From:     Digestifier <Linux-Admin-Request@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
To:       Linux-Admin@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
Reply-To: Linux-Admin@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
Date:     Sat, 21 Aug 93 11:13:14 EDT
Subject:  Linux-Admin Digest #10

Linux-Admin Digest #10, Volume #1                Sat, 21 Aug 93 11:13:14 EDT

Contents:
  Re: resetting a virtual console (Joe Brown)
  Getting X working...addendum (Jay Freeman)
  SLS 1.03 doesn't know my VLB SCSI Adapter (Carsten Zimmer)
  Re: Why use shadow? (Piers Cawley)
  Re: Why use shadow? (Simon McKenna)
  99p12-SLIP <-> DOS ka9q? (Michael Will)
  Re: Why use shadow? (Brandon S. Allbery)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: joe@apache.dtcc.edu (Joe Brown)
Subject: Re: resetting a virtual console
Date: 20 Aug 1993 14:27:13 -0400

In article <CC253I.9sJ@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> hymowitz@circle.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) writes:
>and lo, there was much rejoicing among the people, as
>  hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) writes:
>this only happens when dosemu crashes and burns.  the exitemu exits
>fine.  but when i have to kill -9 it, the session is logged off, and
>i get this problem.
>
>so, here is another plea for help.  and to all the mee-toos, save yourself
>the trouble - if i get a fix, i'll summarize it here.
>
>thanx in advance.
>
>--hymie                                                     hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu

Hope this helps...

I've encountered problems with the virtual console, after killing the
first of the two dosemu processes.  By chance, I decided to kill the
second, instead of the first, when ctrl-alt-pagedown doesn't work.

I havn't encountered as many problems with the console after KILLing
the second process listed in the ps list.

This could be strictly by chance, though.

-- 
                Religion:  Yes, I believe there is a Church
         Murphy's Paradox:  doing it the hard way is always easier
(: Joe Brown :)                                         joe@apache.dtcc.edu

------------------------------

From: freeman@eagle.sangamon.edu (Jay Freeman)
Subject: Getting X working...addendum
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 19:34:41 GMT

Hello again!
        I think I now have my Xconfig set up properly, as everything
seems to take off, screen blanks, anticipation builds etc, then it bombs
out with a "PEX" errror, can't locate default font Roman____M, and says it
can't open the mouse.  I have an ATI Ultra +.  Using syssetup -mouse, I 
selected ATI XL bus mouse. Should I use something different? If you need
more info to help, I can mail my Xconfig etc when I get home this evening.

Thanks a bunch,
Jay

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Jay Freeman, WT9S           Packet: wt9s@w9yci.il.usa.noam       +
+                             internet: freeman@eagle.sangamon.edu +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

------------------------------

From: zimmer@unitas.or.uni-bonn.de (Carsten Zimmer)
Subject: SLS 1.03 doesn't know my VLB SCSI Adapter
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 20:22:57 GMT

hello,
my system is 486/DX-50 with a MAXTOR 340MB SCSI-disk. The disk
is controlled by an DTC 3270 VL SCSI adapter. When I try to install
the SLS-distribution 1.03 on this disk, no SCSI-device is found
(the boot-program ob the a1-disk doesn't find any SCSI-hosts and/or
devices)
What can I do???
please answer directly to my e-mail address 
        zimmer@marvin.or.uni-bonn.de

any help would be wonderful
        regards, Carsten



------------------------------

From: pdcawley@iest.demon.co.uk (Piers Cawley)
Subject: Re: Why use shadow?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 19:27:46 +0000

I like the version of passwd that comes in the perl camel book. It
traps bad passwords without being prescriptive, and can be customized
to take into account local conditions (for example set it up to reject
the names of Halls of Residence or whatever.), reading the source it
becomes apparent that Larry Wall (or whoever wrote it) has thought
*very* carefully about what makes a bad password.
-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Piers Cawley, 2 Widford Park Place, Chelmsford, ESSEX, CM2 8TB.  |
|      pdcawley@iest.demon.co.uk   pdcawley@cix.compulink.co.uk      |
| Once upon a time, and a very good time it was, there lived a . . . |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

From: sjm@ss43.icl.co.uk (Simon McKenna)
Subject: Re: Why use shadow?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 22:42:07 GMT

A friend of mine read this on news and  posted it around the office:

>Article: 3715 of comp.parallel
>
>unijbm@uts.uni-c.dk (J|rgen B. Madsen) writes:
>>A NEW WORLD RECORD IN PASSWORD CHECKING HAS BEEN SET:
>>-----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Roch Bourbonnais, a Thinking Machines Corporation engineer, has ported
>>and optimized the CM/2 port of the UFC-crypt to a CM/5 system.
>>
>>The UFC-crypt (Ultra Fast Crypt) implementation on the CM/2 Connection
>>Machine (parallel computer) is a UNIX password checking routine (crypt())
>>ported by Michael Glad at UNI-C.
>>
>>The port, that is written in CM-fortran, utilizes the CM/5 vector units
>>and is partly programmed in cdpeac (vector unit assembly language).
>>
>>The package achieves 1560 encryptions/second/vector unit. This scales to
>>
>>    6,4 million encryptions per second on a large  1024 node machine.
>>    800,000          -       -     -    - - small   128  -      -
>> 
>>With this impressive performance, all combinations of 6 letters can be
>>tried in less than an hour and all combinations of 6 lower-case letters
>>can be tried in less than one minute.>
>>
>
>Not to burst anybody's bubble, but I can get over 6 times this on a
>similarly priced/equiped Convex MetaSeries. And that is without optimizing
>in assembly language.
>-- 
>Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
>tighe@convex.com
>
>
Hmmm, I suggest using longer passwords !!!!

 - Now I'm not suggesting anything - but with an 8 character significant 
   password how many years is it before we expect to run out of security
   

   Simes.
  #define DISCLAIMER    My opinions are mine alone and do not represent  \
            those of my Employer (ICL).
 
  + ------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
  | E-Mail:        sjm@fss.icl.co.uk    | Snail:   Simon Mckenna,          |
  |                                     |          FSS-SSPG(TB10),         |
  | Telephone      061-223-1301 x4535   |          ICL West Gorton,        |
  +-------------------------------------+          Wenlock Way,            |
  | Just imagine - If I could think of  |          Manchester              |
  | a witty comment it would go here.   |          England M12 5DR         |
  +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 


------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: michaelw@desaster.hanse.de (Michael Will)
Subject: 99p12-SLIP <-> DOS ka9q?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 17:47:42 GMT

I crossposted this to rec.radio.amateur.packet, since there might be some
people which know ka9q by heart and might notice at once what I am doing
wrong...

Now my problem:

Somehow I do not succeed with my DOS-ka9q to Linux-SLIP-Link.
I have an oldish i286-12 running DOS with ka9q, ip 192.0.2.44
and a nice i386 with Linux 0.99p12 SLIP, (192.0.2.45) and do the following:

On DOS:
net.exe
        ip addr 192.0.2.44
        attach asy 0x03f8 4 slip s10 2048 1500 4096 38400 192.0.2.44
        route add default s10 192.0.2.44
        trace s10 111

On Linux:
dip -t
        remote 192.0.2.44
        port cua0
        speed 38400
        mode SLIP
route add 192.0.2.44

I could not do a "route add default 192.0.2.44" 
resulted in a SIOCADDRT: Network is unreachable

ping 192.0.2.44 (does not work)
ping 192.0.2.45 (does work, its the local host).

btw, 
 How can I tell ka9q to dialin so that I have not to disable the getty first,
 and more important, how do I tell ka9q and linux to communicate at all?
 
Cheers, Michael Will
-- 
Michael Will <michaelw@desaster.hanse.de>     Linux - share and enjoy :-)
Life is not there if you can't share it... Hazel'O'Connor  Breaking Glass
Happily using Linux 0.99p12 with X11R5, \LaTeX, cnews/nn/uucp and: PGP!
             >>> Ask for Linux and / or pgp-Information <<<

-- 
Michael Will <michaelw@desaster.hanse.de>     Linux - share and enjoy :-)
Life is not there if you can't share it... Hazel'O'Connor  Breaking Glass
Happily using Linux 0.99p12 with X11R5, \LaTeX, cnews/nn/uucp and: PGP!
             >>> Ask for Linux and / or pgp-Information <<<

------------------------------

From: bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery)
Subject: Re: Why use shadow?
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 14:17:39 GMT

(company names filed off below, I'm not trying to advertize for anyone's
hardware)

In article <CC2xq7.8w0@oasis.icl.co.uk> sjm@ss43.icl.co.uk (Simon McKenna) writes:
>>>With this impressive performance, all combinations of 6 letters can be
>>>tried in less than an hour and all combinations of 6 lower-case letters
>>>can be tried in less than one minute.>
>>
>>Not to burst anybody's bubble, but I can get over 6 times this on a
>
> - Now I'm not suggesting anything - but with an 8 character significant 
>   password how many years is it before we expect to run out of security

If you limit it to lowercase letters, multiply by 26*26=676.  All letters,
52*52=2704.  Which implies that an 8-letter password could be checked in under
18 hours on the second machine if the claim is correct, and in 108 hours on
the first.

I'm probably doing the math wrong :-) but if you use any 8-bit character
except NUL (255 possible characters) an 8-bit password would take 103228
years to crack on the first machine.  For a 7-bit-character password (again
except NUL --- this because C programs don't work well in general with strings
containing NUL, so most if not all password-checking programs for *ix can't
handle it) it would take less than 391 years.  (Someone air-check me on the
math:  I took the stated "high end" of one hour, divided by 52**6, multiplied
by 255**8 for the first case and 127**8 for the second.)

This does assume the "best case" for a password, please note.  How many people
use the full range of a "char" for password characters, including non-
printable characters?  It also assumes a limit of 8 significant characters in
a password, which is common for (non-C2) Unix.

++Brandon
-- 
Brandon S. Allbery         kf8nh@kf8nh.ampr.org          bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org
"MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years
of careful development."  ---dmeggins@aix1.uottawa.ca

------------------------------


** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:

    Internet: Linux-Admin-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.admin) via:

    Internet: Linux-Admin@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
    nic.funet.fi				pub/OS/Linux
    tsx-11.mit.edu				pub/linux
    sunsite.unc.edu				pub/Linux

End of Linux-Admin Digest
******************************
