arachne-digest Monday, January 10 2000 Volume 01 : Number 935
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 03:07:15 -0800
From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oldies but goodies [was Re: HIMEM.SYS, are there different versions?
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 18:43:40 -0800, Clarence Verge wrote:
> L.D. Best wrote:
>> Clarence,
>> Just for you I went digging. Found original DOS installation diskettes
>> for DOS 3.01. Hunted some more, found original installation diskettes
>> for DOS 3.30A. Sorry, can't find DOS 3.31 for you ... :(
> Thanks a lot L.D.
> I'll hit the junk stores tomorrow.
Clarence.......I have the complete "Programmers Tool Kit" package for
Zenith DOS, which I believe is MSDOS 3.31.....and it includes ALL
the BIOS and DOS source files.......are you interested in something
like this......?????
gregy
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 02:35:48 -0800
From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thumb Screws
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 16:32:28 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> Gregy,
> Take a look at http://www.Dalco.com
- --------------snip------------
l.d. ..........thanks....I forgot about Dalco....and I also can get
them at my local hardware store.....I should have been looking for/
using them before, but I've been procrastinating....Hey!..duct tape
works......!!
gregy
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 03:20:41 -0800
From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arachne on Win9x
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:34:24 -0500, Henry & Martha wrote:
> Hello Greg,
> I get the Arachne digest, and you noted that information is needed on
> running Arachne in a Win95 system, in a MS-DOS window. I do that, and
> have no trouble running. It might be that the problem is with a
> Winmodem, which I don't have.
> If you could tell me what information would be useful to you in making
> up an information package, I will be glad to send it to you.
> --
> Best regards,
Henry...........thanks....I'll make up a little fill-in-the-blanks
email for you, in the next few days......the idea, is that some of
the list members mention this technique, and there are numerous
folks come up on the chat line with this, and some of them have
problems, which we cannot offhand answer.....as soon as I get my
win95/98 box running again, I'll give you an email, and then do
some experimenting.......
gregy
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 03:37:37 -0800
From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: no packet driver found
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 02:21:38 +0100, Guenter Bietzig wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 12:09:25 +0000, Michael L. Dawley wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I am wondering why the file ppp.log is not found on
>> a computer that has a successful connection to the
>> internet.
>> On this computer, a Compudyne, I am using Arachne,
>> but on my other computer, the COMPAQ 575, I cannot
>> get past the "no packet driver found" item to connect
>> to the internet, but CAN locate the file ppp.log.
>> I wanted to compare the two, and perhaps modify that
>> file on the COMPAQ 575 to resemble the ppp.log file
>> on this Compudyne, so that the COMPAQ could read the
>> IP address set to message from file PPP.LOG as per
>> the check box in External Dialer setup.
> Hello Michael D. and all COMPAQ's
> the above question was answered by Glenn and Clarence today.
> Now let's make some tests what's going on in the COMPAQ.
> 1. Let see what the COMPAQ does with your COM-ports.
> - Start your machine to pure DOS.
> - type 'debug' (it's in the DOS subdir)
> - type 'd0:400' CR
> you get some lines with hex numbers. We only need the first line:
> 0000:400 F8 03 F8 02 00 00 00 00..............
> ----- ----- ----- -----
> ^ ^ ^ ^
> ADDR. COM1 COM2 COM3 COM4
> Please check what port-address you get in which position.
> 2. Let see what the COMPAQ does with software interrupt 60h
> to load the packet driver.
> - Start your machine to pure DOS.
> - type 'debug' (it's in the DOS subdir)
> - type 'd0:180' CR
> you get some lines with hex numbers. We only need the first line:
> 0000:180 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
> ^ ^ ^ ^
> ADDR. Int60h Int61h Int62h Int63h
> If there are all zero in it, these interrupts are free, otherwise
> they are used by the COMPAQ :-((
> --------------
> The docs from packet driver:
> SYNOPSIS
> epppd [ COMn ] [ speed ] [ options ]
> Options:
> pktvec <irq number>
> Specifies the vector number to be hooked by the
> packet driver interface. The valid range is from
> 0x60-0x66, 0x68-0x6F and 0x78-0x7E. If this option
> is not used, the driver searches for the first free
> vector in this range (usually 0x60).
> -------------
> Because Arachne unloads the packet driver with 'termin 0x60'
> (see arachne.bat), I think Arachne does use that option (0x60)
> and installs the packet driver at Int60h.
> I've made the following experiment:
> I've loaded my VGA2hercules screen copy utility to INT60h.
> Then started arachne, connect to my ISP, she hooked the packet
> driver to my used INT60h, and could access the www.
> Then shell'd (ALT-E) to DOS, called my hercules tool and....... crash :-(
> Resume:
> Arachne loads the packet driver, if used by the machine or not, to INT60h.
> Regards
Guenter........Beautifull treatment and synopsis.......!!!!!!!!!!!
take a bow, .............
gregy
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 02:41:39 -0800
From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS-DOS 3.3? (was: HIMEM.SYS...)
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 16:50:35 -0400, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:36:38 +0100 (MET), Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Sam Heywood wrote:
>>> Ability to use partititions larger than 32 megabytes. You can create
>>> extended partitions larger than 32 mega-bytes with fdisk.
>> Can one create partitions under 32 MB with the "new" versions (ie. 6.2 or
>> DR-DOS 7.0x)?
>> //Bernie
> I would certainly suppose so. A higher version of DOS should be able
> to do anything a lower version can do. A few exceptions might be
> noted in some cases.
> Sam Heywood
Bernie......I confirm what Sam says.....I do it all the time, both
on my own boxes and my customers boxes......IN FACT....this box is
now set up with 1Mb OS2Boot Mgr...10Mb DRDOS boot part....10 Mb
MzDOS6.22 boot part......the two DOSs, of course, cannot see each
other, but they see their own partition whenever they are active.
gregy
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 02:55:14 -0800
From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: (OT) Win Printman (was Re: Acrodos)
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 18:21:41 -0800, Clarence Verge wrote:
> Clarence Verge wrote:
>> I DO think I saw something at simtelnet about running W31 without a GUI.
> Update on the above:
> I found it at: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~faber/Windows_No_GUI/
> I have made some initial tests and thought I should post this note to help
> anyone headed the same way. I downloaded the Win311.zip and my first
> comment is that this version was designed for Win for workgroups.
> No matter. If you want to try it with Win311 just ignore his references to
> all files required EXCEPT win386.exe.
> Using his system.ini as a template only, create your own new system.ini by
> extracting ONLY the [386enhan] section of your EXISTING system.ini. There may
> be portions of this you can delete - I removed all references to comports.
> Remember to save your existing system.ini AND make a copy of krnl386.exe too.
> I re-wrote his batch file to make the necessary automatic name changes and file
> copies on entry/exit so I could use my existing files.
> The first test worked well. I got windows to take me to a dos prompt.<g>
> The second test worked FAIRLY well. I got printmanager to load and exit
> without crying about the lack of windows.<G>
> The third test is now working as I'm in Netscape writing this so I haven't
> trashed my windows setup.<VBG>
> The next thing is to find out how to pass the required file information to
> printmanager.
> Any more ideas out there ?
> p.s. Those more interested in Win 9x will also find some ideas there.
> - Clarence Verge
You know...guys....if we keep this up, we are going to have a workaround
for every screwball idea that's been lumped together into bloatdoze...
..I'm not fanatically anti-MzSoft, and I appreciate somethings about
bloat, but I just don't believe I hafta stand still while it is jammed
down my throat...
gregy
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:04:40 +0200
From: Or Botton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arachne on TV and arcademachine [SCART]
I'll ask again, because last time I didnt receive an answer on this..
The plug on my TV set (which is using PAL as I mentioned) looks
like a circle, and inside it a hollow metal "stick". Is this the
SCART plug that is kept on being mentioned? If not, please describe
its visual appearence.
Or Botton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - "Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense."
- -----------------------------
http://members.xoom.com/dsdp/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:27:53 -0400
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: monitor Gerald
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 01:52:03 -0800, Gregory J. Feig wrote:
<snip>
> Some other Arachne Sharpie can probably correct me, but, as far as
> I know, the best way to do this is to "print to file" then load the
> file up into a full-fledged workprocessor, (such as XEDIT, which
> is available as a download APM from the Arachne Download page), then
> clip what you want to print to another smaller file, and print that..
The best way to "print to file" is to invoke the program PRN2FILE.COM,
1,386 bytes, 10-08-91, copyright 1987 Ziff Communications, probably
available as a free download from the PC Magazine site or from Simtel.
You don't need a "full-fledged word processor". Any good DOS text editor
will work. You will need to have a good keyboard instead of the kind that
is designed for Windows 95. Those idiots that designed it forgot to
include a "print-screen" key.
Sam Heywood
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Alternative WWW Browser
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 07:03:19 -0800 (PST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Lawson)
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
> If I should encrypt a message by using a public key, and then transmit the
> message to you, then there is nothing secret about it, because the key is
> publicly available. On the other hand, if I should encrypt a message
> by use of a private key, and if only you and I know what our private key is,
> then we can encrypt and decrypt secret messages to each other. A public key
> has no security value whatsoever.
The explanation in PGP is that messages encrypted with the private key can
only be decrypted with the public key, and messages encrypted with the
public key can only be decrypted with the private key.
So, someone can send me a message encrypted with my public key and only I
can read it by applying my private key. Anyone trying to decrypt the
message with the public key will get garbage.
I can also send out a message and "sign" it (apply my private key to an
authentication header but not encrypt it). Thus, anyone can read the
message, and can verify it's from me by checking the signature against my
public key. Nobody can *modify* my message however, because the
authentication header also contains a unique value calculated off the
content of the message which will change if the message is modified.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:29:43 +1000
From: "Ben Hood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arachne on TV and arcademachine [SCART]
On Monday, Or Botton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
] I'll ask again, because last time I didnt receive an answer on this..
] The plug on my TV set (which is using PAL as I mentioned) looks
] like a circle, and inside it a hollow metal "stick".
That would be either the 75 ohm coaxial antenna cable, or the RCA
"Audio/Video" sockets. AFAIK The 75 ohm socket is a PAL-only
cable/socket.
] Is this the
] SCART plug that is kept on being mentioned? If not, please describe
] its visual appearence.
SCART is like:
+---------------------+
| : : : : : : : : : : |
| |
/ : : : : : : : : : : |
- ------------------------+
.. which holds RGB in/out, as well as normal video in/out, and
stereo audio in/out. Its 21 pins (20 pins plus the shielding).
FWIW, Here in Australia my friend's TV had a SCART socket, which was
connected to an older-model VCR by means of a RCA to SCART adaptor.
Didn't we have these discussions not long ago?
- --
| .~. | From Hoody, now more mobile with a mobile phone
| /V\ | http://hoody.virtualave.net uploaded!
| // \\ | http://hoody.penguinpowered.com when I'm online
| /( )\ | ICQ: five oh one seven five one seven oh
| ^`~'^ | Carpe Aptenodytes!
Do people who believe in mental telepathy invest in AT&T?
| C607EUW | "We apologise for the inconvenience"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:09:51 +0100 (CET)
From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
> If I should encrypt a message by using a public key, and then transmit the
> message to you, then there is nothing secret about it, because the key is
> publicly available.
False; only the person with the corresponding SECRET key can read what the
PUBLIC outputs.
> On the other hand, if I should encrypt a message
> by use of a private key, and if only you and I know what our private key is,
> then we can encrypt and decrypt secret messages to each other.
Wrong; explained above.
If I give you MY public key, and you give
me YOUR public key, we can communicate securely: If you encrypt something
with my public key, only I can read it (only I have access to my SECRET
key). When I reply, I use your public key. Again, only you can read it
with YOUR secret key. This is the strength of public-key crytography, as
used in SSL.
Authentication is the reverse process - I encrypt something with my secret
key, then you decrypt it with my public key to see if it matches.
This public-key system is what makes SSL works. (of course, the mechanisms
are more complex than this, but this is the part you need to know)
The mathematics behind this is very complex, but it actually works. SSL
*is* safe, works very well, and IMHO should be implemented in every web
browser. =)
> somewhat less secure, but fairly good method of transmitting secret messages
> would involve the sender and the receiver agreeing to use a secret password,
> a pass phrase, or a certain passage from a book to be used as a key for
> encryption/decryption. No parties other than sender and receiver would have
> knowledge as to whatever string of characters had been agreed upon for use as
> a ciphering key.
a) It is much less secure if you do not have a secure way of xchanging
passwords, as is the case with SSL webservers. Besides, you're supposed to
be able to communicate securely per SSL without having to do special key
setup.
b) Only a secure group of people can use it - can't be used in public
systems.
> What I mean to say here is that I cannot think of any method by which sender
> and receiver can transmit secret messages to each other over public channels
> of communication with any reasonable level of security unless both parties
> have previously agreed on an encryption/decryption key.
You only need to exchange public keys with SSL, and because they are
public, it doesn't matter if thousands of people can see them - they are
still secure. Not so with secret-key systems.
Hope you (and the other Arachnids) understand it better now =)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:12:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Long filenames howto ?
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Rebel wrote:
> Do you mean that FAT16 doesnt allow longfilenames?
> It's not true: even under FAT12 ( 3,5" floppy) you can have longfilenames.
No, you can't - it's not FAT that stores the long file name. (or, well it
is, sort of, but not as a file name.) It's the LFN system (which is NOT
part of any FAT specification) that stores the LFN.
But then again, you may put LFNs on whatever FAT type you wish, but FAT
still doesn't support it - only LFN compatible programs/drivers.
/petri
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:36:30 +0100 (CET)
From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arachne on TV and arcademachine [SCART]
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Or Botton wrote:
> The plug on my TV set (which is using PAL as I mentioned) looks
> like a circle, and inside it a hollow metal "stick". Is this the
> SCART plug that is kept on being mentioned? If not, please describe
> its visual appearence.
Wrong socket. It looks something like this (but smaller):
__________________________
\ X X X X X X X X X |
\ X X X X X X X X X X X |
\______________________|
/petri
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:23:42 -0400
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 07:03:19 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Lawson)
wrote:
>> If I should encrypt a message by using a public key, and then transmit the
>> message to you, then there is nothing secret about it, because the key is
>> publicly available. On the other hand, if I should encrypt a message
>> by use of a private key, and if only you and I know what our private key is,
>> then we can encrypt and decrypt secret messages to each other. A public key
>> has no security value whatsoever.
> The explanation in PGP is that messages encrypted with the private key can
> only be decrypted with the public key, and messages encrypted with the
> public key can only be decrypted with the private key.
> So, someone can send me a message encrypted with my public key and only I
> can read it by applying my private key. Anyone trying to decrypt the
> message with the public key will get garbage.
> I can also send out a message and "sign" it (apply my private key to an
> authentication header but not encrypt it). Thus, anyone can read the
> message, and can verify it's from me by checking the signature against my
> public key. Nobody can *modify* my message however, because the
> authentication header also contains a unique value calculated off the
> content of the message which will change if the message is modified.
OK, so I understand enough from your explanation so as to get started in
learning how to use this kind of system. Thanks. What I do not understand
are the technological aspects of how such a system as this can work. The
only kind of encryption/decryption techniques that I truly understand
are those in which both encryption and decryption is performed by a private
key known only to the parties to the communication.
If you folks could refer me to some other web sites that would explain the
elementary principles involved, I would really appreciate it. What I am
looking for is not "how to do it" information. I am looking for some
"how it works" information.
Samuel W. Heywood
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Alternative WWW Browser
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:01:08 +0100 (MET)
From: Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Long filenames howto ?
Gregy wrote:
>Clarence and Sergei......my wish, too....this was a stupid idea? or
>it was a brilliant idea?....and, while I wish they de-existed, that
>isn't going to happen....but, we can accept their inevitable presence
>with some restraint and sensibleness.......ala Bernie's answering post
>to this message......
Actually what I would like to have is the ability to add LFN in a standard
DOS program (easily, I asked a friend to go over a GPL source for code that
did this but he soon gave up). But since I don't have any LFN anymore on my
computer I don't care anymore. (Thankfully they are all gone - do you have
any idea what much HD space they waste?)
Now this sollution would only help those that run Arachne under Windows
(there are LFN APIs for DOS as well but they don't work so well - yet) so I
doubt anyone is actually interested.
> Right on.! Bernie.....and I recant all the horrible things I and
>my Norwegian relatives have always said about Swedes <V vbg>
Hey no need, we've told the same stories about the norweigans :)=
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:01:12 +0100 (MET)
From: Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arachne.....!.!.!.
Gregy wrote:
You ended your message with this:
>P.S. Bernie....don't give me any comeback of the IMHO type, either
Sorry, I can't write IMHO since I then would be lying to you. AFAIK you're
relativly new to this list...
>Ron......I love you, man.....of course...you agree with me <g> <g> <g>
>...BUT...as I pointed out to Sam, or Clarence,(or someone.??) I'm
>not gonna worship Michael....yes, he did/does a good job with
>Arachne.....but as he, also, points out, he was "just building upon
>the work of others"....and, AAMOF, Bernie has a big hand in what
>happens under the hood of this nifty little spyder we all have come
>to appreciate so much....
Not that I know what AAMOF is but I currently have nothing to do "under the
hood" (as for now anyway), the facts are that the only time that something
I did was shipped with the full Arachne version it was used incorrectly
(not that it's anyones fault, just a communications error between me and
Michael). (And pleaaassseee don't get me started about this one to many
have complained that the program was wrong even after I've told the
sollution several times).
To get the facts straight I'll give a short report (that is what I can
remember):
0. URL2HTM converts a IE .URL file to a HTML file (never included - but can
be downloaded from my webpage, rather useless)
1. APM.EXE 2 improvments, later one was implemented by Michael himself
since he lost my source the other was the one that lead to the problems and
have been left out so far. I've got 1 standing thing Michael asked me to do
for it, and 2 I've come up with myself. Can also be downloaded from my
webpage.
2. WWWMAN.EXE Smaller code - unfortunately I don't have the source for 1.50
s.r.c so I can't actualyl work on this one (less memmory useage) I've got a
few random ideas for this but Michael constantly trying to keep me away
from it <g>
Also a bugfix that another (former?) memmber of this list (Eko Priono)
already had fixed <g>
3. WIZARD.EXE Improved the findings of modems (after an idea from someone
on the list). Never added/adopted to a full version. (Can also be
downloaded - but it's output isn�t any good with newer versions).
4. X_LOPIF (graphics library for Arachne) Faster code (ASM optimizations),
currently only on my own HD (I'm awaiting 1.60 before I send them -
wouldn't want to be the responisble one for adding to the time before we
get it or corrupting it)
5. INSIGHT.EXE (I did promise to stay clear of this one but had nothing
else to do one day). A minor bug fix (regarding a string that's outputed
that's refering to mailman.exe the former name). Also when I compiled the
source without the Project file for Borland it resulted in a much smaller
code, and IIRC the settings are the same (I duggest you take a look at that
Michael).
Can be downloaded from my webpage (there's also a 386 version).
Not to mention numerous more or less wacky ideas that I've sent Michael and
problems I've encountered. For insance it's my fault that Arachne told you
that you're installing in a path that's to long.
M:\Backup\Dos\Internet\Browsers\Arachne\Arcn1xxxx\ was a little to much ;)
(Was removed in 1.50 s.r.c IIRC)
Others, S. Lawson (WATTCP) and Shadack (WWWMAN) for instance have also
helped (more IMO). But most of the job has been done by Michael. As long as
I don't have the full source (and contribute to it) I'm not going to state
that I've got "a big hand under the hood", a small if/when my changes to
X_LOPIF comes perhaps but that would be stretching it IMO. Arachne is
formost a webbrowser and sofar I haven't done anything that has to do with
that (and in fact only added smaller bugfixes or new features newer
something entirely new).
BTW Michael, "homeless" ain't doing anything that's speeding up the process
for me...
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:01:09 +0100 (MET)
From: Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Long filenames howto ?
Rebel wrote:
>Do you mean that FAT16 doesnt allow longfilenames?
>It's not true: even under FAT12 ( 3,5" floppy) you can have longfilenames.
Sorry, that's VFAT16 and VFAT12. I guess that FAT32 supports longer, the
others are only additions.
If you have Linux you can try and mount the same floppy twice - once with
"vfat" and once with "msdos" and the results will not be the same.
VFAT12 (and 16) work in the way that they store the rest of the filename as
a new file under with the attribs "directory" and "volume", of course only
a part will be saved in each of these files and you'll soon have multiple
allocated units which doesn't seem to belong to anything. And if these
files are removed using a utility/OS that only supports FAT the rest is
lost (until you reformat the drive).
FAT12 is in fact the most well spread of them all. I don't know if C64/128
supported it but almost all other systems do (ex. Amiga, Atari and Mac).
Since the systems that support FAT12 doesn't have LFN (on a FAT12 drive -
Amiga for instance has on it's own drives) this is easily proven.
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:01:14 +0100 (MET)
From: Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oldies but goodies [was Re: HIMEM.SYS, are there different versions?
Gregy wrote:
>Clarence.......I have the complete "Programmers Tool Kit" package for
>Zenith DOS, which I believe is MSDOS 3.31.....and it includes ALL
>the BIOS and DOS source files.......are you interested in something
>like this......?????
I would really like to see those DOS sources (and BTW does anyone have the
sources for Open-DOS? I lost mine). Gregy could you send them to me?
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:01:10 +0100 (MET)
From: Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
This is due to the fact that Sam sent this to two lists and I first went
over the SURVPC list... Some of these things have been already been
explained by others but some have not.
Sam Heywood wrote:
>If no one knows of a web site that explains how this system works,
>is there some one out there who can explain in a nutshell how this
>system is supposed to work?
Ok, I don't actually know how these "secure sites" work, but I can perhaps
add a little knowledge anyway.
IIRC the system used is RSA (Rivest, Shamir and Adleman). This system works
like this:
(looking in book...)
1. Choose two large primes, p and q, (typically larger than 10^100)
2. Compute n = p * q and z = (p - 1) * (q - 1)
3. Choose a number relatviely prime to z and call it d
4. Find e such that e * d = 1 mod z
(...all done)
With these computed the encryption starts. Next the text we want to encode
is split into diffrent blocks, these are all less or equal to n and named P.
To encrypt the message the computer does C = P^e mod n and decrypting is: P
= C^d mod n
The code to read this decrypted message is then (e, n) while we used (d, n)
to create it.
So the server will know that it was you that ordered a message to be sent,
since only you can make them. This message could of course be taken by
anyone listening, but it would be the same as the earlier one and I think
there are timestamps on them).
Of course if someone uses a key generator and your number got up then
you're in a little bad luck. (But this is not actually your problem, but
between the company and your bank).
And since the prime numbers are so high this makes it very hard to actually
break them.
If we increase the min prime number it gets even harder - and more prime
numbers are found than new computer power is made. Of course this can be a
problem if enough computers are used (as was exemplified with that if every
Chinese had a small computer and they all worked to break the DES code it
would take less than a minute) and if a very good program is made - and now
we aren't refering to coding in ASM vs Visual Basic but what the code does
- - it might very well be possible.
AFAIK PGP works in the same way. (But with larger keys which makes it even
more safe).
The RSA keys are longer inside the US (and as an effect the GSMs encryption
is stronger in Europe) so they are more or less easy to break depending on
were you live. (Or actually on what browser you're using).
IIRC I "illegaly" downloaded the US version of Netscape 3.04G ;)
And in a new mail Sam wrote:
>If I should encrypt a message by using a public key, and then transmit the
>message to you, then there is nothing secret about it, because the key is
>publicly available. On the other hand, if I should encrypt a message
>by use of a private key, and if only you and I know what our private key is,
>then we can encrypt and decrypt secret messages to each other. A public key
>has no security value whatsoever.
Only I can say that I'm who I am. For instance:
"Who of you is Sam Heywood?"
"Me!"
"No, I am!"
("Diamonds are forever" have this problem for James Bond and he shoots the
wrong guy because of it - but he isn't out to get Sam <g>).
What we need is some way to know who the real Sam Heywood is. For us here
on the list we are probably happy enough with the name and e-mail but
others might not believe that it's actually Sam Heywood. This is what PGP
and RSA solves for us, if we assume that we believe that it really is Sam
Heywood who is giving us the key.
>The best method of transmitting secret messages would involve only the sender
>and the receiver having a copy of a unique randomly generated key. A
>somewhat less secure, but fairly good method of transmitting secret messages
>would involve the sender and the receiver agreeing to use a secret password,
>a pass phrase, or a certain passage from a book to be used as a key for
>encryption/decryption. No parties other than sender and receiver would have
>knowledge as to whatever string of characters had been agreed upon for use as
>a ciphering key.
A phrase and/or single words are way to easy to break. Prime numbers are
needed to get it secure enough.
>What I mean to say here is that I cannot think of any method by which sender
>and receiver can transmit secret messages to each other over public channels
>of communication with any reasonable level of security unless both parties
>have previously agreed on an encryption/decryption key.
The messages aren't secret that's not the point. The point is to create
messages that let us know who we are talking to. (And with erspect to the
secure sites who we are ourselves).
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:10:05 +0100 (MET)
From: Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arachne on TV and arcademachine [SCART]
Hoody wrote:
>SCART is like:
>
> +---------------------+
> | : : : : : : : : : : |
> | |
> / : : : : : : : : : : |
>------------------------+
>
>.. which holds RGB in/out, as well as normal video in/out, and
>stereo audio in/out. Its 21 pins (20 pins plus the shielding).
I couldn't actually find any of my SCART cables but that's basically it,
not so much as a square perhaps and not as rectangual but more or less.
>Didn't we have these discussions not long ago?
Yes (upon I learned that the shielding was a pin), Or aren't you paying
attention? <G>
Perhaps this needs to go into a FAQ ;)
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 18:56:00 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Re: Secure web sites
Hi
"Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GM> You have both hit it "right on the head".
GM> IMHO, HTTPS is a lie.
GM> And I don't feel that Michael should waste his time trying to implement
GM> a "lie" into Arachne.
GM> (just my opinion)
Could you explain you're opinion a bit ??
What technical reasons do you have ??
IMHO SSL still can only be cracked by brute force.
So nobody succeeded in crypto-analyzing it.
But maybe I don't know the latest developement.
GM> Glenn McCorkle mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CU, Ricsi
- --
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
- -=> 4 food groups: fast, frozen, microwaved, and junk <=-
------------------------------
End of arachne-digest V1 #935
*****************************
