> On Jan 17, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>>> I used to have a tiny portable manual card punch.
>>> An acquaintance used it to punch /* in the first two columns of his
>>> punchcard based utility bills. (those characters have special meaning
>>> to 360 JCL. They have m
I used to have a tiny portable manual card punch.
An acquaintance used it to punch /* in the first two columns of his
punchcard based utility bills. (those characters have special meaning
to 360 JCL. They have multiple punches per column, so it required
making a punch, then backspacing to make
On 01/17/2018 01:23 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>> We might as well all contribute.
>> Back in college in 1969
>
> I used to have a tiny portable manual card punch.
> An acquaintance used it to punch /* in the first two columns of his
> punchcard based utility bills. (those characters have
We might as well all contribute.
Back in college in 1969
I used to have a tiny portable manual card punch.
An acquaintance used it to punch /* in the first two columns of his
punchcard based utility bills. (those characters have special
meaning to 360 JCL. They have multiple punches per col
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, David C. Jenner via cctalk wrote:
This isn't malware, but back in 1962 when I was taking a college class in
assembly language programming for the IBM 709, my innocence led to the
following.
We might as well all contribute.
Back in college in 1969 we would submit our Fort
On 1/16/18 4:27 PM, Sam O'nella via cctalk wrote:
> Enjoying the virus/malware history as its always interesting to see
> what people thought. Tricks, boredom, etc cause interesting results.
> For punch cards i thought someone was going to mention punching all
> the holes and jamming the reader.
This isn't malware, but back in 1962 when I was taking a college class
in assembly language programming for the IBM 709, my innocence led to
the following.
Of course, I had, on the typewriter, for my high school years, always
typed ' backspace . to get an exclamation point. I did this in a
c
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Sam O'nella via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Enjoying the virus/malware history as its always interesting to see what
> people thought. Tricks, boredom, etc cause interesting results.
> For punch cards i thought someone was going to mention punching all
Enjoying the virus/malware history as its always interesting to see what people
thought. Tricks, boredom, etc cause interesting results.
For punch cards i thought someone was going to mention punching all the holes
and jamming the reader. I'm not sure if thats real but heard some folks had to
ch
On 01/13/2018 06:38 PM, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:
And even worse, if he took too long, a fun feature of MVT
and not corrected in MVS was if a console channel went
unavailable for too long, the system would crash. Luckily
the game would print out a line, and a blob of console
messages
On 01/13/2018 05:40 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> All of this reminds me of a trick that I witnessed on a Model 40 running
> DOS/360. Some guy wrote a chained CCW set with a TIC back to the
> beginning of the list of CCBs that rang the bell on the 1052 operator's
> console and locked the k
On 1/13/2018 3:24 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> (I'm unaware of any punch-card attacks, but trojans were possible when
> people used prior subroutines).
Depends on what you mean "attack". CDC 6000 SCOPE had two PP programs
(which could be invoked via user control card).
One was "RPV"--reprie
Although reduction in sneaker-net has virtually eliminated boot-sector
spread.
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018, Tapley, Mark wrote:
I never made that connection before! Glad you toed me.
There had already been some reduction. The first PCs with a hard disk
would always attempt to boot from floppy first
On 1/13/2018 3:24 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
(I'm unaware of any punch-card attacks, but trojans were possible when
people used prior subroutines)
When I was using cards with our campus 360/50 MVT system and you could
submit probably anything, a friend in EE (we were squatters in the CS
On Jan 13, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> Although reduction in sneaker-net has virtually eliminated boot-sector spread.
I never made that connection before! Glad you toed me.
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
I wrote about Spectre and Meltdown recently: INTEL took its time to inform
the world! Did it inform the world back in earlier days about potential
flaws? Not to blame INTEL only: What about Zilog, etc.? Or did pre-Internet
era protect us co
On Jan 13, 2018 11:36 AM, "Paul Koning via cctalk"
wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Dave Wade via cctalk
wrote:
>
> ...
> It delayed telling the world to allow time for OS providers to apply
fixes. This is now standard and the delays are defined...
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir
On Jan 13, 2018 11:22 AM, "Dave Wade via cctalk"
wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Murray
> McCullough via cctalk
> Sent: 13 January 2018 18:09
> To: cctalk
> Subject: Spectre & Meltdown
>
&
> On Jan 13, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Dave Wade via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> ...
> It delayed telling the world to allow time for OS providers to apply fixes.
> This is now standard and the delays are defined...
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/intel-fixing-security-vulnerability-chips-521
> On Jan 13, 2018, at 1:08 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> I wrote about Spectre and Meltdown recently: INTEL took its time to inform
> the world!
Of course, and for good reason. The current practice has been carefully
crafted by the consensus of security vulnerability worker
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Murray
> McCullough via cctalk
> Sent: 13 January 2018 18:09
> To: cctalk
> Subject: Spectre & Meltdown
>
> I wrote about Spectre and Meltdown recently: INTEL took its tim
> I wrote about Spectre and Meltdown recently: INTEL took its time to
> inform the world! Did it inform the world back in earlier days about
> potential flaws? Not to blame INTEL only: What about Zilog, etc.? Or
Yes, of course it did. The famous Pentium FDIV bug comes immediately to mind.
Of cour
I wrote about Spectre and Meltdown recently: INTEL took its time to inform
the world! Did it inform the world back in earlier days about potential
flaws? Not to blame INTEL only: What about Zilog, etc.? Or did pre-Internet
era protect us computer-classic users? What about running emulation
software
On 01/06/2018 12:30 PM, Ken Seefried via cctalk wrote:
> The exploit effects the speculative execution facility, so no it's not
> "all P6 forward": nothing 32-bit or PAE, nothing just OOO, etc. The
> current word I have (from my risk management folks, who got it from
> Intel) is the oldest chips
From: Murray McCullough
>
>This may be off-topic but these latest uprocessor exploits has raised
>a question: Are the 'old/classic' uprocessors using x86 technology in
>the same boat?
>
The exploit effects the speculative execution facility, so no it's not
"all P6 forward": nothing 32-bit or PAE,
On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 06:38:10PM -0800, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, TeoZ wrote:
> >Hard drives NEVER keep up. Bragging about how many DVD's (90's technology)
> >you can store on current HD means little to people who have ultra HD
> >Blueray videos that take up to 100GB of s
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 11:18:53 -0800
Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote:
Of course, update your OS as soon as updates are available,
> as patches (which will likely slow your system down) are forthcoming
> from Microsoft and various Linux trees.
>
You want to test those updates before you apply them
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Mazzini Alessandro wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I would use SSD for long term "secure" storage, unless maybe
>> using enterprise level ones.
>> Consumer level SSD are, by specifics, guaranteed to retain data for 6
>>
In cases where the source remains available, in case of problems, nothing
can beat it for sneaker-net. It does not contribute noticeably to the
transfer speeds.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Sam O'nella via cctalk wrote:
You're one of the first people I've heard quote that. Do you know where
that is s
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Mazzini Alessandro wrote:
I'm not sure I would use SSD for long term "secure" storage, unless maybe
using enterprise level ones.
Consumer level SSD are, by specifics, guaranteed to retain data for 6 months
if unpowered... any more time means being lucky. Would suck to save, s
Ed Sharpe wrote:
>what about xenon processors??
Xenon? You mean the processor jointly developed by Microsoft & IBM based on
the PowerPC architecture, developed and used in the Xbox 360?
Or perhaps did you mean Xeon (note no N in the middle)? There is a big
difference.
Don't know if the Xeno
You're one of the first people I've heard quote that. Do you know where that is
said? Years ago several friends and myself all picked up 64mb usb thumb drives
so we could have multiple backups of a game and few other projects we were
coding. Maybe it was an extended period of time (we ended up
A 6TB hard drive, available for about $130 (or less), would be
equivalent to about 60 of the 100GB BDXL disks, which seem to go for
about $6 each, so $360 for around 6TB. And the hard disk will take less
time to read and write. And the hard drive would take up less space.
JRJ
On 1/4/2018 7:50 P
s find the data mangled...
-Messaggio originale-
Da: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Per conto di Fred Cisin
via cctalk
Inviato: venerdì 5 gennaio 2018 03:38
A: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Oggetto: Large discs (Was: Spectre & Meltdown
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018,
On Jan 4, 2018 22:17, "TeoZ via cctalk" wrote:
100GB M-Discs are dual layer BlueRay media correct (not readable on a DVD
player)? I actually have a BDXL BR burner.
They are three-layer, and will ONLY work on BDXL drives, not older BD
drives.
You forgot "Outer Limits". I put that show in the same category.
Wayne Sudol
Riverside PressEnterprise
A DigitalFirst Media Newspaper.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>
>> Funny, I've been saying since the 19
, January 4, 2018 9:16:43 PM
To: Fred Cisin; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Large discs (Was: Spectre & Meltdown
100GB M-Discs are dual layer BlueRay media correct (not readable on a DVD
player)? I actually have a BDXL BR burner. I also have the M-Disc capable
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Large discs (Was: Spectre & Meltdown
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, TeoZ wrote:
Hard drives NEVER keep up. Bragging about how many DVD's (90's technology)
you can store on current HD means little to people who have ultra HD
Bluer
On 01/04/2018 12:00 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
This may be off-topic but these latest uprocessor exploits has raised
a question: Are the 'old/classic' uprocessors using x86 technology in
the same boat? The very earliest ones, i.e., 1970s and early 80's.
probably not. How many are act
On 01/04/2018 05:50 PM, TeoZ via cctalk wrote:
> Hard drives NEVER keep up. Bragging about how many DVD's (90's
> technology) you can store on current HD means little to people who have
> ultra HD Blueray videos that take up to 100GB of space. Heck even a
> single game download can be 50GB these da
Files grew up in size, in an unbelieable scale.
I follow the tips of my friends: Buy new HDs and use old ones for
storage. I have a 5TB (expensive) external 3 1/2 HD on my home server,
and some 1TB HDs used as backups. If you count capacity, cheaper than
DVDs-DL or BDs.
Em 05/01/2018 00:38,
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, TeoZ wrote:
Hard drives NEVER keep up. Bragging about how many DVD's (90's technology)
you can store on current HD means little to people who have ultra HD Blueray
videos that take up to 100GB of space. Heck even a single game download can
be 50GB these days.
I'd be intere
ne of those old networked DVD changers (I think Sony
sold them commercially) to play around with.
-Original Message-
From: Fred Cisin via cctalk
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 6:53 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Spectre & Meltdown
On Thu, 4 Jan 20
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Wayne Sudol wrote:
You forgot "Outer Limits". I put that show in the same category.
I'll be adding the Original Series later this month.
I haven't made a decision about the revival.
I use a Seagate GoFlex-TV; 2TB is the largest thin 2.5" SATA currently
available. also in
, 2018 3:17:48 PM
To: Sophie Haskins via cctalk
Subject: Re: Spectre & Meltdown
On 01/04/2018 01:08 PM, Sophie Haskins via cctalk wrote:
> It's kind of fascinating to run in to a cross-platform vulnerability
> like this! Is anyone else aware of similar vulnerabilities from
>
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
Funny, I've been saying since the 1980s that it you have something
that's critical to your survival, keep it offline.
Until any of my PCs develop the ability to go to my storage cabinet and
fetch a DVD and load it into itself, I'm not sorried.
> Funny, I've been saying since the 1980s that it you have something
> that's critical to your survival, keep it offline.
Here here! I hope this is a wakeup call to all the people out there with all
the unnecessary connected "lives". Forget all the social media BS but also the
cloud storage,
On 01/04/2018 01:08 PM, Sophie Haskins via cctalk wrote:
> It's kind of fascinating to run in to a cross-platform vulnerability
> like this! Is anyone else aware of similar vulnerabilities from
> history that also affected multiple processors, but relied on their
> implementation details?
Funny,
thanks
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Warner Losh via cctalk"
>>> To: "Murray McCullough" ; "General
>>> Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
>>> Sent: Thursday, January
exploit. It has been around that long.
> thanks
> Jim
>
>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Warner Losh via cctalk"
>> To: "Murray McCullough" ; "General
>> Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
>> Sent: Thursday, January 04
"Murray McCullough" ; "General
>> Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
>> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 1:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: Spectre & Meltdown
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <
>>
t. It has been around that long.
> thanks
> Jim
>
>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Warner Losh via cctalk"
>> To: "Murray McCullough" ; "General
>> Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
>> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 201
d
Off-Topic Posts"
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Spectre & Meltdown
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
This may be off-topic but these latest uprocessor exploits has raised
a question: Are the '
ic Posts"
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Spectre & Meltdown
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>> This may be off-topic but these latest uprocessor exploits has raised
>> a que
- Original Message -
From: "Warner Losh via cctalk"
To: "Murray McCullough" ; "General Discussion:
On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Spectre & Meltdown
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Mu
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> This may be off-topic but these latest uprocessor exploits has raised
> a question: Are the 'old/classic' uprocessors using x86 technology in
> the same boat? The very earliest ones, i.e., 1970s and ear
This may be off-topic but these latest uprocessor exploits has raised
a question: Are the 'old/classic' uprocessors using x86 technology in
the same boat? The very earliest ones, i.e., 1970s and early 80's.
probably not. How many are actually in use and/or on the Net?
Happy computing!
Murray :)
57 matches
Mail list logo
