arachne-digest Wednesday, January 12 2000 Volume 01 : Number 941 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:21:24 +0200 From: Sergei Kolodka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Test Time/date "Mel Evans, Registered Arachne User" wrote: > and in the process discovered the time rollover goes from 1980 to 2099! > Somehow I don't think 2099 will worry me too much, I'd be a 158 years > old if I saw it! > Regards > Mel Yes, but how about Y10K compatibility ? <G> Sergei ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:23:33 +0200 From: Sergei Kolodka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Long filenames howto ? Bernie wrote: > Sergei wrote: > >> > Maybe Arachne should understood long filenames when launched > >> > under Windows 95, same as FAR do ? > >> > Michael ? In future v. 1.70 ? > >> > >> Maybe longfilenames should go away ? <My wish> > > > >Then any UNIX, Amiga, BeOS, other with long filenames should go away > >with their long filenames ? And how about CDROM's filesystems ? Go away > >too ? > > There's a small diffrence. FAT16 doesn't have LFN - it's a work around that > M$ has invented. And IIRC the filenames on CDs are 8.3. But that's beside > the point. > > >Thats not a solution. > > You are one of the few who thinks that would be usefull. To get the LFN all > someone (probably me in this case <g>) have to do is to recompile wwwman > under DJGPP (which also makes it useless for people running anything less > than a 386). There are of course a few problems with this (IMO the LFN > should be shown but not used - mostly since otherwise DJPEG and other > programs would need to be recompiled under DJGPP (still no luck with that > btw)). And there is another issue as well, the current code is written for > Borland C/C++ not GNU C/C++. > //Bernie Maybe you right. But do not forget, Windows is mainstream for now. And i do not like to use files with ~ inside of the name. But also i think that few different Arachne versions for different versions of DOS is not good idea. Maybe wwwman can check the OS before starting and work with different portions of code ? Or this can be done during installation. Lot of folks here work with Windows, and they do not need compatibility with 8086 processor. It depends from Michael's priorities to do it or not. Sergei - -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:22:09 +0200 From: Sergei Kolodka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: NEWS - INsecure web sites "L.D. Best" wrote: > Mel, > > Well said. > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:51:00 +0000, Mel Evans, Registered Arachne User wrote: > > Caveat Emptor! Let the buyer beware! > > However, according to network news this date, even legit businesses can > be dangerous. > > It seems this young man in Russia decided to hack into a music sales > site -- and he did it well enough to collect about 300,000 credit card > numbers. He then informed the store and asked for $300,000 American ... > or he'd both sell the cc#s *and* let the press know. When the store > didn't pay, CC#s started appearing on a website ... many [how many they > won't say] were posted for the world to see until the site was shut > down. > > They don't know who did it. They don't know how. [You can bet some > poor bottom-of-the-ladder programmer will be blamed.] They don't even > know who would have jurisdiction over the culprit should s/he be found. > > l.d. Cracking websites is not such hard work. Actually it is VERY EASY. (I do not mean YAHOO or something very big, like AV or Microsoft, i mean small commercial servers). I have two (after 4 month one door still opened) sites in my practice. I never tryed to crack something after that. Both of them running under MS IIS 4.0. One was shopping card which sell Zepter saucepans. Credit cards files was hard encrypted, SSL, but there was log file with numbers of cards (~2000 numbers), addresses, names, phones, PINs in pure unencrypted text. I do not need them, but anyway.... (yeah, i'm rude person, but i do not want to steal money, i prefer that peoples give me money and don't wish to take them back). I still have that numbers... Anyone purchase Zepter online near 6 months ago ? Second was site of some department of EC. It was in french, so i do not know about what it is. I wrote mail to admin, got no answer and after 4 months i still have root permissions at them. Crazy idiot this admin, i can say... All this i did after reading one article at security- dedicated site (L0pht if someone need to know). It take almoust 20 minutes for both. Security hole was found with oneword request via AltaVista. Moral: do not believe in SSL, shop can hold numbers at server unencripted. Sergei - -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:42:14 -0500 From: Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re3: Secure web sites Sam Heywood wrote: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:11:04 -0500, Roger Turk wrote: > ALPHA ROMEO ALPHA CHARLIE HOTEL ... (etc.) > This is the PUBLIC KEY. Everyone who received the message received the > Public Key. The people to whom the message was intended would pull out their Why should the transmitting station broadcast the PUBLIC KEY? The reference numbers for each specific set of instructions for the ciphering gear setup for any given date/time group should have been previously provided to all operators during the pre-mission briefing. In case a code book and a ciphering machine were compromised, the enemy would be able to exploit such captured material to his maximum advantage simply by setting it up in accordance with all the hints freely provided in the PUBLIC KEY that is being broadcast in the clear. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Sam, What does "ALPHA" tell you? What "hints" are in "ALPHA?" If you can make something of it other than a name for a Greek letter and the phonetic for the letter "A" then all the more power to you. But, if this is in the first line of an encrypted message, and you have the PRIVATE KEY, the PRIVATE KEY will tell you how to assemble the first rotor in the encrypting/decrypting machine. Without the PRIVATE KEY, "ALPHA" is meaningless. The same with "ROMEO," "ALPHA," "CHARLIE," "HOTEL" ... The second "ALPHA" together with the PRIVATE KEY would tell you how to assemble the third rotor, and, more than likely, it would be entirely different than the assembly of the first "ALPHA." *ALL* encrypted messages may (more likely) have been encrypted with different rotor assemblies. Therefore, the sender has to let the receiver know how the rotors are assembled for *each* message. Having all encrypted messages encrypted with the same rotor setup is asking for nothing but trouble. *ALL* units don't have every PRIVATE KEY. Front line units that are subject to capture have only the minimum number of PRIVATE KEYS necessary to perform their task. Rear elements and commanders have a larger set of PRIVATE KEYS, and so on. There are procedures in place in case there is compromise or possible compromise. I hope that this answers your concerns. Roger Turk Tucson, Arizona USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:08:9= -700 From: "C. Brouerius van Nidek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: memory managment Thanks for all the informative info about above subject by several list members. As owner of an 8088 machine I wonder whether I can also use the UMB for some of my programs or is that only possible on 286 and higher machines? Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open Windows. Net-Tamer V 1.11 Beta PT - Registered ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:25:13 -0400 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re3: Secure web sites On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:42:14 -0500, Roger Turk wrote: > Sam Heywood wrote: > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:11:04 -0500, Roger Turk wrote: >> ALPHA ROMEO ALPHA CHARLIE HOTEL ... (etc.) >> This is the PUBLIC KEY. Everyone who received the message received the >> Public Key. The people to whom the message was intended would pull out > their > Why should the transmitting station broadcast the PUBLIC KEY? The reference > numbers for each specific set of instructions for the ciphering gear setup > for any given date/time group should have been previously provided to all > operators during the pre-mission briefing. In case a code book and a > ciphering machine were compromised, the enemy would be able to exploit > such captured material to his maximum advantage simply by setting it up in > accordance with all the hints freely provided in the PUBLIC KEY that is being > broadcast in the clear. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Sam, > What does "ALPHA" tell you? What "hints" are in "ALPHA?" If you can make > something of it other than a name for a Greek letter and the phonetic for the > letter "A" then all the more power to you. If a code book were captured or otherwise compromised, then the enemy would have the PRIVATE KEY. Once in possession of the PRIVATE KEY, then the PUBLIC KEY would make perfect sense to the enemy. "ALPHA" and the phonetics that follow, do not tell me anything, but if I had the code book I would probably be able to figure out how to set up the ciphering gears and wheels. For that reason, I cannot understand why the PUBLIC KEY would be transmitted in the clear. It would make much more sense to simply provide instructions in a pre-mission briefing as to how to apply different ordering schemes to the ciphering wheels and gears depending on the date/time group of the message. > But, if this is in the first line of an encrypted message, and you have the > PRIVATE KEY, the PRIVATE KEY will tell you how to assemble the first rotor in > the encrypting/decrypting machine. Without the PRIVATE KEY, "ALPHA" is > meaningless. Yes, it is indeed meaningless to one who does not have the PRIVATE KEY. If an enemy were to come into possession of the PRIVATE KEY, even this key might not be very helpful to him unless he also had the so-called PUBLIC KEY. Therefore, to provide for a higher level of security, there should be no PUBLIC KEY. Communicators being deployed into the operational area should simply commit to memory some instructions concerning how the ciphering wheels are to be re-arranged according to the date/time group. Under this kind of system, the code might remain unbroken unless the enemy should capture a ciphering machine and a code book and a communicator who could be coerced into cooperating. > The same with "ROMEO," "ALPHA," "CHARLIE," "HOTEL" ... > The second "ALPHA" together with the PRIVATE KEY would tell you how to > assemble the third rotor, and, more than likely, it would be entirely > different than the assembly of the first "ALPHA." > *ALL* encrypted messages may (more likely) have been encrypted with > different rotor assemblies. Therefore, the sender has to let the receiver > know how the rotors are assembled for *each* message. Having all encrypted > messages encrypted with the same rotor setup is asking for nothing but > trouble. Of course I agree. The receiver must know how to assemble the rotors for *each* message, and both the sender and receiver should use a different assembly for each message. To accomplish this, there should be a different scheme for the rotor assemblies for each date/time frame. The different setups should be memorized prior to deployment. The different setup arrangements could be recalled in accordance with the aid of an easy to memorize secret rhyme or anagram. Hence, no need for broadcasting a PUBLIC KEY. > *ALL* units don't have every PRIVATE KEY. Front line units that are subject > to capture have only the minimum number of PRIVATE KEYS necessary to perform > their task. Rear elements and commanders have a larger set of PRIVATE KEYS, > and so on. There are procedures in place in case there is compromise or > possible compromise. That is indeed the way things ought to be. > I hope that this answers your concerns. I think i'm beginning to understand the system better. Thanx. Sam Heywood > Roger Turk > Tucson, Arizona USA - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Alternative WWW Browser ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 07:30:57 +0100 From: Jan Lentfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Arachne Email Inbox problem Hi there, I am new to this list and to Arachne. I really like the software and hope you guys can help me with the following problem: I use Arachne mainly as an email client. Dial up and downloading of emails works great. But when I trie to open the "INBOX" I encounter the following message: "Cannot create index file MAIL\$IDX$cnm.IDX, aborting". I can't read my new messages :-(. The funny thing is the emails have been donwloaded correctly. If I move the *.CNM messages to another folder in MAIL and rename the extension to *.MES I can read them. I can also read them using pmail. Can you help me with that INBOX problem? Thanks in advance, Jan PS.: My Setup: Toshiba T2200SX, 4MB RAM, 60MB HD, VGA DR DOS 7.03 (latest I think) - -- Jan Lentfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://welcome.to/MountainbikeHQ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:07:35 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: Re: memory managment Hi "C. Brouerius van Nidek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CN> As owner of an 8088 machine I wonder whether I can also use the UMB for CN> some of my programs or is that only possible on 286 and higher machines? No ... sorry HMA availanle with 286 and up, and UMB usually with 386+. (Some 286 with NEAT chipset can also use UMBs) CU, Ricsi - -- Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.} - -=> About as useful as an Ashtray on a Motorbike! <=- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:14:09 +0100 From: "Rebel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: test file It is ok with MS Outlook Express 5 Rebel Programozasi segedletek, hardware-software ismertetok: http://thot.banki.hu/doksi - ----- Original Message ----- From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 8:17 PM Subject: test file > * These files were sent from Arachne, WWW browser for DOS. > * If your e-mail client has problems with decoding of > * this message, please contact your system administrator. > > -- Arachne V1.50;s.r.c., NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://home.arachne.cz/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:41:09 -0800 From: "Jim Varnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Secure web sites Hey Folks.... This has been a great thread. As a digest reader I'm afraid my response may be a little late. I have combined quotes from a few posts while maintaining proper context. I hope this isn't considered poor practice. > Sam Heywood wrote: > The type of system used by SSL and RSA has the advantage of not requiring > any method for secure transmission of any key or code book. For this reason, > I cannot understand how RSA or SSL could possibly meet any high standard for > security. >> Gregory J. Feig responded: >> Sam .......we shipped those type of documents by accountability armed >> couriers.....nowdays, YOU, with your encryption program, generate >> your private key, and you NEVER send it anywhere...at the same time, >> you generate your public key, and you send that....... > Later, Sam Heywood asked: > Why should the transmitting station broadcast the PUBLIC KEY? After reading posts regarding Enigma alongside PGP/RSA/SSL I think the terms PUBLIC KEY and PRIVATE KEY are taking on different meanings depending on the particular encryption technique discussed. To Sam's first point: One point to remember is that Asymmetrical encryption (i.e. SSL, RSA) is ONE WAY. If I am sending a message to Sam, 'my' PUBLIC KEY and PRIVATE KEY are out of the picture.....never used....useless. I will encrypt the message with Sam's PUBLIC KEY.....Sam, and ONLY Sam, can decrypt it with 'his' PRIVATE KEY.....Done. If Sam wants to reply to me, 'his' PUBLIC/PRIVATE KEY set are useless. He must encrypt the reply with 'my' PUBLIC KEY so that I can decrypt it with 'my' PRIVATE KEY. We can carry on an encrypted exchange ONLY if we BOTH have generated key sets and make our PUBLIC KEYS known to each other. I suspect the first thing that happens in an SSL session is that both computers exchange PUBLIC KEYS. As to how security can be maintained through such a system. Well the function that is used to generate the keys is designed so that the PRIVATE KEY cannot in any way be determined by examining the PUBLIC KEY. So any message I encrypt with someone's PUBLIC KEY cannot be 'broken' by anyone else with that PUBLIC KEY. Only the receiver can decrypt it with their PRIVATE KEY. As far as the nuts and bolts of the function, well there's lot's written about what goes on under the hood and I think the suggestion regarding DR.DOBBS is a good one. It's pretty interesting when you realize that the source code (with comments) is freely available for PGP and it's key generator. Free for all to examine and reverse engineer. Still there is no compromise to security. Even with a full and deep understanding of the algorithm, the PRIVATE KEY can't be broken (other than to brute force it.....but you don't need the source code to do that just lots of money, equipment and time). To Gregy's point: I'm not sure if I get what your saying. If Sam is at the receiving end of those documents (once sent by courier) then yes he would send his PUBLIC KEY. If he is the sender of the documents, he would not send any key, he would use the PUBLIC KEY of the intended redipient. And finally to Sam's last question which was: > Why should the transmitting station broadcast the PUBLIC KEY? Only if the transmitting station wanted a Reply. At least for SSL/PGP/RSA. For Enigma the term PUBLIC KEY may be used differently. In the SSL/RSA sense, The 'Central Station' could not provide secure communications TO it's field agents by sending it's PUBLIC KEY. That would only guarentee secure communications FROM it's field agents. But I believe Enigma falls under the cloak of Symmetrical encryption. Closer to OTP. The problem of getting new wheel configurations to the field agents without resorting to couriers must have been the hardest thing to do. I can't imagine dual-key asymmetrical encryption being useful before the advent of computers due to the math intensive nature of the process. Question for the Enigma folks....If you knew the wheel settings used to encrypt a message, could you then decrypt it? If so then Enigma is Symmetrical. If not, and a different wheel set is used to decrypt the message then that's one impressive machine (and I hope they kept the inventor's brain in a jar somewhere ;-)). I hope these comments help. Take Care... Jim. - -- Arachne.....Registered.....Life doesn't get any better!! - -- Pixel32.....Registered.....OOPS!, Life just got better!! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:28:48 -0800 From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: memory managment On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:07:35 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Hi > "C. Brouerius van Nidek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CN> As owner of an 8088 machine I wonder whether I can also use the UMB for > CN> some of my programs or is that only possible on 286 and higher machines? > No ... sorry HMA availanle with 286 and up, and UMB usually with 386+. > (Some 286 with NEAT chipset can also use UMBs) > CU, Ricsi Brouerius........that is correct unless your machine is an early IBM PS2....some of those 8088/8086 machines had a memory add-in to fill up the memory to the 1Mb level.....then you could use UMBs.... gregy - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:19:20 -0800 From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Geralds Monitor Problem On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:37:57 -0500, Roger Turk wrote: > Also check out: > www.repairfaq.org/sam/ffmon.htm > :-(((( ! Roger .......thanks, I'll look at this one too....BTW...my edition of Scott Mueller's is NOed..(i.e. must be 1st ed.) I need to buy a new one pronto... gregy - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:58:08 +0000 From: Charles Boisvert and Catherine Clinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Arachne under Windows Hi everybody, I've got 2 questions about using Arachne in a win95 computer. Maybe it sounds like a silly thing to do, but I'm trying to show it to students, and the equipment at my college is entirely Micro$oft. I'm also contending with a particularly unhelpful IT dept. First problem: is there any way to get a dos system like arachne to find the windows internet connection? In other words, arachne cant use winsock directly, but could some other system use winsock and provide arachne with the internet connection? The second problem is more of a win95 problem. If I use arachne to create a postscript file, how can I then send the postscript file to a postscript printer available in win95. There seems to be no obvious way of sending a .ps file to a .ps printer in win95 (typical microsoft). TIA for your help, Charles PS. Thanks for your help about the jerky mouse. Sergei recommended me to use DOS mode and learn to navigate with the keyboard :) Good idea, on both counts. I think I will keep 2 links to arachne: DOS mode for me, and win mode for the network. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:11:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas Mueller"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Cut and Paste in Arachne >Independently of what cut/paste facilities Michael builds into arachne, you can usually, pretty easily get cut and paste ability within and between virtually any dos applications but installing one of the several freeware programs designed to do this, for instance: dosclip snipper xpcmouse mousebuf See Rich Green's site for a list of them with evaluations: > Now where is Rich Green's site? You failed to give URL. Could any of these programs be used to edit a link in a Web page? Thomas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:40:56 -0800 From: "Gregory J. Feig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Secure web sites On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:41:09 -0800, Jim Varnum wrote: > Hey Folks.... > This has been a great thread. As a digest reader I'm afraid my response > may be a little late. I have combined quotes from a few posts while > maintaining proper context. I hope this isn't considered poor practice. >> Sam Heywood wrote: >> The type of system used by SSL and RSA has the advantage of not requiring >> any method for secure transmission of any key or code book. For this reason, >> I cannot understand how RSA or SSL could possibly meet any high standard for >> security. >>> Gregory J. Feig responded: >>> Sam .......we shipped those type of documents by accountability armed >>> couriers.....nowdays, YOU, with your encryption program, generate >>> your private key, and you NEVER send it anywhere...at the same time, >>> you generate your public key, and you send that....... >> Later, Sam Heywood asked: >> Why should the transmitting station broadcast the PUBLIC KEY? > After reading posts regarding Enigma alongside PGP/RSA/SSL I think the > terms PUBLIC KEY and PRIVATE KEY are taking on different meanings > depending on the particular encryption technique discussed. > To Sam's first point: > One point to remember is that Asymmetrical encryption (i.e. SSL, RSA) > is ONE WAY. > If I am sending a message to Sam, 'my' PUBLIC KEY and PRIVATE KEY are out > of the picture.....never used....useless. I will encrypt the message > with Sam's PUBLIC KEY.....Sam, and ONLY Sam, can decrypt it with 'his' > PRIVATE KEY.....Done. > If Sam wants to reply to me, 'his' PUBLIC/PRIVATE KEY set are useless. He > must encrypt the reply with 'my' PUBLIC KEY so that I can decrypt it > with 'my' PRIVATE KEY. We can carry on an encrypted exchange ONLY if we > BOTH have generated key sets and make our PUBLIC KEYS known to each > other. > I suspect the first thing that happens in an SSL session is that > both computers exchange PUBLIC KEYS. > As to how security can be maintained through such a system. Well the > function that is used to generate the keys is designed so that the > PRIVATE KEY cannot in any way be determined by examining the PUBLIC KEY. > So any message I encrypt with someone's PUBLIC KEY cannot be 'broken' by > anyone else with that PUBLIC KEY. Only the receiver can decrypt it with > their PRIVATE KEY. > As far as the nuts and bolts of the function, well there's lot's written > about what goes on under the hood and I think the suggestion regarding > DR.DOBBS is a good one. It's pretty interesting when you realize that > the source code (with comments) is freely available for PGP and it's key > generator. Free for all to examine and reverse engineer. Still there is > no compromise to security. Even with a full and deep understanding of > the algorithm, the PRIVATE KEY can't be broken (other than to brute force > it.....but you don't need the source code to do that just lots of money, > equipment and time). > To Gregy's point: > I'm not sure if I get what your saying. If Sam is at the receiving end > of those documents (once sent by courier) then yes he would send his > PUBLIC KEY. If he is the sender of the documents, he would not send any > key, he would use the PUBLIC KEY of the intended redipient. > And finally to Sam's last question which was: >> Why should the transmitting station broadcast the PUBLIC KEY? > Only if the transmitting station wanted a Reply. At least for SSL/PGP/RSA. > For Enigma the term PUBLIC KEY may be used differently. > In the SSL/RSA sense, The 'Central Station' could not provide secure > communications TO it's field agents by sending it's PUBLIC KEY. That > would only guarentee secure communications FROM it's field agents. > But I believe Enigma falls under the cloak of Symmetrical encryption. > Closer to OTP. The problem of getting new wheel configurations to the > field agents without resorting to couriers must have been the hardest > thing to do. I can't imagine dual-key asymmetrical encryption being > useful before the advent of computers due to the math intensive nature > of the process. > Question for the Enigma folks....If you knew the wheel settings used to > encrypt a message, could you then decrypt it? If so then Enigma is > Symmetrical. If not, and a different wheel set is used to decrypt the > message then that's one impressive machine (and I hope they kept the > inventor's brain in a jar somewhere ;-)). > I hope these comments help. > Take Care... Jim .......I agree....and....very good synopsis...... gregy - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:46:53 +0100 (CET) From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Long filenames howto ? On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregory J. Feig wrote: > petri.........I think I miss-stated my point.....what I wanted to > say was....we are in DOS...we don not need to worry about LFN.... > UNLESS we run into a situation where some site/OS/application is > pushing them upon us, and insisting that we acknowledge them, then > we only have to take them and truncate them any way we choose... > LFNs should not be a major hindrance to our using DOS worldwide.. *major laugh* that's what I think, too. If we really need LFNs, we might as well do a DGI module, that reads the LFNs so Arachne won't need to deal with them. LFNs sure are annoying under DOS....=P But anyhow, it doesn't even need to be integrated in Arachne, DGIs can be used for that. /petri ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:04:15 +0100 (CET) From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: HIMEM.SYS, are there different versions? On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Bernie wrote: > I just read a little in the "Programmer's Technical Reference for MSDOS and > the IBM PC" (it was downloadable from my homepage, I might have removed it > due to space problems on the server - look for a file called dosref.zip). http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/download/dosref.zip ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:25:57 +0100 (CET) From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re2: Secure web sites On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Richard Menedetter wrote: > PS: There is some kind of transfer. > The browser has a built in list of certification authorities. > Thos can sign keys from servers. > If the browser encounters a key which is signed by a known CA, than it will > proceed, if not, than a window pops up, and asks you what to do. Well, this "transfer" is totally different and has nothing to do with the actual encryotion. =) I'm not even sure it sends the key, it might only send key IDs or something. Whatever. =) /petri ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:26:27 -0500 From: Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Geralds Monitor Problem Gregy, (Gerald, are you copying this?) Tenth anniversary edition is now *3 inches* thick and needs luggage cart to carry it around. Visit your Costco (Price Club) to get it at a "reasonable" price. However, after reading www.repairfaq.org/sam/ffmon.htm, particularly their comments on the 9515, and what is needed to even make a 9517 display a halfway decent display, albeit off center, would not make rushing down to a store a priority. It appears that 95xx monitors are a fixed frequency monitor designed to work *only* with early PS/2's and their abandoned MCGA display mode. In fact, there is no mention of 95xx monitors in the tenth anniversary edition. If the ID pin configuration doesn't work, the 9517 probably should be placed in the recycling bin. Roger Turk Tucson, Arizona USA Gregy wrote: >>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:37:57 -0500, Roger Turk wrote: > Also check out: > www.repairfaq.org/sam/ffmon.htm > :-(((( ! Roger .......thanks, I'll look at this one too....BTW...my edition of Scott Mueller's is NOed..(i.e. must be 1st ed.) I need to buy a new one pronto... gregy<< ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:34:41 +0100 (CET) From: Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: NEWS - INsecure web sites On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Sergei Kolodka wrote: > Moral: do not believe in SSL, shop can hold numbers at > server unencripted. I believe in admins. That includes both SSL, log files with card no's, and encryption of log files. =) /petri ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #941 *****************************
