? > PPS. If anyone wants to write something really useful like: -  > K > Given an IP Address go out and verify that it is an NT box on the Lan and A > that someone is currently logged-in and, if so, return their NT M > Usernam/domain and default VMS username that they are entitled to assume on , > this node, then I'd buy that for a dollar!  C That feature which you see as incredibly useful is of absolutely no E interest to me, neatly giving an example of the custom authentication B space.  But if the author of that code is able to exclude VAX fromB their target market, they can provide it as an ACME Agent pluggingA into the back end of $ACM.  Then it is automatically available to D all callers of $ACM, which according to some new features slide willD include LOGINOUT by default in VMS V8.3.  Right now, system managersD have to switch to an ACM-honoring LOGINOUT with a manual effort, butD either way, running an installation procedure is all they have to doD to add your NT_IP_ADDRESS ACME to the authentication mix.  Your ACMEH can veto usernames the user types to LOGINOUT, prepopulate the usernamesC for LOGINOUT, etc.  It can do the same for other programs that call  $ACM.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:06:57 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> Q Subject: Re: Complexity of calling $ACM (was: Any Way to Validate Username & Pass , Message-ID: <44B920AF.2086464B@teksavvy.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:A > All the requirements for authentication make for a very complex D > mix.  The $ACM implementation gives one an incredibly large amountF > to think about, and each piece is required for _some_ authentication > scenario.     H Since VMS has a ridden much on its reputation of a secure OS, these ACMEG services sound really neat. But they cannot be implemented because they % are not present on all VMS platforms.   ? If security were so important to VMS, then ACME would have been   available on all VMS platforms.   E Consider the XDM server on VMS which not only cannot use ACME because G ACME is not standard, but doesn't do the basic stuff right like calling E te audit server to signal a bad password or calling $scan intrusion.      G The ability for an application to check username and automatically have B alarms issued and intrusion detection code called should have been8 included in all VMS platforms a LONG LONG LONG time ago.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:01:23 +0200 ? From: "Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann" <vaxinf@chemie.uni-konstanz.de> ) Subject: Re: PCI-IDE Interface for Alphas 4 Message-ID: <00c101c6a7ed$3fc06920$0301a8c0@athlon1>  / This is a my posting done Do 14 Apr. 2005 11:34    eberhard> ============================================================== Hi,   E For those people who are allowed/willing to run unsupported hardware   configurations here's some info:     ? There are many Alphas without having an onboard IDE-controller.     K I've tested successfully a "Advance Peripherals 29134 PCI" under OVMS 7.3-2  with a Alphastion 500.    E You must add some lines in sys$system:SYS$USER_CONFIG.DAT in order to % load the sys$dqdriver for the device:     $ ! Advance Peripherals ide-controller ! . device       = "IDE drive Advance Peripherals"   name       = DQ    driver     = SYS$DQDRIVER    adapter    = PCI   id         = 0x06801095 '   boot_flags     = SYS_DEV, HW_CTRL_LTR    flags          = DISK, BOOT    units          = 2
 end_device    , The most important task is howto get the id:    8 "show configuration" in console mode gives you this info" (1095 = Vendor, 0680 = Device id).    3 After a reboot the sys$dqdriver is being loaded and 7 the dqa0/dqa1-device could be used in the usual manner:      $! Put a virtual on a DVD  $ mount/for lda1:  $ dvdwrite/write lda1: dqa0: .  $ mount/for dqa0:  .  $! Verify all blocks $ dvdwrite/verify lda1: dqa0:  .     ) If you have further question let me know.      Eberhard  C ===================================================================    ----- Original Message -----   From: <etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk> To: <Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com> # Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:14 PM % Subject: PCI-IDE Interface for Alphas     E >I did mention this elsewhere, but don't know if it got lost by those  > who would know...  > I > There are various PCI cards around, with and without BIOS support (and, ? > therefore, mainly targeted at the PC market) that provide IDE B > interfaces.  Are there any cards that could be used in a pre-IDE> > AlphaServer to give the capability of installing IDE drives,( > particularly an IDE CD-ROM or DVD-ROM? >  > Thanks in advance  >    ------------------------------    Date: 15 Jul 2006 09:16:11 -0700( From: "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com>/ Subject: Re: The possibility of vms opening up? B Message-ID: <1152980171.444026.140530@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   Richard B. Gilbert wrote:  > G > I doubt that anyone other than the OP has any interest in VMS V3.0 at E > this point so he will probably have to do, or pay for, all the work E > involved.  I believe it was originally written in BLISS-32 although / > current versions may use some other language.   E I am sure there is more people than me interested in the source code, A as you bring up Bliss, how much is still written in Bliss? i also B believe vms is the only operating system that actually uses bliss.   thanks   ------------------------------  + Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:59:40 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukN Subject: Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing)) Message-ID: <e9b3dc$shr$2@news.mdx.ac.uk>   [ In article <44B84372.4CD834A@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:  >Rob Brooks wrote:K >> The bottom layer is out-of-the box HP-UX.  There is a "hypervisor" layer 2 >> (the HPVM software) that sits on top of HP-UX;  >  > I >Remember Stallard's wish that all VMS customers would eventually migrate I >to HP-UX ?  My gut tells me that VMS will become an application on HP-UX H >where customers can continue to run legacy apps from VSM, while running( >real apps on HP-UX on the same machine.  L So that's how they plan to save HP-UX from Linux. They turn it into the only way you can run VMS :)  
 David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:11:00 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> N Subject: Re: VMS and HPVM (was: Parsec webinar (2006-07-12) OpenVMS Licensing), Message-ID: <44B921A2.50C0E5D7@teksavvy.com>   david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: $ > Why would anyone want to do this ?    D With Alpha, you could have multiple instances of VMS in the same boxF (galaxy stuff).  On that IA64 thing, that is not the case. If you wantH to run multiple instances of VMS on that IA64 thing, ther basically each' have to run as an application on HP-UX.   H So now the big question is whether HP will take some of that so-flauntedE 10 billion bucks and pay SRI to make a VAX and alpha emulators run as D applications on HP-UX as well so that you could have one instance ofH HP-UX host an instance of VAX-VMS, one of Alpha-VMS and one of IA64-VMS.    G While this may not have any usefulness on that IA64 thing, once IA64 is I dead and everything moved to 8086, this may prove to be very interesting.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.391 ************************