Re: Pentium error
Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Nah, don't worry: > 1) Linux has already a patch against it (2.0.32-pre5, soon to be 2.0.32), I installed 2.0.32 and it works fine, especially in avoiding the bug. If Linux would behave better when the virtual memory is filled there is almost no way left to crash it. > 2) Intel has been estonishingly linux-friendly (Linux went to their > headquarters discussing the linux patch, they mention Linux on the > web page they devoted to the bug) > 3) NT is not multi-user, it's sequential multi-user (and even that, badly). > I mean, you cannot telnet onto an NT box and crash an other user session > (hence sequential). Furthermore, IMHO, it doesn't need a pentium bug > to crash it. You don't even need a multi-user system. Think about Active-X controls, Trojan Horses placed somewhere in the file system. Torsten -- !07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH Fortune Cookie PGP Public key available -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Pentium error
> Umm -- isn't ^] your telnet client's responsibility? Err, I can't answer that decisivly but lets put it this way, I'm using Debian's standard telnet client which works with CTRL-] with everything else > Of course, since it's a mostly graphical OS (not many console > mode programs) telnet is pretty much a waste of time anyway. > OS/2 Warp has a telnetd as well -- same value. True... but it would be oh so nice if there was some easy way to remotely maintain an NT box without having to have a Windows box to run PC Anywhere from (or similar). GUI's aren't that great a solution over low bandwidth links. Adam. Internet Alaska -- 4050 Lake Otis Adam Shand(v) +1 907 562 4638 Anchorage, Alaska Systems Administrator (f) +1 907 562 1677 - http://larry.earthlight.co.nz --- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Pentium error
On Mon, Nov 17, 1997 at 11:48:33AM -0900, Adam Shand wrote: > > There is a telnet daemon for NT. I do not know what it is called, but I have > > seen it in use. > > There is a telnetd for NT (I have a copy lying around somewhere) but > unless they have improved it dramitically it has some... err, problems. > > Like you can't have more then one person logged into it at once. > It's not RFC complient. > CTRL-] does't exit. Umm -- isn't ^] your telnet client's responsibility? Of course, since it's a mostly graphical OS (not many console mode programs) telnet is pretty much a waste of time anyway. OS/2 Warp has a telnetd as well -- same value. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, StudIEAust [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Student, computer science & computer systems engineering.3rd year, RMIT. http://hamish.home.ml.org/ (PGP key here) CPOM: [* ] 59% The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. --Bohr -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Pentium error
> There is a telnet daemon for NT. I do not know what it is called, but I have > seen it in use. There is a telnetd for NT (I have a copy lying around somewhere) but unless they have improved it dramitically it has some... err, problems. Like you can't have more then one person logged into it at once. It's not RFC complient. CTRL-] does't exit. CTRL-C does exit, but crashes telnetd, for good. Another cool odd'n'ends. Adam. Internet Alaska -- 4050 Lake Otis Adam Shand(v) +1 907 562 4638 Anchorage, Alaska Systems Administrator (f) +1 907 562 1677 - http://larry.earthlight.co.nz --- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Pentium error
Carey Evans writes: > There was a Perl script posted to BugTraq that would search for the f00f > opcodes in a program, and a C program that wouldn't get noticed but would > crash anyway. You would have to scan all memory that is both writable and executable as well as the text pages to defend against self-modifying code. Not worth it. The Intel workaround is better. Is anyone working on a Debian package for the patch? -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Pentium error
Lukas Eppler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > New Pentium bug [snip] > This sounds like a "don't use linux" statement from intel. They don't even > mention Windows NT, which is a multi user platform, too. And why the hell > has this something to do with multi user systems? Is the mentioned code in > use with debian linux? There was a message about this just a few hours ago on this list. See: http://support.intel.com/support/processors/pentium/ppiie/software.htm> Summary: Any program can lock a Pentium solid. Obviously, this doesn't really make any difference to Win95. However, an unpriviliged local WinNT user or Linux user can bring down the machine. That's why there's a patch available for Linux to fix the problem. See: http://linux.dialnet.net/LMP/> There was a Perl script posted to BugTraq that would search for the f00f opcodes in a program, and a C program that wouldn't get noticed but would crash anyway. -- Carey Evans <*> http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/ gc "Trust Ivanova. Trust yourself. Anybody else - shoot 'em." -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Pentium error
There is a telnet daemon for NT. I do not know what it is called, but I have seen it in use. On 16-Nov-97 Philippe Troin wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:21:04 PST George Bonser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > >> On 16-Nov-97 Philippe Troin wrote: >> > 3) NT is not multi-user, it's sequential multi-user (and even that, >> > badly). >> > I mean, you cannot telnet onto an NT box and crash an other user >> > session >> > (hence sequential). Furthermore, IMHO, it doesn't need a pentium bug >> > to crash it. >> >> You are wrong in this. If I telnet into an NT box, place an executeable >> containing this bug in a an area I own and run it, the entire CPU stops >> cold. >> There are no longer any other user processes. The cpu STOPS. It crashes the >> whole machine. > > You'll have to explain me how to telnet (or rlogin or rsh) onto an NT box :-) > But maybe we can take this off the mailing list ? > > Phil. > > > > -- > TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Pentium error
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:21:04 PST George Bonser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 16-Nov-97 Philippe Troin wrote: > > 3) NT is not multi-user, it's sequential multi-user (and even that, badly). > > I mean, you cannot telnet onto an NT box and crash an other user session > > (hence sequential). Furthermore, IMHO, it doesn't need a pentium bug > > to crash it. > > You are wrong in this. If I telnet into an NT box, place an executeable > containing this bug in a an area I own and run it, the entire CPU stops cold. > There are no longer any other user processes. The cpu STOPS. It crashes the > whole machine. You'll have to explain me how to telnet (or rlogin or rsh) onto an NT box :-) But maybe we can take this off the mailing list ? Phil. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Pentium error
On 16-Nov-97 Philippe Troin wrote: > 3) NT is not multi-user, it's sequential multi-user (and even that, badly). > I mean, you cannot telnet onto an NT box and crash an other user session > (hence sequential). Furthermore, IMHO, it doesn't need a pentium bug > to crash it. You are wrong in this. If I telnet into an NT box, place an executeable containing this bug in a an area I own and run it, the entire CPU stops cold. There are no longer any other user processes. The cpu STOPS. It crashes the whole machine. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Pentium error
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:13:35 +0800 I wrote: > > 2) Intel has been estonishingly linux-friendly (Linux went to their -^ > headquarters discussing the linux patch, they mention Linux on the > web page they devoted to the bug) You should obviously sequentially read: Linu[s], linux, linux. :-) Phil. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Pentium error
On Fri, 08 Mar 1996 15:26:15 +0100 Lukas Eppler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There was a message in my newspaper this morning > (Tages-Anzeiger,17.Nov.97, Switzerland, www.tages-anzeiger.ch) > Which said the following (translated, my english isn't perfect) > - > New Pentium bug > > Intel has confirmed the Bug in their Pentium chips which was discovered > recently, with which a PC can crash upon the machine code "F00FC7C8". This > should apply only to Pentium machines which are running under a multi user > system (like Unix). There are already sold defender programs against this > so-called "F0"-Bug, which search programs like virus scanners for the > fatal code. > -- > This sounds like a "don't use linux" statement from intel. They don't even > mention Windows NT, which is a multi user platform, too. And why the hell > has this something to do with multi user systems? Is the mentioned code in > use with debian linux? Nah, don't worry: 1) Linux has already a patch against it (2.0.32-pre5, soon to be 2.0.32), 2) Intel has been estonishingly linux-friendly (Linux went to their headquarters discussing the linux patch, they mention Linux on the web page they devoted to the bug) 3) NT is not multi-user, it's sequential multi-user (and even that, badly). I mean, you cannot telnet onto an NT box and crash an other user session (hence sequential). Furthermore, IMHO, it doesn't need a pentium bug to crash it. Phil. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Pentium error
There was a message in my newspaper this morning (Tages-Anzeiger,17.Nov.97, Switzerland, www.tages-anzeiger.ch) Which said the following (translated, my english isn't perfect) - New Pentium bug Intel has confirmed the Bug in their Pentium chips which was discovered recently, with which a PC can crash upon the machine code "F00FC7C8". This should apply only to Pentium machines which are running under a multi user system (like Unix). There are already sold defender programs against this so-called "F0"-Bug, which search programs like virus scanners for the fatal code. -- This sounds like a "don't use linux" statement from intel. They don't even mention Windows NT, which is a multi user platform, too. And why the hell has this something to do with multi user systems? Is the mentioned code in use with debian linux? Original Text: (german) Neuer Pentium-Fehler Intel hat den kürzlich bekanntgewordenen Fehler in ihren Pentium-Chips bestätigt, mit dem PC durch den Maschinenbefehl "F00FC7C8" zum Absturz gebracht werden können. Betroffen sollen allerdings nur Pentium-Rechner sein, die als Mehrbenutzersystem (z.B. Unix) eingesetzt werden. Bereits werden Gegenprogramme gegen diesen sogenannten "F0"-Bug angeboten, die wie Virensucher die Programme nach dem fatalen Befehl absuchen. Gruss -- Lukas Eppler (godot) http://www.fear.ch telnet://soil.fear.ch: talk:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
