[HN Gopher] Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel rebo...
___________________________________________________________________
Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4
machine?
Author : segfaultbuserr
Score : 415 points
Date : 2023-09-28 03:45 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (retrocomputing.stackexchange.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (retrocomputing.stackexchange.com)
| ok123456 wrote:
| I knew this CPUID thing was a bad idea.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I find it humorous that the Windows developers felt the need to
| put add a "trustworthiness" section in the struct.
| hornban wrote:
| Actually, that kind of thing makes a lot of sense to me and I
| think it's a good idea. I've read so many stories about
| hardware with bogus ACPI and EDID data causing problems with
| Linux support over the years. It seems to me that Linux tends
| to treat hardware information as always correct, whereas
| Windows is far less trusting and has information about
| device-specific bugs. The result is that while things tend to
| work out-of-the-box on Windows, they require far more
| tinkering on Linux.
| threeio wrote:
| Is it bad that I knew that one without opening it? ... never mind
| I'll be over yelling at these young kids to get off my lawn :)
| [deleted]
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Troubleshooting was different when we came up. Just your wits
| and maybe some gurus you could call on a landline as backup. No
| fancy internet with tons of answers of varying degrees of
| usefulness.
| smokel wrote:
| You might have forgotten them, but there were also books
| printed on paper.
| ale42 wrote:
| As long as you had access to a library... When I was 14 or
| so, I used the MS-DOS DEBUG program to run step-by-step an
| executable that did something to change blinking to high-
| intensity background in text mode. After one hour or so I
| found the magic BIOS call... which of course was documented
| in the technical manual I found in the library one year
| later (because new school = new library with more books).
| z500 wrote:
| When I was a kid I used to have this Charles Petzold book
| that I learned this stuff from, it was basically my
| Bible. I don't have it anymore, I wish I could remember
| what it was. People recommend Code a lot, but I don't
| think that was it.
|
| Edit: it wasn't Charles Petzold at all, it was DOS Power
| Tools by Paul Somerson
| theGeatZhopa wrote:
| H4x0r doesn't need book. H4x0r try 4nd err0r.
|
| Books were just knowledge. Debugging was skill. At certain
| point in knowledge-gain, you develop a good skill and after
| that point, you don't need books anymore. Maybe from time
| to time. I still have a suse6 printed manual.. I can't see
| it in the cellar, but It've been HUUGE
| yetihehe wrote:
| But you still need some critical amount of knowledge that
| you need from somewhere. I wish I at least knew there
| exists something like assembler when I was 12. I naively
| tried to make some demos, but basic was not adequate, so
| I considered demoscene as "magic".
| elzbardico wrote:
| This is just macho bravado, and it can be fun, but
| definitely not the most efficient use of time for
| someone.
|
| If you have access, why would you debug machine code
| without using the reference manuals for a particular
| processor and OS and whatever else you're dealing with?
| You could spend hours chasing a "impossible" problem that
| could be easily be found in the errata for a giving
| stepping.
| [deleted]
| barryrandall wrote:
| FidoNet and WWIVNet were also pretty good places to find
| people to ask questions.
| keepamovin wrote:
| Ah, the retro-computing rabbit hole. Harmlessly divorced from any
| real-world consequences, but truly satisfying nonetheless. A real
| honey trap for nerds.
|
| I just had to click that _6 more comments_ expander
| switchbak wrote:
| I look back to the computers before my time - the PET's and
| such, and I think it'd be fun to play with them. Or maybe an
| old IRIX box.
|
| But a 486?? That brings back too many memories of blue screens
| and waiting forever because we couldn't afford memory and was
| thus swapping to disk. Still too soon for me, I suppose.
| technothrasher wrote:
| I went back and booted my old Indigo from back in the day, as
| well as an old Sun 3/80 recently. It wasn't as great as I
| expected it to be, and all the annoyances from when I used to
| do actual work on them came flooding back quickly. Nostalgia
| is a heck of a drug.
|
| I still reserve the PET as a perfect machine because 1) it's
| the first machine I really used as a kid, and 2) I haven't
| yet been foolish enough to try and go back to one in over 40
| years now.
| [deleted]
| qingcharles wrote:
| I just about managed to snatch my cursor away as I saw it
| heading towards that expander. Might get some work done today!
| SomeoneFromCA wrote:
| Well, the material in the article is borderline relevant today
| too.
| z500 wrote:
| Tech history is basically crack.
| Simplicitas wrote:
| Hahah .. I cannot stop myself from clicking ..
| b800h wrote:
| This is proper programming. None of this namby-pamby web
| scripting that passes for development these days.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Leave the web scripters alone.
| theclansman wrote:
| So many programming jobs feel like busy work with no
| interesting problems nowadays, I often wonder if it's only
| gonna get worse with time.
| eru wrote:
| Luckily, as a single individual you only need one (or at most
| a handful) of (programming) jobs at a time. So you don't need
| to worry about the vast majority of jobs.
| nikanj wrote:
| Are you telling me "Why do npm builds poop out 20% of the
| time" is not an interesting problem?
| flakes wrote:
| Funny enough, I do actually find that interesting.
| Certainly not fixing your broken project, but, definitely
| designing package managers in general!
| [deleted]
| baq wrote:
| Sir we program in YAML exclusively now.
| keyle wrote:
| statistically compiled and checked, impossible to break code,
| orchestrated... in the flakiest way possible.
| rjbwork wrote:
| So 2020. We're on TOML now.
| bux93 wrote:
| In a few years it will be LISP.
|
| wait..
| RedShift1 wrote:
| C is waiting to be rediscovered
| elzbardico wrote:
| But first we must pay penitence with dumbed down Java
| 1.4, also known as Golang.
| birracerveza wrote:
| Oh so that's why Zig is gaining popularity
| vkaku wrote:
| Awesome, the person who asked the question also answered it.
| Great stuff this is :-)
|
| Plus I'm so happy people care about retrocomputing.
|
| It's great to document these problems and solutions for everyone.
| unixhero wrote:
| The answer he got to his question was absolutely brilliant. Great
| topic and such a good answer.
| thequux wrote:
| In fact, he answered his own question. Still brilliant though
| fragmede wrote:
| Don't forget to read the _how_ buried in the hidden comments at
| the end!
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| SO's auto collapsing of comments just makes no sense every time
| I see it. It isn't hiding lowest voted ones, it isn't hiding
| newest or oldest ones. It feels random (and unnecessary).
|
| IMO they should just add paging to it than hiding if the space
| is the concern.
| fulafel wrote:
| "The fix is obvious" indeed.
| H8crilA wrote:
| Well, once the bug is identified, yes. I wonder how do you find
| a bug like that, I guess you keep reading the disassembly of
| the trapping code until you find the problem. I don't think he
| could have used QEMU or some other form of debugging.
| pjgalbraith wrote:
| He does mention a bit more in a hidden comment:
|
| "NTOSKRNL.EXE + debug symbols + IDA helped me understand how
| the remote break-in is supposed to work. I knew that
| something in the remote break-in code path before the first
| debug packet is sent is going to reboot my machine. So I
| patched "JMP SHORT $" instructions into the relevant code-
| path. If I placed it before the crash point, the machine
| hangs. If I placed it after the crash point, the machine
| reboots. This allowed me to "bisect" where the crash is
| happening."
|
| -----
|
| Here is a Chat-GPT breakdown of the comment:
|
| NTOSKRNL.EXE: This is the kernel of the Windows NT operating
| system. When people refer to the "Windows kernel," they're
| typically talking about this executable.
|
| debug symbols: These are additional pieces of data that
| describe the internal structures and functions within a
| binary (like an EXE or DLL). They make it much easier to
| understand what's going on when analyzing or debugging the
| binary.
|
| IDA: IDA (Interactive DisAssembler) is a popular disassembler
| and debugger used by security researchers and reverse
| engineers to analyze binaries.
|
| how the remote break-in is supposed to work: It sounds like
| the commenter is trying to understand how a specific feature
| or vulnerability related to remote debugging (or "remote
| break-in") operates.
|
| something in the remote break-in code path before the first
| debug packet is sent: There's a sequence of events or a code
| path in the kernel related to the remote debugging feature.
| The problem seems to manifest before the first debug packet
| is sent over the network.
|
| JMP SHORT $: This is an assembly instruction. The JMP
| instruction is used to jump to another part of the code.
| SHORT refers to a short jump, meaning the jump target is
| relatively close. The $ symbol refers to the current address
| of the instruction, so "JMP SHORT $" will cause the program
| to jump to itself, effectively causing an infinite loop.
|
| patched "JMP SHORT $" instructions into the relevant code-
| path: By inserting this instruction at various points in the
| code, the commenter created intentional hangs in the system.
| This helped isolate where the crash occurs.
|
| bisect: This term comes from the world of debugging and means
| to divide the code into smaller parts to determine where a
| problem is. In this context, the commenter is using the hang
| (from the JMP instruction) as an indicator. If they inserted
| the JMP instruction and the system hangs, it means the crash
| hasn't occurred yet. If they inserted the JMP instruction and
| the system reboots, it means the crash already happened. By
| moving the JMP instruction around, they can get closer to the
| exact point of the crash.
|
| In essence, the commenter used a mix of reverse engineering
| tools and clever debugging tricks to narrow down where a
| crash was occurring in the Windows NT 3.1 kernel when using a
| remote debugging feature.
| H8crilA wrote:
| Not sure why this is downvoted, the comment is on point. Is
| it because it is partly gpt-generated content?
|
| I wonder if patching memory worked in the debugger, if not
| this would have to be done by manually editing the kernel
| file with IDA or something, and rebooting the machine. But
| in either case this is a good way to find the problem.
| MBCook wrote:
| That's likely. ChatGPT is not reliable, dumping its
| explanation of an issue isn't valuable. It's noise.
|
| Everything in the comment before that was great, no
| reason vote it down for that.
| necovek wrote:
| If you don't want to be seeing ChatGPT generated content
| here, you should downvote it to discourage the poster
| from doing so. This is a perfect use of a downvote IMHO.
|
| If you don't mind or care enough, obviously don't
| downvote, and if you love it, upvote it. That's how we
| get our community to develop some shared standards of
| communication.
|
| FWIW, if someone wants ChatGPT content, they can just go
| to ChatGPT too.
| comex wrote:
| True, although in this case the ChatGPT explanation seems
| to be _mostly_ accurate.
|
| The one dubious point is the definition of "bisect". The
| definition is completely accurate _in this context_. But
| the sentence after the definition starts with "In this
| context,", implying that the definition itself should be
| relatively context-independent. Yet the term "bisect" in
| programming is more commonly used to refer to something
| slightly different: dividing some code's commit history
| into parts, not the code itself.
|
| Also, several of the explanations are wordy and
| uninsightful, though not false.
|
| ...Admittedly, this is all beside the point. ChatGPT
| output carries a high _risk_ of being inaccurate, so even
| if it 's accurate in some specific case, readers have no
| way of knowing that. Which means that you shouldn't post
| ChatGPT output unless you can personally vouch for its
| accuracy, but in that case why use ChatGPT at all? Still,
| in this case I'll retrospectively vouch for it.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| It must have been editing the file on disk. The debugger
| was what was causing the crash in the first place.
| red_admiral wrote:
| My math professor used to say there are two kinds of problems:
| easy ones, and ones you don't understand yet.
| eru wrote:
| Or not anymore.
| queuebert wrote:
| Unsurprisingly the mathematician ignores real world problems:
| problems we understand but can't be bothered to solve (e.g.
| hunger, poverty, climate, etc.).
| underdeserver wrote:
| Why was the question asked and answered at the same timestamp?
| elzbardico wrote:
| To share the information. You'll see that the author of the
| question and the answer are the same person.
|
| He probably decided that posting this info as a Q&A in SO would
| be more permanent than writing a blog post that would never be
| found by anyone.
| jcpham2 wrote:
| FWIW these slotket adapters and such for compatibility on the
| right boards, usually Abit, Asus, and maybe even MSI back then,
| Well they had REAL overclocking abilities - How fast is your RAM
| and what kind of clock settings can the motherboard get away with
| in terms of multipliers? This was the earlyish days of
| overclocking - Celerons and Pentium IIs
|
| I once had a Celeron 600 in one adapter for compatibility and
| then that was in Slot II to Socket 370 adapter, something
| comparable to [1] happily chugging along at 1.2Ghz, maybe even
| got that bad boy up to 1.4Ghz under Windows ME of all the OS
| before I eventually fried that CPU.
|
| [1]http://krick.3feetunder.com/370mod/
| smolder wrote:
| Overclocking was fun, but I'm also glad modern CPUs can
| precisely control clocks and voltages to make use of what used
| to be safety margin.
| SomeoneFromCA wrote:
| Yeah, today it is even more fun. I underclocked my alder
| lake, now it consumes 10% less power at 100% load.
| mmis1000 wrote:
| Some recent processor has even more ridiculous curve, you
| can even get 80% performance with half power usage. Or even
| 1/2 performance with 1/4 power. Recent amd/intel processor
| has the habit to push the frequency to heat envelope (in
| other word, overclocked to the extreme by default) instead
| of a proper frequency with sane power usage.
| tzahifadida wrote:
| I build a port check way back to determine if services are up. It
| crashed half the company by simply opening a few tcp ports to the
| machines. Ridiculous days :)
| sambazi wrote:
| sounds like it was more than "a few"
| H8crilA wrote:
| Remember when Win95 could be crashed or even rooted just by
| pinging it the right way? We really have come a long way.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_of_death
|
| I also remember SMB vulnerabilities that stayed unpatched for
| years on some machines. That was already when Metasploit
| existed, so you could inject VNC into most Windows hosts on
| local network with just a few commands. These days at least the
| patching is super fast.
| virgulino wrote:
| > Remember when Win95 could be crashed or even rooted just by
| pinging it the right way? We really have come a long way. >
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_of_death
|
| Much more than that. With Windows 95, you could send an
| illegal ICMP with a simple "ping.exe -l 65510
| victim.host.ip.address". Your Windows 95 might
| crash/misbehave after that, but not always.
|
| The receiving end, the destination IP, on the other hand...
| These would panic, crash, dump, hang or reboot: Windows,
| MacOS, Netware, AIX, Linux, DEC Unix, Nextstep, OpenVMS, SCO
| Unix, HP-UX, Convex OS, Solaris.
|
| It was very funny in the very first hours, the little toy
| Win95 machines obliterating all those big, expensive Unix
| servers on the network.
|
| That was the precise moment when we started filtering ICMP
| echo on the routers. Hardly anyone did this before.
|
| https://insecure.org/sploits/ping-o-death.html
| miki123211 wrote:
| I had my Mac exposed on the public Internet around 2021/22,
| and I expected to be hacked instantly, but nothing actually
| happened. Times really have changed.
|
| The feeling of being able to chat with friends over nc was
| pretty powerful, though.
| cm2187 wrote:
| I remember those days.
|
| Even into the late 90s early 2000, modems (including ADSL)
| didn't come with a router, you had to establish a PPPoE
| connection from your computer, which also means your home
| machine was directly on the WAN with no firewall protection.
|
| I can't remember which version of windows but it must have
| been 98 or ME, you had to rush to download and install a
| patch when you connected it first to the internet before one
| of these exploits would make it crash.
|
| The introduction of NAT changed all of that.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > I can't remember which version of windows but it must
| have been 98 or ME, you had to rush to download and install
| a patch when you connected it first to the internet before
| one of these exploits would make it crash.
|
| Even Win2K had that feature.
| tivert wrote:
| > Even into the late 90s early 2000, modems (including
| ADSL) didn't come with a router, you had to establish a
| PPPoE connection from your computer, which also means your
| home machine was directly on the WAN with no firewall
| protection.
|
| Even today modems don't always come with a routers. In
| fact, I like them that way :).
|
| IIRC, the problem in the late 90s/early 2000s was routers
| were thought of as only necessary to get multiple computers
| online, and it was pretty common for people households to
| only own a single desktop. There wasn't enough security
| consciousness earned through repeated failure, so it "made
| sense" to direct connect consumer machines to the internet.
|
| We actually had a LAN years before we had broadband, and I
| setup a PC running Linux as a router to share our 33.6
| modem to the household. But before that? The PC direct
| dials into the ISP, and got a publicly-routable IP.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Even today modems don't always come with a routers. In
| fact, I like them that way :).
|
| I agree. I have a better router that I'm going to use
| anyway, so I disable the router functionality in the
| modem if it has one.
|
| My current one has no router or WiFi. Perfect!
| hedora wrote:
| This discussion is so funny.
|
| I never encountered any of this, except that one roommate
| liked to brag about his expensive win 9x box, and me and
| another roommate would take turns using our junky linux and
| nt desktops to "pause" his machine with "ping -f", usually
| in the middle of a lecture about how amazingly fast it was.
|
| Later, we had an openbsd router running on an old 386 that
| we jammed a few old 10MBit 3com cards into (later, Linux,
| plus $20 ne2000's).
|
| Those things had 100% uptime other than power outages,
| ne2000 swaps, and the time I unplugged it after 50 gallons
| of water ran through it (stayed up, worked fine after I
| made a new copy of the soggy boot floppy).
|
| Later we ended up with some shitty belkin router, etc.
| "Unplug it and plug it back in? Really?"
|
| Eventually, I got a WRT54GL (emphasis on the L) which
| worked for a few years.
|
| Now I'm back on OpenBSD. The only software downtime is due
| to PG&E power cycling it 100 times, and fsck expecting me
| to send a "y" over the serial port one of those times. Now
| it is double battery backed.
|
| It works, but I'm living in fear of the day my PC Engines
| APU board finally gives up the ghost.
|
| Also, sometimes our starlink's linux cpu hangs. You'd think
| they could get that right. It's not like it's as hard as
| building a car, launching rockets, or operating a network
| that's used for public safety announcements.
| wazoox wrote:
| IIRC Windows XP up to SP2 was vulnerable to this. Basically
| if you ran the install with the DSL modem attached, your PC
| was compromised even before the end of setup.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| LSASS.exe would crash with about 5 minutes of IBR
| (Internet Background Radiation). I cant remember the name
| of the worm. XP SP3 fixed this.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > IBR (Internet Background Radiation)
|
| that is really unpleasant.. engineers worked, companies
| worked and volunteers also worked to make the modern
| Internet, then selfish-clever, thieving, control-oriented
| militaristic jerks from WINDOWS filled the content with
| WINDOWS virus activity to play cheap stealing tricks on
| unsuspecting people. And you call it "the Internet" .. it
| has nothing to do with "the Internet" as much as the
| cheap and aggressive culture of BS from WINDOWS at that
| time
| JohnFen wrote:
| Windows deserves a lot of criticism, but let's be honest
| and fair here... this would have been the case regardless
| of what OS was dominant.
| mingus88 wrote:
| It would be more fair to criticize the corporate culture
| at Microsoft in the 90s that led to this situation.
|
| They simply didn't really care. If another OS was
| dominant, it is easy to argue that fundamental security
| issues could have been addressed in a better fashion, if
| management wanted it to be so.
|
| To wit, this is the same era of computing that spawned
| OpenBSD. You can't say with a straight face that OpenBSD
| would have been brought down by oversized ping packets or
| be allowed to accept traffic out of the box like Windows
| was.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| totally agree -- lived it
| pcdoodle wrote:
| AOL had a fun one in the instant messaging HTML
| interpreter: <font
| size=9999999999999999999999999999999999> would bring a
| system down instantly.
| owenmarshall wrote:
| When W32/Blaster[0] came out I worked at a small ISP
| doing tech support and computer repair. A tech and I
| imaged an old box we had in the corner with a clean XP,
| assigned it a static IP in our /24, plugged it in and
| started a stopwatch. It didn't even make it two minutes
| before it was infected.
|
| [0]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_(computer_worm)
| jtbayly wrote:
| It took about 5 seconds IIRC on our college campus
| network.
| eterm wrote:
| Yeah Blaster is one of the few worms I've ever
| (knowingly) been infected with. As you say, it was
| literally less than a minute or two between connecting an
| unpatched box and getting it.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I was working for a small ISP in that time frame and
| that's when we started blocking incoming windows ports.
| And yea, it was annoying for the few techie types that
| tried to run SMB and could actually protect their stuff.
|
| For the other 99.9% percent of the users it protected
| them and us.
|
| Windows was such a mess back then.
| roomey wrote:
| Yes. I remember they would send UPS call to reboot your pc,
| within seconds of going online.
|
| A little popup saying visit such and such site to stop your
| pc rebooting, and a countdown timer
| thanatos519 wrote:
| My home page used to send the ping of death to Windows user
| agents. Good times. :)
| outworlder wrote:
| When I was at the university and without a fully developed
| frontal lobe I thought it was a great idea to test this in
| the lab.
|
| Ended up creating a "battleship"-like game. Two people, each
| trying to crash the other's machine. Since the IPs were
| randomly assigned by DHCP and for some inexplicable reason
| changed frequently (every day or so), we would be trying to
| guess what the other machine's IP was.
|
| Given how they were physically arranged, we were able to see
| the machines blue screening (but not always fully crashing).
|
| Of course, there was a lot of collateral damage as some
| machines were in used by people that weren't part of the
| 'game'. Thankfully, most of the time they didn't fully crash.
| Most of the time.
| titzer wrote:
| Ah, the good ole days of "hey what's your IP address?"
| followed by typing those four magical numbers into Winnuke
| and then watching a person just drop off ICQ. Still makes me
| chuckle. That worked for _years_.
| hkwerf wrote:
| Ping of death isn't just something for the old days:
| https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-
| guide/vulnerability/CVE-20...
| guenthert wrote:
| Interesting, but
|
| "... to trigger the vulnerable code path, an application on
| the target must be bound to a raw socket."
|
| Isn't that unlikely unless the victim runs a network
| capture tool like Wireshark or similar?
| Circuitstorm513 wrote:
| Earlier versions of Windows (98? 95?) also used to share
| things like drives (C$, D$) and printers with the dial-up
| connection by default. I remember connecting to a printer of
| a classmate over the internet and printing a page, to his
| surprise. All you needed was the IP, which was trivial to get
| from ICQ, back in the days.
| anthk wrote:
| Yeah, running an SMB/NFS scan gave you lots of fun on
| Modem/DSL connections.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| What was more fun when the spammers figured out 'net
| send'. I showed that to one guy I worked with and that
| thing had a nasty bug. If you got one of the parameters
| wrong it would send a message to every computer on the
| domain. He had to explain to the top guys why they had
| funny messages on their screen.
| dboreham wrote:
| There was a time when you could SMB mount shares from
| servers at MS over the public internet (and e.g. do things
| like download alphas and betas that were not visible on the
| ftp server).
| jandrese wrote:
| I remember early Bitcoin exchanges that had everything
| stolen because they left all of their unencrypted private
| keys on SMB shares that were left visible to the
| Internet. IIRC this is what finally took down MtGox,
| almost 20 years after the release of Windows 95. Some
| people never learn.
| Dwedit wrote:
| My favorite 'thing' for historical windows was that accessing
| "C:\con\con" was an instant BSOD (Even over file sharing, or
| even over an image URL pointing to "file://C:/con/con")
| darkwater wrote:
| Oh I remember those times. There was a guy in high-school 2
| years younger that one day shown me that he wrote a C
| implementation of WinNuke on the school Unix server and he
| was then crashing Windows PCs in the lab for fun. He was a
| really smart guy and AFAIK he's been working at Google for a
| few years now (maybe he's on HN even?)
| aesegiopiuaer wrote:
| I remember when CdC released Back Orifice to remote control
| Windows machines, like ejecting CDROM and such [1]. We really
| did come a long way, where 0-days go for 20 million dollars.
| [2].
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Orifice
|
| 2: https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/27/russian-zero-day-seller-
| of...
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| I may or may not have known someone who wrote a shell
| script with the linux BO client to reset Windows machines'
| home pages to a porn site that paid a dollar for every
| unique clickthrough in IP ranges that were in specific
| foreign countries.
|
| This person might have earned several hundred dollars each
| month for several months afterward. But opening their cdrom
| tray could have been fun too. He probably wishes he had
| thought of that.
| luma wrote:
| I was managing a few labs full of machines used for
| training on NT4 which meant I was frequently re-imaging and
| could use effective remote control capability. Back Orifice
| was, at the time, the absolute best remote admin solution
| available for free. I could deploy it in the image and then
| use it to kick off reimage process, reboot, log out a
| student, or monitor their screen from the teacher's desk to
| share on the attached TV. It really was a handy tool for
| remote admin tasks.
| jcpham2 wrote:
| I actually bought and wore the back orifice t-shirt from
| the CdC website in high school. Did any machines have that
| software installed? Maybe.
| thelittleone wrote:
| Could also disable certain keys on victims keyboard. Did
| that in the office a bunch was hilarious watching co
| workers who had no idea what was going on. Perfect for a
| Monday morning.
| chasd00 wrote:
| > Remember when Win95 could be crashed or even rooted just by
| pinging it the right way?
|
| "death on flaxen wings"
| deely3 wrote:
| Whoa, thats prettt funny.
| janwillemb wrote:
| Break as in Ctrl+C
| teddyh wrote:
| Since this is Windows, wouldn't that be Ctrl-Break?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-28 23:01 UTC)