Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159496 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 317 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 09:54 -0800
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-16 19:41 +0100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 21:11 +0100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 02:16 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 22:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 23:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 04:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-17 14:01 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:09 -0800
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 20:45 -0700
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-17 22:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 11:16 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:00 +1100
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-18 02:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-17 22:47 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:10 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 21:29 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:56 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 23:15 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:35 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-18 17:58 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-17 20:44 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 08:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 19:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 20:13 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:26 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 18:21 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 23:32 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:34 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 19:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 07:25 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 10:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:25 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 17:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:01 +1100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 16:26 -0800
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-21 13:52 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-21 18:51 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 15:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-20 16:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 15:59 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:36 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 17:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 18:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 19:48 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 16:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 18:17 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 21:33 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:23 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:48 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:56 -0800
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 23:18 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 15:33 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 20:00 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 01:51 -0700
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:40 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 23:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 10:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:56 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:50 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-19 16:54 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 17:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-20 08:30 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-20 15:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-20 10:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 11:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:27 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 09:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:53 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:15 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 17:55 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:19 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:46 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-18 18:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 14:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 09:28 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:19 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 10:24 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 12:27 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 00:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 18:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:41 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 07:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 08:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:50 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 13:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:33 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 21:04 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:03 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 19:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-18 20:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 21:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 14:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:43 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 04:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-21 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:08 -0800
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 18:10 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:52 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-19 16:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:13 -0600
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-16 17:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 14:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-17 12:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 07:38 -0700
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 16:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 16:11 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-17 12:05 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:39 -0800
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-16 16:44 -0400
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-16 15:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:20 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-17 18:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 16:46 +0100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0800
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 14:43 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 15:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 15:36 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:30 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 19:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 00:51 +0100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:45 +0000
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:01 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 10:16 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:19 -0700
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 17:46 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:08 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-23 16:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:58 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:40 +0000
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:06 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:44 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 17:08 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:41 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 09:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-21 10:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:48 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-21 18:40 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 01:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 18:36 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 00:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 09:37 +0100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:17 -0500
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:42 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:52 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 10:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-22 17:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 20:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 21:31 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-22 17:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 14:41 -0600
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:16 -0700
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 17:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:34 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 11:11 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 18:25 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 15:15 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:28 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 21:46 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:31 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-18 13:56 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-19 17:09 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:55 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-22 14:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 07:15 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:30 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-23 01:49 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:09 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:29 -0500
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:30 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:11 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 11:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 14:04 +0100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 13:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-21 23:28 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-21 12:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 14:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-17 15:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 21:31 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-18 08:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 17:04 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-17 04:08 -0400
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:04 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:57 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 16:43 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1by4acwvo4.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #160103 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: > On 2/22/16 5:16 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: >> >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:12:16 -0600 >>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Linking to libc adds ~1500 bytes (mostly fixed overhead) to my hello >>>> world program. Considering all of the power that libc offers, that >>>> seems like a minuscule price to pay. >>> >>> If you do static linking you will see actual size. >> >> That's only relevant if your new program is the only one on the system >> using libc. >> > I don't think so... linking with glibc adds resident usage of 500kb to > program memory. If it only turns up with static linking (as you say above), then that's 500kb that's shared with other programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 11:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naff9v$6so$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160089 |
On 22-Feb-16 02:37, Melzzzzz wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 21-Feb-16 18:53, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> I have yet to see code breakage from changed syscall ;) >> >> Then either you're using the INT 80 interface, which is an order >> of magnitude slower than SYSENTER/SYSCALL, or you've never tried >> porting code that uses SYSENTER/SYSCALL (which aren't always >> present), and you've never had to deal with EBP not being restored >> properly and needing to retry when a syscall is interrupted. > > Hm. int 0x80 does not preserve ebp rather it uses it as sixth > parameter. Ah, it's been so long that I'd forgotten that; so you always have to deal with that, which I bet most asm callers do not. Do you also have to deal with restarting, or is that just SYSENTER/SYSCALL? > It is not that much slower on newer cpus. In 64 bit code, > syscall instruction is used rather then int 0x80. Or SYSENTER on Intel CPUs. Again, libc handles that for you, as well as the differences in calling conventions and syscall numbers. >>> If you do assembler , you don't wont 500kb of libc bloat ... >> >> Linking to libc adds ~1500 bytes (mostly fixed overhead) to my >> hello world program. Considering all of the power that libc >> offers, that seems like a minuscule price to pay. > > If you do static linking you will see actual size. My Linux system doesn't even _have_ a libc.a. Why statically link to libc when _every other process_ is linked to libc.so? It's already resident and you get all the benefits at zero real cost. Even static linking would only drag in the actual functions you called, and since they're mostly wrappers, it shouldn't be much. If it is, that indicates they're doing a lot more than just wrapping the syscall, and the fair comparison would be you doing the same work yourself. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 18:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160222182507.023044c9@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #160107 |
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:11:13 -0600 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 22-Feb-16 02:37, Melzzzzz wrote: > > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > >> On 21-Feb-16 18:53, Melzzzzz wrote: > >>> I have yet to see code breakage from changed syscall ;) > >> > >> Then either you're using the INT 80 interface, which is an order > >> of magnitude slower than SYSENTER/SYSCALL, or you've never tried > >> porting code that uses SYSENTER/SYSCALL (which aren't always > >> present), and you've never had to deal with EBP not being restored > >> properly and needing to retry when a syscall is interrupted. > > > > Hm. int 0x80 does not preserve ebp rather it uses it as sixth > > parameter. > > Ah, it's been so long that I'd forgotten that; so you always have to > deal with that, which I bet most asm callers do not. Do you also have > to deal with restarting, or is that just SYSENTER/SYSCALL? sysenter/syscall are not used in 32 bit code, not directly. There is aux vector that has pointer to routine that does that. Pointer is not always present, but one can check for presence. Never saw anything but checking return value for restart indication. > > > It is not that much slower on newer cpus. In 64 bit code, > > syscall instruction is used rather then int 0x80. > > Or SYSENTER on Intel CPUs. No. On both cpus syscall is used in 64 bit mode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naftks$3dd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160112 |
On 22-Feb-16 11:25, Melzzzzz wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 22-Feb-16 02:37, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> Hm. int 0x80 does not preserve ebp rather it uses it as sixth >>> parameter. >> >> Ah, it's been so long that I'd forgotten that; so you always have >> to deal with that, which I bet most asm callers do not. Do you >> also have to deal with restarting, or is that just >> SYSENTER/SYSCALL? > > sysenter/syscall are not used in 32 bit code, not directly. Some people do. > There is aux vector that has pointer to routine that does that. Yes, it's called __kernel_vsyscall, and it's located at GS:10; you can call the function that checks the vector, but enough people call that address directly that it'll probably never change. > Pointer is not always present, but one can check for presence. It's always there, provided you have a modern kernel. > Never saw anything but checking return value for restart > indication. It also deals with trashing EBP. Even just the handling restarts is worth using it; folks doing syscalls directly (whether INT 80, SYSENTER or SYSCALL) often forget that, which is a bug just waiting to appear during your customer demo. >>> It is not that much slower on newer cpus. In 64 bit code, syscall >>> instruction is used rather then int 0x80. >> >> Or SYSENTER on Intel CPUs. > > No. On both cpus syscall is used in 64 bit mode. In 64-bit mode, Intel supports both SYSENTER and SYSCALL, and SYSENTER is preferred because it's faster; AMD only supports SYSCALL. In 32-bit mode, AMD supports both SYSENTER and SYSCALL, and SYSCALL is preferred because it's faster; Intel only supports SYSENTER. Older CPUs support neither in 32-bit mode, and some older Intel CPUs have a buggy SYSENTER, so INT 80 must be used on those as well. __kernel_vsyscall handles all of that nonsense for you. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160222222846.06433d43@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #160128 |
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:15:58 -0600 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 22-Feb-16 11:25, Melzzzzz wrote: > > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > >> On 22-Feb-16 02:37, Melzzzzz wrote: > >>> Hm. int 0x80 does not preserve ebp rather it uses it as sixth > >>> parameter. > >> > >> Ah, it's been so long that I'd forgotten that; so you always have > >> to deal with that, which I bet most asm callers do not. Do you > >> also have to deal with restarting, or is that just > >> SYSENTER/SYSCALL? > > > > sysenter/syscall are not used in 32 bit code, not directly. > > Some people do. Never saw it, and I follow assembler forums/groups ;) But I guess some do. > > > There is aux vector that has pointer to routine that does that. > > Yes, it's called __kernel_vsyscall, and it's located at GS:10; you can > call the function that checks the vector, but enough people call that > address directly that it'll probably never change. Are you sure about GS:10? That's some libc thing? > > > Pointer is not always present, but one can check for presence. > > It's always there, provided you have a modern kernel. Ok. Didn't know that. > > > Never saw anything but checking return value for restart > > indication. > > It also deals with trashing EBP. > > Even just the handling restarts is worth using it; folks doing > syscalls directly (whether INT 80, SYSENTER or SYSCALL) often forget > that, which is a bug just waiting to appear during your customer demo. Never saw that. I assume ebp is not preserved in 32 bit code and I assume that it is preserved in 64 bit code. > > >>> It is not that much slower on newer cpus. In 64 bit code, syscall > >>> instruction is used rather then int 0x80. > >> > >> Or SYSENTER on Intel CPUs. > > > > No. On both cpus syscall is used in 64 bit mode. > > In 64-bit mode, Intel supports both SYSENTER and SYSCALL, and SYSENTER > is preferred because it's faster; AMD only supports SYSCALL. Yes, but I never saw anything but syscall in 64 bit code. > > In 32-bit mode, AMD supports both SYSENTER and SYSCALL, and SYSCALL is > preferred because it's faster; Intel only supports SYSENTER. I never saw example of using them directly in 32 bit code. > > Older CPUs support neither in 32-bit mode, and some older Intel CPUs > have a buggy SYSENTER, so INT 80 must be used on those as well. > > __kernel_vsyscall handles all of that nonsense for you. Yep. > > S >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 21:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nagkg9$a00$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160130 |
On 22-Feb-16 15:28, Melzzzzz wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 22-Feb-16 11:25, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> There is aux vector that has pointer to routine that does that. >> >> Yes, it's called __kernel_vsyscall, and it's located at GS:10; you >> can call the function that checks the vector, but enough people >> call that address directly that it'll probably never change. > > Are you sure about GS:10? That's some libc thing? Ah, yes. libc points GS at its Thread Control Block, which includes __kernel_vsyscall's entry point (vector AT_SYSINFO) at offset 0x10. If you're not using libc, you'll have to find it yourself--and that'll probably cost more than just using libc in the first place. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 05:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dip3rdFtp20U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159789 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C1FE3C45F6E@aca432ec.ipt.aol.com... > Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM00052C0B6D1C5E03@aca4282e.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Michael Black wrote: >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Questor wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:20:49 +0100, Morten Reistad >>><first@last.name.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> My mom was very careful with the web sites she visited, and still her >>>>>> XP >>>>>> machines had ~100 new instances of malware after a month. It got to >>>>>> be a >>>>>> quite tall order to keep cleaning. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are lots of "spelling trapdoors" out there, like micros0ft.com, > etc. >>>>> >>>>> Not letting your relatives run as admin makes cleanup a *lot* easier. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Someone locally, who is an actual system administrator, he set up Linux >>>> for his grandmother (I think it was) and kept the root account for >>>> himself. And he administers it remotely, just like at work on a big >>>> system. >>> >>>The biggest problem is that there is no documentation available for the >>>grandmother to know what she has to do to be a sysadmin. Most of the >>>docs available are addressed to a user, not an owner, of a system. >>> >>>/BAH >> >> Barb, you need to fast forward from ca 1996, when this was a valid >> complaint. >> >> Now you can pick and choose the materials you like. A lot of it is >> available on the net, and is well indexed. I usually just ask google, >> and get a list of at least a dozen good answers whenever I do. > > But you know magic incantations to acquire the answers. There is no magic incantation, just enough of a clue to use google. > Taht's the problem with search-based documentation. Nope, not with google. > There is no cookbook which tells a inexperienced > _system owner_ what his/her responsibilities are. They have no responsibilitys with desktop and laptop PCs. > The tasks required by a user are different > from the tasks required by a system owner. Not anymore. > The same is true with a network administrator and network user. Not anymore. > DEC's manuals split up these tasks with an intro for most of them. And then the world moved on and there are much better ways of doing things now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 05:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dimh0hF9epuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159666 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C0B6D1C5E03@aca4282e.ipt.aol.com... > Michael Black wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Questor wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:20:49 +0100, Morten Reistad > <first@last.name.invalid> >>> wrote: >>>> My mom was very careful with the web sites she visited, and still her >>>> XP >>>> machines had ~100 new instances of malware after a month. It got to be >>>> a >>>> quite tall order to keep cleaning. >>>> >>>> There are lots of "spelling trapdoors" out there, like micros0ft.com, >>>> etc. >>> >>> Not letting your relatives run as admin makes cleanup a *lot* easier. >>> >>> >> Someone locally, who is an actual system administrator, he set up Linux >> for his grandmother (I think it was) and kept the root account for >> himself. And he administers it remotely, just like at work on a big >> system. > > The biggest problem is that there is no documentation available > for the grandmother to know what she has to do to be a sysadmin. That is a lie. > Most of the docs available are addressed > to a user, not an owner, of a system. Most means that some is addressed to the owner. And when you have the net available, and the system allows access to the net as soon as it is installed, there is plenty of documentation on particular issues anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 13:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <cJ6dnYNKlcEjvFvLnZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159666 |
jmfbahciv wrote: > > The biggest problem is that there is no documentation available for the > grandmother to know what she has to do to be a sysadmin. Most of the > docs available are addressed to a user, not an owner, of a system. Got a Barnes andf Noble bookstore nearby? They probably have a 6 foot shelf of books for EACH of the most common OS's that are to some extent sysadmin guides. And, of course, you can look up the most exotic problem, error message or security situation online and get tons of articles about how to fix that (not all of them correct or up to date, of course). Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C1FD51EA3F8@aca432ec.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #159714 |
Jon Elson wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: > > >> >> The biggest problem is that there is no documentation available for the >> grandmother to know what she has to do to be a sysadmin. Most of the >> docs available are addressed to a user, not an owner, of a system. > Got a Barnes andf Noble bookstore nearby? They probably have a 6 foot shelf > of books for EACH of the most common OS's that are to some extent sysadmin > guides. > And, of course, you can look up the most exotic problem, error message or > security situation online and get tons of articles about how to fix that > (not all of them correct or up to date, of course). I also have a couple of feet of unix manuals. None of them are the equivalent quality of DEC's manuals. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 05:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dip4ftFtub8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159792 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C1FD51EA3F8@aca432ec.ipt.aol.com... > Jon Elson wrote: >> jmfbahciv wrote: >> >> >>> >>> The biggest problem is that there is no documentation available for the >>> grandmother to know what she has to do to be a sysadmin. Most of the >>> docs available are addressed to a user, not an owner, of a system. >> Got a Barnes andf Noble bookstore nearby? They probably have a 6 foot >> shelf >> of books for EACH of the most common OS's that are to some extent >> sysadmin >> guides. >> And, of course, you can look up the most exotic problem, error message or >> security situation online and get tons of articles about how to fix that >> (not all of them correct or up to date, of course). > > I also have a couple of feet of unix manuals. None of them are the > equivalent quality of DEC's manuals. And that's your problem, you stupidly demand that they do things the same way DEC used to. The world's moved on. Even you should have noticed that quite literally BILLIONS of individuals now use their smartphones and tablets fine without any manual anything like what DEC used to produce. BECAUSE THE WORLD HAS MOVED ON, even if you haven't. You're like the fools that refused to use these new fangled phone things because they don’t produce a permanent record of the conversation like snail mail does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 17:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <FISdnSW44ZjsPVrLnZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159792 |
jmfbahciv wrote: > Jon Elson wrote: >> jmfbahciv wrote: >> >> >>> >>> The biggest problem is that there is no documentation available for the >>> grandmother to know what she has to do to be a sysadmin. Most of the >>> docs available are addressed to a user, not an owner, of a system. >> Got a Barnes andf Noble bookstore nearby? They probably have a 6 foot >> shelf of books for EACH of the most common OS's that are to some extent >> sysadmin guides. >> And, of course, you can look up the most exotic problem, error message or >> security situation online and get tons of articles about how to fix that >> (not all of them correct or up to date, of course). > > I also have a couple of feet of unix manuals. None of them are the > equivalent quality of DEC's manuals. Yeah, I guess that is quite true! DEC and IBM manuals were QUITE good. Not always a how-to guide, but the info was there, in a very well-structured and consistent manner. I was able to hack up some standard DEC VAX drivers to run 3-rd party look-alike (but not, of course, identical) devices, as well as take some old drivers and update them to newer VMS versions. Never having any training in this area, the manuals had to be REALLY good. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C3474C03000@aca405fb.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #159861 |
Jon Elson wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Jon Elson wrote: >>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The biggest problem is that there is no documentation available for the >>>> grandmother to know what she has to do to be a sysadmin. Most of the >>>> docs available are addressed to a user, not an owner, of a system. >>> Got a Barnes andf Noble bookstore nearby? They probably have a 6 foot >>> shelf of books for EACH of the most common OS's that are to some extent >>> sysadmin guides. >>> And, of course, you can look up the most exotic problem, error message or >>> security situation online and get tons of articles about how to fix that >>> (not all of them correct or up to date, of course). >> >> I also have a couple of feet of unix manuals. None of them are the >> equivalent quality of DEC's manuals. > Yeah, I guess that is quite true! DEC and IBM manuals were QUITE good. Not > always a how-to guide, but the info was there, in a very well-structured and > consistent manner. It was consistent over all OS product lines because the same people did the work. > I was able to hack up some standard DEC VAX drivers to > run 3-rd party look-alike (but not, of course, identical) devices, as well > as take some old drivers and update them to newer VMS versions. Never > having any training in this area, the manuals had to be REALLY good. There were also "getting started" manuals which poiinted to the correct manual if more detail was needed. There were lists of what operators had to do, sysadmins, users, etc. in different manuals. What is required for PC ownerships is a book which addresses each of the necessary areas an owner should be responsible for. For instance, the operator task list would be backups, user administration, etc. The sysadmin part would cover security, network admin, updates and disk bit management. The first chapter would deal with what an owner needed to do in order to ensure security, functionality and data robustness. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 03:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dirk4rFimt4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159930 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C3474C03000@aca405fb.ipt.aol.com... > Jon Elson wrote: >> jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> Jon Elson wrote: >>>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The biggest problem is that there is no documentation available for >>>>> the >>>>> grandmother to know what she has to do to be a sysadmin. Most of the >>>>> docs available are addressed to a user, not an owner, of a system. >>>> Got a Barnes andf Noble bookstore nearby? They probably have a 6 foot >>>> shelf of books for EACH of the most common OS's that are to some extent >>>> sysadmin guides. >>>> And, of course, you can look up the most exotic problem, error message >>>> or >>>> security situation online and get tons of articles about how to fix >>>> that >>>> (not all of them correct or up to date, of course). >>> >>> I also have a couple of feet of unix manuals. None of them are the >>> equivalent quality of DEC's manuals. > > >> Yeah, I guess that is quite true! DEC and IBM manuals were QUITE good. >> Not >> always a how-to guide, but the info was there, in a very well-structured >> and >> consistent manner. > > It was consistent over all OS product lines because the same people did > the > work. > >> I was able to hack up some standard DEC VAX drivers to >> run 3-rd party look-alike (but not, of course, identical) devices, as >> well >> as take some old drivers and update them to newer VMS versions. Never >> having any training in this area, the manuals had to be REALLY good. > > There were also "getting started" manuals which poiinted to the correct > manual if more detail was needed. There were lists of what operators > had to do, sysadmins, users, etc. in different manuals. > What is required for PC ownerships is a book which addresses > each of the necessary areas an owner should be responsible for. Just not necessary for most PCs. > For instance, the operator task list would > be backups, user administration, etc. Not necessary for system with completely automatic backup to the cloud and just one user and no administrator like with most phones and tablets. > The sysadmin part would cover security, network admin, Not necessary for system with most phones and tablets. > updates Ditto. You either accept the update or you don’t. > and disk bit management. Done by the system completely automatically with most phones and tablets. > The first chapter would deal with what an > owner needed to do in order to ensure > security, functionality and data robustness. The owner doesn’t need to do a thing with most phones and tablets, just decide whether they want to have their system lock automatically after it hasn’t been used for a while or not and that is in fact the default even with Win and you have to actually disable it if you don’t want it. You don’t have a clue about how modern systems operate and keep dinosauring away manually doing stuff that the system does for you now. That's why you can't find the manuals telling you how to do that stuff, because the system does it for you now and you only need to look up how to disable that if you want to do that. And you can't even do network admin, and disk bit management on iOS systems even if you want to unless you jailbreak them and no normal user should be doing that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naagct077r@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #159930 |
On 2016-02-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Jon Elson wrote: > >> I was able to hack up some standard DEC VAX drivers to >> run 3-rd party look-alike (but not, of course, identical) devices, as well >> as take some old drivers and update them to newer VMS versions. Never >> having any training in this area, the manuals had to be REALLY good. > > There were also "getting started" manuals which poiinted to the correct > manual if more detail was needed. There were lists of what operators > had to do, sysadmins, users, etc. in different manuals. > What is required for PC ownerships is a book which addresses each > of the necessary areas an owner should be responsible for. > > For instance, the operator task list would be backups, user administration, > etc. The sysadmin part would cover security, network admin, updates > and disk bit management. The first chapter would deal with what an > owner needed to do in order to ensure security, functionality and > data robustness. There's one thing I'd like to see in a manual which used to be common but isn't there anymore: a section titled "Theory of Operation". But then, I'm one of those freaks who has to know how things work. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 14:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <VoqdnSSOu64J91bLnZ2dnUU7-RmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159977 |
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > There's one thing I'd like to see in a manual which used to be common > but isn't there anymore: a section titled "Theory of Operation". > But then, I'm one of those freaks who has to know how things work. > OHHHH, MY! The theory of operation for a modern PC, plus OS, would be QUITE a manual! In the tone of earlier versions of that, they'd have to get QUITE detailed, there is a LOT of technology, protocols, interfaces, etc. in a modern desktop PC. Phones might have a few less things in them, but still a lot. I'd guess such a manual would take up a whole shelf. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 07:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dj18igF1ut5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160122 |
"Jon Elson" <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote in message news:VoqdnSSOu64J91bLnZ2dnUU7-RmdnZ2d@giganews.com... > Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> >> There's one thing I'd like to see in a manual which used to be common >> but isn't there anymore: a section titled "Theory of Operation". >> But then, I'm one of those freaks who has to know how things work. >> > OHHHH, MY! The theory of operation for a modern PC, plus OS, would be > QUITE > a manual! In the tone of earlier versions of that, they'd have to get > QUITE > detailed, there is a LOT of technology, protocols, interfaces, etc. in a > modern desktop PC. Phones might have a few less things in them, but still > a > lot. I'd guess such a manual would take up a whole shelf. And no one would be able to read it and absorb it all anyway. And it wouldn't do a damned thing to help you use the phone either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 18:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31356422eefe04f1989fa3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160122 |
In article <VoqdnSSOu64J91bLnZ2dnUU7-RmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, jmelson@wustl.edu says... > > Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > > > > There's one thing I'd like to see in a manual which used to be common > > but isn't there anymore: a section titled "Theory of Operation". > > But then, I'm one of those freaks who has to know how things work. > > > OHHHH, MY! The theory of operation for a modern PC, plus OS, would be QUITE > a manual! In the tone of earlier versions of that, they'd have to get QUITE > detailed, there is a LOT of technology, protocols, interfaces, etc. in a > modern desktop PC. Phones might have a few less things in them, but still a > lot. I'd guess such a manual would take up a whole shelf. Consider that the architecture of a typical PC today is more complex than a maxed-out 370 and the notion of IBM-style documentation for it becomes rather daunting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 01:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nagdql019na@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160142 |
On 2016-02-22, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <VoqdnSSOu64J91bLnZ2dnUU7-RmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > jmelson@wustl.edu says... > >> Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> There's one thing I'd like to see in a manual which used to be common >>> but isn't there anymore: a section titled "Theory of Operation". >>> But then, I'm one of those freaks who has to know how things work. >> >> OHHHH, MY! The theory of operation for a modern PC, plus OS, would be QUITE >> a manual! In the tone of earlier versions of that, they'd have to get QUITE >> detailed, there is a LOT of technology, protocols, interfaces, etc. in a >> modern desktop PC. Phones might have a few less things in them, but still a >> lot. I'd guess such a manual would take up a whole shelf. > > Consider that the architecture of a typical PC today is more complex > than a maxed-out 370 and the notion of IBM-style documentation for it > becomes rather daunting. Given. Still, a "Theory of Operation" section doesn't have to apply to an entire computer system - and indeed, even in the Good Old Days it was often used to describe smaller gadgets or software components. And that's where I'd like to see it today: describing how, for instance, auto-dimming headlights work, or what kind of algorithm is used by a particular app. If I know how something works, I'm more inclined to trust it - or, more importantly, to know when I shouldn't. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 13:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dj1tb3F6tusU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160145 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:nagdql019na@news4.newsguy.com... > On 2016-02-22, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <VoqdnSSOu64J91bLnZ2dnUU7-RmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >> jmelson@wustl.edu says... >> >>> Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> There's one thing I'd like to see in a manual which used to be common >>>> but isn't there anymore: a section titled "Theory of Operation". >>>> But then, I'm one of those freaks who has to know how things work. >>> >>> OHHHH, MY! The theory of operation for a modern PC, plus OS, would be >>> QUITE >>> a manual! In the tone of earlier versions of that, they'd have to get >>> QUITE >>> detailed, there is a LOT of technology, protocols, interfaces, etc. in a >>> modern desktop PC. Phones might have a few less things in them, but >>> still a >>> lot. I'd guess such a manual would take up a whole shelf. >> >> Consider that the architecture of a typical PC today is more complex >> than a maxed-out 370 and the notion of IBM-style documentation for it >> becomes rather daunting. > > Given. Still, a "Theory of Operation" section doesn't have to apply to > an entire computer system - and indeed, even in the Good Old Days it was > often used to describe smaller gadgets or software components. And that's > where I'd like to see it today: describing how, for instance, auto-dimming > headlights work, or what kind of algorithm is used by a particular app. > If I know how something works, I'm more inclined to trust it - or, more > importantly, to know when I shouldn't. Sure, but its just not possible with something like a modern PC or smartphone and no owner of one would bother with the immense amount of detail in it even if it was possible. Yes, it would make sense with some aspects like for example sandboxing or salted hash codes with the storage of passwords, but that is much better done by other than the manufacturer now by those expert in the area being documented and that is certainly feasible to do and would be readable by ordinary owners of the devices who were more than the average dumb user if done well. Someone like Barb could certainly read and understand something like that. The problem is she stupidly refuses to use the net where it is all available right now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web