Subj : Family executables again
To   : Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
From : Mike Luther
Date : Sun Oct 28 2001 04:11 am

Yes Johnathan!

 JdBP> They were idiots, with no clue about proper threat 
 JdBP> assessment.  If that was a verbatim report of their 
 JdBP> rationale, they were also idiots with no clue about 
 JdBP> what the OS/2 and POSIX subsystems are, and how they 
 JdBP> do not relate to each other in the slightest.

verbatim.

I found it curiously inconsistent too, but I have very little undersstanding of 
all this.  All I keep tyring to do is to learn more and more..

 JdBP> At one level of abstraction: yes.

I was postulating it as a possible virus cross-platform mechanism.

 JdBP> Only textual 16-bit OS/2 programs are
 JdBP> supported.  There were, supposedly, aftermarket 
 JdBP> products from other companies that provided 16-bit 
 JdBP> Presentation Manager.

Which certainly wouldn't be targeted, I would speculate, on the PM level.

 JdBP> 32-bit OS/2 programs, of any sort (graphical or 
 JdBP> textual), have *never* been supported by any version 
 JdBP> of Windows NT.

I knew that.

 JdBP> The "POSIX subsystem" is for support of POSIX programs.  However, this 
 JdBP> does *not* provide the ability to take binaries from 
 JdBP> Unix systems and run them directly on Windows NT.  
 JdBP> This provides *source-level* POSIX compatibility.  
 JdBP> To run a POSIX program on Windows NT, one takes the 
 JdBP> source of the program and compiles it with 
 JdBP> Microsoft's C/C++ compiler, using a special set of 
 JdBP> headers, libraries, and compiler and linker 
 JdBP> switches, to generate a PE format executable that 
 JdBP> classifies itself as a "POSIX" program (rather than 
 JdBP> a Win32 program).

OK.

 JdBP> The primary /raison d'etre/ of the "POSIX subsystem" 
 JdBP> in Windows NT was marketing.  It allowed Windows NT 
 JdBP> to meet the requirements imposed by various U.S. 
 JdBP> Government procurement regulations, which specified 
 JdBP> POSIX compatibility.

That's what I faintly thought I understood.  But I couldn't figure out why they 
were so aggressively banishing 'dis and 'dat, unless it was in an effort to 
remove a virus entrancy point which could come in a new way via the above 
thinking..

Am I right to think that one could actually write a cross-platform simplisitic 
routine that had no screen I/O out of such a technique, or am I not correct, in 
your opinion?


--> Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)

Mike @ 1:117/3001

--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: Ziplog Public Port (1:117/3001)

.