Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8331 > unrolled thread

CarrierIQ Software and Forth

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-23 19:03 -0800
    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-23 19:14 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 01:52 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-24 04:06 -0800
          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-24 14:56 +0100
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-12-24 17:53 +0200
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:23 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-24 12:14 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-25 02:19 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> - 2011-12-25 12:58 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-25 23:53 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-25 13:25 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-26 00:10 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-12-25 22:36 +0200
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-26 00:09 +0100
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-28 08:36 -0800
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 09:43 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 09:56 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 11:08 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-27 22:38 -0800
                        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-27 22:01 -1000
                          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-12-28 02:20 -0800
                            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 12:12 -0800
                              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 14:15 -0800
                                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 23:56 +0100
                                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 15:07 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 11:11 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-27 22:01 +0100
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-12-28 11:11 +0100
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 13:57 +0100
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 11:00 +0000
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 08:39 -0800
                      GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 12:32 -0600
                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 12:07 -0800
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 23:19 +0100
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2011-12-29 08:38 +0000
                            Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 04:59 -0500
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-29 14:04 +0100
                                Re: GPL Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2011-12-30 00:12 +0400
                                  Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-29 21:48 +0100
                                    Re: GPL Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-29 23:50 +0100
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 18:00 -0500
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 01:38 +0100
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:46 -0500
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 22:58 +0100
                                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 21:20 -0500
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 01:46 -0800
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 04:43 -0600
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 16:45 +0100
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 08:19 -0800
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:13 -0600
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:15 -0800
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 18:07 -0500
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 16:21 -0800
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 01:43 +0100
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 23:55 -0800
                                      Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-30 10:38 +0100
                                      Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-30 11:12 +0100
                                        Re: GPL anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 13:14 +0000
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:40 -0500
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 13:24 -0800
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-01-02 08:19 +0100
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 15:46 +0000
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201112.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-12-30 20:26 +0100
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Spam@ControlQ.com - 2012-01-01 14:45 -0500
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:28 -0800
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-02 02:03 -0500
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:33 +0000
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 17:30 -0800
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2011-12-30 17:07 +0000
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-29 04:26 -0600
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:00 -0800
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:18 +0000
                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 12:49 -0800
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-29 04:37 -0600
                            Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:09 -0800
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:21 -0600
                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 13:53 +0000
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:58 -0800
                            Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 11:05 +0000
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 13:54 -0800
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 11:51 +0000
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:33 -0800
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:33 +0000
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 11:40 -0800
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:37 -0800
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:36 +0000
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 14:27 +0100
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-05 04:08 -0800
                                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 17:40 +0100
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 04:59 -0800
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-05 09:49 -0600
                                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 07:56 -0800
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 14:00 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 10:33 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 11:30 -0800
                        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 15:28 -0800
                          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:49 -0800
                          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth jyf <jyf1987@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 08:32 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 22:26 +0100
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-12-27 20:22 -0800
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-24 09:11 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:29 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2011-12-26 00:29 +0400
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Ian Osgood <iano@quirkster.com> - 2011-12-27 14:15 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2011-12-27 16:29 -0600
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-27 21:10 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 23:46 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-31 16:41 -0800
    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 20:50 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-01 18:14 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 21:33 -0800
          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-02 01:57 -0500
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-02 04:45 -0800
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 07:36 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 15:13 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 13:15 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-05 16:19 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-05 16:22 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 17:17 -0800

Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

#8383

John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> writes:
> mobile device.  What would make more sense is to develop a variant of
> Forth that embraced the fundamental qualities of mobile platforms such
> as being dynamic, event-based, highly asynchronous in their
> structure.

I thought Forth was already like that.  It has supported lightweight
cooperative multitasking almost from the beginning.  That's a lot better
than the callback-driven style of node.js and so forth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8340

On Dec 24, 8:56 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Krishna Myneni wrote:
>> And it's clearly Forth-94 (uses :noname). The file extension of .fth
>> plus the fact that it's an embedded Forth give some clues as to which
>> Forth system might be being used here.

> Forth Inc. uses the .f suffix, Gforth uses .fs, and VFX Forth
> uses .fth. These are the three most popular Forth systems available
> that can easily made run on such a cellphone.  The guess therefore
> is that it's VFX Forth. ...

The only non-Forth94 standard word that I see is METHODCALL ~ which is
documented as a foreign method call.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8342

On Dec 24, 5:11 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 8:56 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > Krishna Myneni wrote:
> >> And it's clearly Forth-94 (uses :noname). The file extension of .fth
> >> plus the fact that it's an embedded Forth give some clues as to which
> >> Forth system might be being used here.
> > Forth Inc. uses the .f suffix, Gforth uses .fs, and VFX Forth
> > uses .fth. These are the three most popular Forth systems available
> > that can easily made run on such a cellphone.  The guess therefore
> > is that it's VFX Forth. ...
>
> The only non-Forth94 standard word that I see is METHODCALL ~ which is
> documented as a foreign method call.

Interesting that the constants have trailing semi-colons.

I guess since the carrier iq software runs at such a low level then
gorth was a good fit - its small, fast, and self contained. Amazing to
think that people are using Forth to do this stuff, and keeping pretty
darned quiet about it, too!

Whoda thought...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8347

Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> writes:

> On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>> Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in
>> millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently
>> been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the
>> article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the
>> Forth community have anymore knowledge about this?
>>
>> Krishna
>>
>> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car...
>
> Ha... found it with a little more Googling. Below is a link to an
> example profile from a cell phone -- it's certainly Forth. Anybody
> recognize the variant?

pForth, its derivative or predecessor.
Or some other relative.


-- 
HE CE3OH...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8379

On Dec 23, 7:14 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>
> > Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in
> > millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently
> > been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the
> > article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the
> > Forth community have anymore knowledge about this?
>
> > Krishna
>
> >http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car...
>
> Ha... found it with a little more Googling. Below is a link to an
> example profile from a cell phone -- it's certainly Forth. Anybody
> recognize the variant?
>
> https://git.eff.org/?p=iqiq.git;a=blob;f=profiles/tmob-connection.fth...
>
> KM

Another example of why companies continue to keep their source
closed.  It avoids exposing their embarrassingly horrible code.

 PROPID_MNC #netkey@
 DUP 200 =
 SWAP DUP 901 =
  <etc.>
 SWAP DUP 260 =
 / bug: forgot a SWAP DROP (or omit the last DUP)
 OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR

Perhaps this Forth variant doesn't have OVER?!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8380

Ian Osgood wrote:
> On Dec 23, 7:14 pm, Krishna Myneni<krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org>  wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni<krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org>  wrote:
>>
>>> Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in
>>> millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently
>>> been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the
>>> article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the
>>> Forth community have anymore knowledge about this?
>>
>>> Krishna
>>
>>> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car...
>>
>> Ha... found it with a little more Googling. Below is a link to an
>> example profile from a cell phone -- it's certainly Forth. Anybody
>> recognize the variant?
>>
>> https://git.eff.org/?p=iqiq.git;a=blob;f=profiles/tmob-connection.fth...
>>
>> KM
>
> Another example of why companies continue to keep their source
> closed.  It avoids exposing their embarrassingly horrible code.
>
>   PROPID_MNC #netkey@
>   DUP 200 =
>   SWAP DUP 901 =
>    <etc.>
>   SWAP DUP 260 =
>   / bug: forgot a SWAP DROP (or omit the last DUP)
>   OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR
>
> Perhaps this Forth variant doesn't have OVER?!


Chuckle! Reminds me of some assembly code I ran into at work 
back when 8080 was current tech.

In psudeo code
   load stack pointer with "should have been" value
   RET

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8385

On Dec 27, 4:15 pm, Ian Osgood <i...@quirkster.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 7:14 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>
> > > Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in
> > > millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently
> > > been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the
> > > article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the
> > > Forth community have anymore knowledge about this?
>
> > > Krishna
>
> > >http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car...
>
> > Ha... found it with a little more Googling. Below is a link to an
> > example profile from a cell phone -- it's certainly Forth. Anybody
> > recognize the variant?
>
> >https://git.eff.org/?p=iqiq.git;a=blob;f=profiles/tmob-connection.fth...
>
> > KM
>
> Another example of why companies continue to keep their source
> closed.  It avoids exposing their embarrassingly horrible code.
>
>  PROPID_MNC #netkey@
>  DUP 200 =
>  SWAP DUP 901 =
>   <etc.>
>  SWAP DUP 260 =
>  / bug: forgot a SWAP DROP (or omit the last DUP)
>  OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR
>
> Perhaps this Forth variant doesn't have OVER?!

It's not clear to me whether the comments, such as the one indicating
the bug, are due to the EFF programmer who discovered the Forth code,
and then annotated it, or these were original author code comments. In
any case, it seems the code was written hastily. To be fair, I've seen
(and probably wrote) open source code that was hastily put together,
although I'd like to think it was never this sloppy.

Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8456

ByOn Dec 24, 3:14 am, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org>
wrote:
> On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>
> > Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in
> > millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently
> > been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the
> > article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the
> > Forth community have anymore knowledge about this?
>
> > Krishna
>
> >http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car...
>
> Ha... found it with a little more Googling. Below is a link to an
> example profile from a cell phone -- it's certainly Forth. Anybody
> recognize the variant?
>
> https://git.eff.org/?p=iqiq.git;a=blob;f=profiles/tmob-connection.fth...
>
> KM

Just wondering what would happen if one replaced the forth code with
an endless loop?

:noname begin again ;

If the CarrierIQ software is running in its own process then that
would be all that is required to defeat it. Of course, you need to be
able to access the cdata in which the code is stored...

It appears that the carrier iq software is written in C++ (looking at
the function prototypes) and has a Forth interpreter embedded within
it, presumably as a cheap way to run scripts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8531

On Dec 30, 1:46 am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> ByOn Dec 24, 3:14 am, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>
> > > Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in
> > > millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently
> > > been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the
> > > article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the
> > > Forth community have anymore knowledge about this?
>
> > > Krishna
>
> > >http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car...
>
> > Ha... found it with a little more Googling. Below is a link to an
> > example profile from a cell phone -- it's certainly Forth. Anybody
> > recognize the variant?
>
> >https://git.eff.org/?p=iqiq.git;a=blob;f=profiles/tmob-connection.fth...
>
> > KM
>
> Just wondering what would happen if one replaced the forth code with
> an endless loop?
>
> :noname begin again ;
>
> If the CarrierIQ software is running in its own process then that
> would be all that is required to defeat it. Of course, you need to be
> able to access the cdata in which the code is stored...
>
> It appears that the carrier iq software is written in C++ (looking at
> the function prototypes) and has a Forth interpreter embedded within
> it, presumably as a cheap way to run scripts.

Probably better to modify the code to return the indicator for no
network connection available. That way, it won't be idling, and
wasting cpu cycles.

Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8542

On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in
> millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently
> been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the
> article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the
> Forth community have anymore knowledge about this?
>
> Krishna
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car...

The CarrierIQ software uses pForth V21, modified for embedded
scripting use
in the following ways:

* Variable-length tokens (XTs) for improved code density
* Harvard-style separation of code and data, permitting execute-from-
ROM of
  the base system
* Multi-segmented code and data address spaces (more execute-in-place
support)
* An application-specific object system (METHODCALL)
* Restrictions on @ and ! (and the object-system equivalents),
limiting
  access to application memory.

Other modifications removed significant portions of standard pForth
system
(floating point, file I/O, etc.).

The VM limits any single call to ExecuteToken() to a fixed number of
primitives to keep broken or malicious code from dominating the CPU.

-- Trey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8584

On Dec 31 2011, 10:50 pm, Trey Boudreau <trey.boudr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>
> > Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in
> > millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently
> > been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the
> > article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the
> > Forth community have anymore knowledge about this?
>
> > Krishna
>
> >http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car...
>
> The CarrierIQ software uses pForth V21, modified for embedded
> scripting use
> in the following ways:
>
> * Variable-length tokens (XTs) for improved code density
> * Harvard-style separation of code and data, permitting execute-from-
> ROM of
>   the base system
> * Multi-segmented code and data address spaces (more execute-in-place
> support)
> * An application-specific object system (METHODCALL)
> * Restrictions on @ and ! (and the object-system equivalents),
> limiting
>   access to application memory.
>
> Other modifications removed significant portions of standard pForth
> system
> (floating point, file I/O, etc.).
>
> The VM limits any single call to ExecuteToken() to a fixed number of
> primitives to keep broken or malicious code from dominating the CPU.
>
> -- Trey

That's very interesting. Thanks for the info. Is there a reference to
some research on this, or do you have first-hand knowledge of the
Forth system in use within CarrierIQ?

Regards,
Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8585

On Jan 1, 8:14 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> On Dec 31 2011, 10:50 pm, Trey Boudreau <trey.boudr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 9:03 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>
> > > Link to interesting article below about "monitoring" code embedded in
> > > millions of Android and other smartphones -- the code had apparently
> > > been reverse engineered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the
> > > article mentions the use of Forth in the software. Does anyone in the
> > > Forth community have anymore knowledge about this?
>
> > > Krishna
>
> > >http://www.extremetech.com/computing/110061-eff-reverse-engineers-car...
>
> > The CarrierIQ software uses pForth V21, modified for embedded
> > scripting use in the following ways:
>
> > * Variable-length tokens (XTs) for improved code density
> > * Harvard-style separation of code and data, permitting execute-from-
> >   ROM of the base system
> > * Multi-segmented code and data address spaces (more execute-in-place
> >   support)
> > * An application-specific object system (METHODCALL)
> > * Restrictions on @ and ! (and the object-system equivalents),
> >   limiting access to application memory.
>
> > Other modifications removed significant portions of standard pForth
> > system (floating point, file I/O, etc.).
>
> > The VM limits any single call to ExecuteToken() to a fixed number of
> > primitives to keep broken or malicious code from dominating the CPU.
>
> > -- Trey
>
> That's very interesting. Thanks for the info. Is there a reference to
> some research on this, or do you have first-hand knowledge of the
> Forth system in use within CarrierIQ?
>
> Regards,
> Krishna
>
As the author of the changes and the current development lead of
the data collection engine at CarrierIQ I have first-hand knowledge.

If you have any other technical questions, please let me know.

-- Trey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8586

"Trey Boudreau" <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a53c28bb-c622-44b0-8a01-0e31256516f7@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 1, 8:14 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2011, 10:50 pm, Trey Boudreau <trey.boudr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
...

> > The CarrierIQ software uses pForth V21, modified for embedded
> > scripting use in the following ways:
>
> > * Variable-length tokens (XTs) for improved code density
> > * Harvard-style separation of code and data, permitting execute-from-
> >   ROM of the base system
> > * Multi-segmented code and data address spaces (more execute-in-place
> >   support)
> > * An application-specific object system (METHODCALL)
> > * Restrictions on @ and ! (and the object-system equivalents),
> >   limiting access to application memory.
>
> > Other modifications removed significant portions of standard pForth
> > system (floating point, file I/O, etc.).
>
> > The VM limits any single call to ExecuteToken() to a fixed number of
> > primitives to keep broken or malicious code from dominating the CPU.
>
> That's very interesting. Thanks for the info. Is there a reference to

Yes, it is.  Have those added to the current pForth or are do they remain
proprietary?

> > [...] do you have first-hand knowledge of the
> > Forth system in use within CarrierIQ?
> >
>
> As the author of the changes and the current development lead of
> the data collection engine at CarrierIQ I have first-hand knowledge.
>
> If you have any other technical questions, please let me know.

Technical?  Aw ...  That really puts a damper on things.

You know we are all "dying" to ask about why "Big Brother" is in our
telephones.  You know we are all "dying" to ask you if *you* disable
CarrierIQ in your own personal telephone.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8595

On Jan 2, 12:57 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
wrote:
> "Trey Boudreau" <trey.boudr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a53c28bb-c622-44b0-8a01-0e31256516f7@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...> On Jan 1, 8:14 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> > > On Dec 31 2011, 10:50 pm, Trey Boudreau <trey.boudr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The CarrierIQ software uses pForth V21, modified for embedded
> > > scripting use in the following ways:
>
> > > * Variable-length tokens (XTs) for improved code density
> > > * Harvard-style separation of code and data, permitting execute-from-
> > >   ROM of the base system
> > > * Multi-segmented code and data address spaces (more execute-in-place
> > >   support)
> > > * An application-specific object system (METHODCALL)
> > > * Restrictions on @ and ! (and the object-system equivalents),
> > >   limiting access to application memory.
>
> > > Other modifications removed significant portions of standard pForth
> > > system (floating point, file I/O, etc.).
>
> > > The VM limits any single call to ExecuteToken() to a fixed number of
> > > primitives to keep broken or malicious code from dominating the CPU.
>
> > That's very interesting. Thanks for the info. Is there a reference to
>
> Yes, it is.  Have those added to the current pForth or are do they remain
> proprietary?
>
> > > [...] do you have first-hand knowledge of the
> > > Forth system in use within CarrierIQ?
>
> > As the author of the changes and the current development lead of
> > the data collection engine at CarrierIQ I have first-hand knowledge.
>
> > If you have any other technical questions, please let me know.
>
> Technical?  Aw ...  That really puts a damper on things.
>
> You know we are all "dying" to ask about why "Big Brother" is in our
> telephones.  You know we are all "dying" to ask you if *you* disable
> CarrierIQ in your own personal telephone.
>
> Rod Pemberton

This *is* a technical discussion forum, after all. The other
information which you want may be found on news sites, e.g.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/28/technology/carrier_iq/

Whether you choose to believe the conclusions drawn thus far is
immaterial to the discussion of the use of Forth within the Carrier IQ
software.

Thanks to Trey for providing us the technical info. on the Forth
system specs.

Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8600

On Jan 2, 12:57 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
wrote:
> "Trey Boudreau" <trey.boudr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a53c28bb-c622-44b0-8a01-0e31256516f7@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...> On Jan 1, 8:14 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> > > On Dec 31 2011, 10:50 pm, Trey Boudreau <trey.boudr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > The CarrierIQ software uses pForth V21, modified for embedded
> > > scripting use in the following ways:
> > >
> > > * Variable-length tokens (XTs) for improved code density
> > > * Harvard-style separation of code and data, permitting execute-from-
> > >   ROM of the base system
> > > * Multi-segmented code and data address spaces (more execute-in-place
> > >   support)
> > > * An application-specific object system (METHODCALL)
> > > * Restrictions on @ and ! (and the object-system equivalents),
> > >   limiting access to application memory.
> > >
> > > Other modifications removed significant portions of standard pForth
> > > system (floating point, file I/O, etc.).
> > >
> > > The VM limits any single call to ExecuteToken() to a fixed number of
> > > primitives to keep broken or malicious code from dominating the CPU.
>
> > That's very interesting. Thanks for the info. Is there a reference to
>
> Yes, it is.  Have those added to the current pForth or are do they remain
> proprietary?
>
The CIQ versions of the pForth source have changed in other ways
(source
layout and symbol renaming to manage library name space collisions),
making
back-porting the changes to pForth more involved than just diff-and-
patch.

The real problem lies with doing a proper job of integrating the
changes
into the pForth sources.  You'd probably want the ability to compile-
time
enable each of the new features, as they have a non-zero run-time
performance
cost, and the variable-length token change makes the pre-compiled
dictionaries binary-incompatible in both directions.  I do not have
the
time to do it myself, but if a pForth maintainer wanted to do it I'd
lend
my support.

> > > [...] do you have first-hand knowledge of the
> > > Forth system in use within CarrierIQ?
>
> > As the author of the changes and the current development lead of
> > the data collection engine at CarrierIQ I have first-hand knowledge.
>
> > If you have any other technical questions, please let me know.
>
> Technical?  Aw ...  That really puts a damper on things.
>
When I asked for CIQ's permission to reply I only asked about
technical
questions :-)

> You know we are all "dying" to ask about why "Big Brother" is in our
> telephones.
>
I'll treat that as a technical question.  From a systems management
point of view you can look a cellular network two ways: inside-out
or outside-in.  These two orientations provide different but
complementary data sets with which to work.  The carriers have lots
of inside-out data by way of networking gear.  The outside-in data
historically came from a small fleet of panel vans with a million
dollars worth of gear in them performing drive testing.  Unfortunately
such a van can't go everywhere (inside buildings, over green spaces,
etc.)

To get a true picture of the network from the outside in you need to
instrument the user equipment.

> You know we are all "dying" to ask you if *you* disable CarrierIQ in
> your own personal telephone.
>
Ok, ok, one freebie non-technical question :-)  No, I don't disable
it.
Several years back I actually waited to buy a new cell phone that had
CIQ software in it, with the specific purpose of having it
operational.

> Rod Pemberton

-- Trey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8675

Trey Boudreau wrote:
>> You know we are all "dying" to ask about why "Big Brother" is in our
>> telephones.
>>
> I'll treat that as a technical question.  From a systems management
> point of view you can look a cellular network two ways: inside-out
> or outside-in.  These two orientations provide different but
> complementary data sets with which to work.  The carriers have lots
> of inside-out data by way of networking gear.  The outside-in data
> historically came from a small fleet of panel vans with a million
> dollars worth of gear in them performing drive testing.  Unfortunately
> such a van can't go everywhere (inside buildings, over green spaces,
> etc.)
> 
> To get a true picture of the network from the outside in you need to
> instrument the user equipment.

The other question is, why has this diagnosis tool to be hidden from the 
user?  It's not that mobile phone communication is the only thing where 
both sides should have the ability to diagnose problems.  My DSL modem 
(a Fritz!Box) gives me very detailed informations about used 
frequencies, noise level, packet losses due to failed error connections, 
and it even allows me to tap wireshark on it to examine the complete 
data flow (which e.g. allows to analyze when you have malware in your 
LAN).

I would not mind at all if my phone could give me the same detailed 
informations about the state of the UMTS/GSM modem and the traffic 
(including a wireshark tap), but when I send that information to my 
provider it's either because I wanted to ("network sucks here, please 
fix it"), or because I allowed the device to do it, and then it's 
properly anonymized.

I don't understand why this all has to be hidden and secret.  Is this an 
Apple thing (the iPhone had Carrier IQ, up to iOS 5, where Apple 
replaced it with something else)?  Apple is notoriously secretive, up to 
a level where it can only be attributed to a mental disease - while I 
worked for Dialog, we weren't allowed to say in public that Apple is our 
customer, even though that was a well-known fact, because every tear-
down of their mobile devices revealed that the power management chip was 
from Dialog.

I think neither Apple nor the phone companies accept that the phone is 
owned by the user, that privacy is a fundamental human right, and that 
you need to ask for permission, not for forgiveness (many people are 
willing to give up parts of their privacy easily, but they don't like it 
at all when not being asked).  The discovery of Carrier IQ is a PR 
disaster.

A more technical point: Methodcall with numbers?  This is heading right 
into "Forth is write-only".  Please, when you do such a thing, make use 
of Forth's compile-time capabilities, use symbolic names and create the 
numbers behind the scene.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8688

On Jan 5, 8:13 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Trey Boudreau wrote:
> > To get a true picture of the network from the outside in you need to
> > instrument the user equipment.
>
> The other question is, why has this diagnosis tool to be hidden from the
> user?
>
I can't publicly opine, unfortunately.

> A more technical point: Methodcall with numbers?  This is heading right
> into "Forth is write-only".  Please, when you do such a thing, make use
> of Forth's compile-time capabilities, use symbolic names and create the
> numbers behind the scene.
>
We generally do use constants, although for historic reasons the total
size of the profile text (and hence the size of the Forth code) has
limitations that we occasionally reach.  They should not have applied
in this case, and I don't know why the writer used the numeric value
rather than a symbolic constant.

-- Trey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8693

On Jan 5, 3:15 pm, Trey Boudreau <trey.boudr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 8:13 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:> Trey Boudreau wrote:
> > > To get a true picture of the network from the outside in you need to
> > > instrument the user equipment.
>
> > The other question is, why has this diagnosis tool to be hidden from the
> > user?
>
> I can't publicly opine, unfortunately.
>

I don't anything about Carrier IQ's business model. However, based on
the recent events concerning cell phone privacy, and the recent
discussion in our side thread on open source software, it seems to me
that the envisioned metrics logging software is an ideal candidate for
open source software. Then, there would be no question of what the
software does, or what it is capable of doing. Obviously the business
model could then not be based on simply selling licenses to the
software, but of providing related services (software maintenance,
data storage, maintenance, and analysis, etc.). The data collection
profiles, tailored to individual carriers, would also have to be open
sourced. If such a business model could work, it seems like an ideal
solution for the businesses involved as well as consumers.

Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8694

On Jan 5, 6:19 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:

> I don't anything about Carrier IQ's business model. ...

meant to say, "I don't know anything about Carrier IQ's business
model..."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8695

On Jan 5, 7:19 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 3:15 pm, Trey Boudreau <trey.boudr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 8:13 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:> Trey Boudreau wrote:
> > > > To get a true picture of the network from the outside in you need to
> > > > instrument the user equipment.
>
> > > The other question is, why has this diagnosis tool to be hidden from the
> > > user?
>
> > I can't publicly opine, unfortunately.
>
> I don't anything about Carrier IQ's business model. However, based on
> the recent events concerning cell phone privacy, and the recent
> discussion in our side thread on open source software, it seems to me
> that the envisioned metrics logging software is an ideal candidate for
> open source software. Then, there would be no question of what the
> software does, or what it is capable of doing. Obviously the business
> model could then not be based on simply selling licenses to the
> software, but of providing related services (software maintenance,
> data storage, maintenance, and analysis, etc.). The data collection
> profiles, tailored to individual carriers, would also have to be open
> sourced. If such a business model could work, it seems like an ideal
> solution for the businesses involved as well as consumers.
>
> Krishna
>
This falls squarely outside of my technical remit, but I'll forward
the post to management.

-- Trey

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web