March 01, 1999 <-OO OO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOO-> <-OO OO OO OO OO O O-> <-OOOOOO OO OOOO OOOO-> <-OO OO OO OO OO O-> <-OO OO OOOOOO OO OO OOOO-> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------< This issue, we have a new writer! Shouts to ixl, who joins us from Canada. Ixl has a background in Windows 95/98, Linux, and FreeBSD. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------< HiR is an electronic publication that is written by real hackers and phone phreaks that have the desire to share information. We only publish articles related to hacking and phreaking. We don't cover viruses, stealing, carding, or blowing things up. As a general rule, we don't do many walk-thru's; occasionally we might, but we almost always focus more on explaining a given aspect in enough depth to help the reader understand why things happen. With that information, they may learn for themselves and discover many other things related to the article. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------< We are always looking for new writers. If you are (or were) in the H/P scene, and consider yourself a decent writer, send us some of your work. Our e-mail is h_i_r@hotmail.com or hir@axon.jccc.net. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------< Current Staff for HiR: * Axon (Editor, Official Site Webmaster, Writer) Axon@compfind.com * Asmodian X (Writer, Editorials, Linux Psycho) asmodianx@hotmail.com * Frogman (Writer, Amiga Feind) Frogman@compfind.com * ixl (Writer, FreeBSD/Linux guy) * The Man in Black (Mirror site webmaster) The.Man.in.Black@compfind.com You can find us at the following places (that we know of): Official HiR Distro Site: http://axon.jccc.net/hir (Files & Links updated several times per month, check often) Official Southwestern U.S. Mirror site: http://azure.rcn.nmt.edu:2007/HiR (Web Site updated with each new HiR Release) Official HiR E-Zine Mirror (PacketStorm) http://packetstorm.genocide2600.com (Search for "HiR", the genocide2600 box doesn't like direct links) Hacker News Network (hackernews.com) posts notices of new HiR Issues, and it's also a good place to get a daily look at the latest hacking info. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------< HiR 9 Article list Num Article Title Writer ---- ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- 1 Introduction/Table of Contentz HiR Crew 2 HiR 9 Informative Resources HiR Crew 3 Tales from the Mailbag (Letters/Questions to HiR) HiR Readers 4 Network-Tuned OS Overview (FreeBSD/Linux/NT) Axon 5 Creating the Coupler: How To Build an Acoustic Coupler Axon 6 Windows 2000: What is it and why does it matter? Axon 7 Novell Netware Inside Out Asmodian X 8 Some Red Hat Linux 6.0 info Axon 9 On Going Digital Frogman 10 Teach me how to hack !@# Ixl 11 HiR Hacker Newz HiR Crew The HiR Crew Presents: HiR 9 Informative Resources -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Webpage: Product Information Address: http://www.novell.com Summary: Information on Novell the company and its products. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Book: Novell Netware Clarke, James David, IV. " Novell's CNE Study Guide IntranetWare/Netware 4.11" Novell Press, San Jose 1997 ISBN 0-7645-4512-4 Asmodians Slightly biased Summary: Although Jam packed with fruity information on Netware, This book is poorly orginised. The incessant "Words of wisdom" and the authors Flaming ego tend to distract your attention from the actual content. This book requires a long attention span, and perhaps some form of Ritalin to fully digest it. Im not suprised if this book was in part sponsored by the midwest pulp association, weighing in at a paltry 1570 pages. Asmodians Slightly biased Rating: If your stuck in the wilderness and need to start a fire, do not have any qualms about burning this book, you will be missing nothing.. Asmodians un-biased Note: This book is one of the only resources that covers all materals covered in the CNE/CNA exams. Thus its a necessary Evil. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Book: Telecom guide. Green, James Harry. "The Irwin Handbook of Telecommunications 3rd Ed." Irwin, Chicago 1997 ISBN 0-7863-0479-0 Summary: This book is some what dry, however it is concise and very to the point. I found it easy to read, and it was very factual. It goes into great detail on the telecommunications industry. A must read if you want to feel the telecomunication industry's pain. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tales from the HiR Mailbag <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>> No Gerbils Were Used in The Creation of This Article <<<<<<<<<<<< Editor's Note: Here at HiR we get quite a bit of mail. Between our personal e-mail and the HiR Group E-Mail Account (H_i_R@hotmail.com), we send about 50 messages a day to /dev/null. About 48 of those trashed messages are about how to make a 1500% profit on selling dried cat guts to blind children who can't tell it from beef jerky, or about how we just all won 30 free days of XXX pr0n if we give them our credit card numbers, or some other stuff... We're grateful that our reders like to respond, though... This is by no means a complete list of all the mail, but we tossed in those messages that deserved a good response. We did mail responses back to almost everyone who mailed us, and we published both the questions and our responses for those messages we put here. If we keep getting good questions/e-mail, you'll probabl see this section in every future release of HiR. __________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Info Request Hi there, Im interested in becoming a hacker... im really dummie right now and i'd like to know a resource where i can get important information about procedures and programs... If you can tell me about any resource, website or book it will be very helpful. Thanks __________________________ Well, it seems you're already more of a hacker than many of the script-kiddies that go around flaunting their "elite hax0r" selves. The primary essence of a hacker is curiosity and drive to learn, which you seem to posess. To begin hacking, I would suggest focusing WAY down to something specific. Most (real) hackers begin by tinkering with their operating system of choice (be it Netware, Win95, WinNT, MacOS, DOS, Linux, *BSD, or some other UNIX variant), and learning as much about it as possible. Others decide not to focus on an operating system, but to focus on something else such as Networking, telephony, Computer Hardware, Digital Electronics, or something else. I am a firm believer that you should try to find an operating system you like, and start "hacking" by modifying your operating system, its look or feel, finding out how to add functionality to it (through 3rd party software or stuff you come up with yourself), and things like that. I would recommend reading the "tech bible", writtem by disc0rd. It's available on the links page of our distro site at http://axon.jccc.net/hir The Tech bible is a GREAT intro to hacking. It shows how to get started on several different operating systems, as well as some general hacker subculture help. Read all the HiR Articles. They range from hacking around with the Win95 Registry, to having fun with UNIX, all the way through securing a linux system and even how to put together some cool electronic circuits that do fun stuff. --The HiR Crew <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: I Want to run UNIX! i have been experimenting with port scanners and such and have become very interested in learning about other systems...but i find that so much more could be done if i had unix. now this is my parents computer and they get pissed off when i put stuff on here, so getting unix would be a problem...so i was wondering if there was software that you know of that can, how do i say, simulate a unix enviroment, so that i can do more. if you know of any, please send me it or tell me where to get it. please write back, thanks. ---------------------------------------------- Well... if you really must know, it's a major pain in the butt to run anything unix-like, without installing it. There are fun ways to take up like 500 Megabytes to 1 Gigabyte (or even more) by adding a partition, and making it so that Windows (or DOS, whatever your parents run) will boot normally... but it gives you a few seconds to choose your UNIX of choice. By far, the easiest to install is RedHat Linux. Version 5.2 (maybe Redhat 6.0 by the time this gets out) is available in stores such as Best Buy, CompUSA, and online stores such as http://www.cheapbytes.com. Linux is one of a few UNIX-Style OS's that will run on a normal desktop. RedHat makes it easy to learn more about UNIX. Alternatively, there are other companies that release their own versions of Linux, each of them has advantages and disadvantages. Debian and S.u.S.E are two examples. After you've gotten better at messing with UNIX, you may want to move up to FreeBSD, or play with it. This is a little more stable (but not quite as friendly) as most of the Linux Distributions. If you don't have the hard drive space to devote to a "Linux" drive, then you can try to save up enough cast to get your own computer. RedHat 5.2 will run (not very fast) on a 386. If you can even find them at used computer stores, they're pretty cheap. I was running it on a 486 with 8 megabytes of ram for a long time, and it never gave me any problems. You can probably get a decent 486 and the stuff to go with it (Monitor, Keyboard, mouse, and a 1 gigabyte or larger hard drive) for less than $300 if you check used computer stores, want ads, and garage sales. It's well worth learning how to use some form of UNIX, and you're very correct in your assumption that UNIX will set you free when it comes to those annoying barriers that Windows gives you, and there is a more wide-spread base of hacking/network-analysis tools for UNIX and it's derivitives. To completely answer your question, yes, you can run Linux without a major re-partition. Look on the net for things that utilize "UMSDOS", Unix-in-MS-DOS technology. I believe that Slackware Linux, among others, can do this for you. Read the appropriate documentation for detailed instructions on how to implement this. --HiR Crew <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: statement that water-cooling a socket-7 chip would "take a lot of balls" being monetarily deprived, i'm inclined to agree with that. HOWEVER, i (well a couple of friends of mine and i) have succesfully water-cooled a socket ah... five, if memory serves me, pentium-66. we pulled the xtal oscillator-in-a-box from the board and connected a Fluke signal generator in it's place. the original xtal was rated at 18.xxxx MHz and we got the Fluke up to somewhere around 40 MHz before things got flaky. needless to say, it was damn fast and the chip got pretty warm. the cooling system itself was a 160 gallon/hour aquarium filter pushing water over the heatsink on the chip. it was a big aluminum thing that had depended on some sort of airflow in the old case (we assumed this since we just got the board and chip) anyway, we used a lot of silicone and some plexiglass and some nylon pipe fittings to make it liquid coolable. the water was cycled through a little plastic one gallon aquarium (which was mostly empty when the system finished self-priming, requiring us to refill it after each start) and we started to get steam condensing on it's sides, so we would submerge plastic pop bottles filled with water and then frozen in the aquarium to keep it at a reasonable temperature. finally one night during an endurance test (running a ray tracer [POV-ray, REALLY neat]) the heatsink sprung a leak, allowing about two gallons of water to be pumped into the case with the computer. there was no major electrical trouble (thankfully), but the system was rendered unusable. anyway, just thought you might enjoy the story of our little experience. Aaron xxxxxx (Last name omitted -Ed.) ___________________________________________________________ Well, thanks for sharing. I figured that eventually the things HAD to leak... Sigh... BUT with how cheap you can get a Pentium 60 and a motherboard, it might be worth it to some people. The way I figure it, you were running that Pentium 60 chip somewhere in the 133-150 MHz range, which, needless to say, is an AWESOME boost... If you could get the same power increase (percentage wise) out of a P-120 chip, you're talking better than 350 Megahertz! I was really interested in hearing some results from this. I, myself, can't afford that kind of experimentation unless I went in on it with some other people. Thanks for getting back to us! --Axon <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Contributions from Asmodian X, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ More Info On CD Burning From: Calvin > >Subject: CD Writing > >Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 03:49:29 +0800 > >Hi, > > > >After reading through your article (HiR8-4.txt) on CD Writing, I am > >still unsure of the procedure of: > > > >1) Cutting a VCD. (I heard it is not just copying of whatever source > >directories of files to the target disc. So what has to be done?) > > > >2) Making a Bootable Disc. ( I do not know what method or software to > >use to create bootable CD for Win95/ WinNT. Currently, I am using > >Adaptec Easy CD-Pro 95 CD writing software.) > > > >Looking forward to your advice. > > > >Regards > >Calvin Thanks for asking! I must admit those are some good questions. By a VCD I assume you are talking about a Video CD? Well The Video CD standard just came out about 1993ish. Im getting my information from the VideoCD faq. at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2496/vcdfaq.html According to the faq, to make a VCD you need to first make your movie into an AVI, then convert it using an MPEG 2 encoder , then Using Adapttechs EZ-CD pro software, dump it to a Writable using the VIDEO CD option. To answer your question on Bootable CD's, So far I have only seen bootable cd's made in Linux, But Heres some Windoze SW that will also do the task. http://www.mediastore.com/Specs-HyCD.html Supports Video CD's too *(Adaptec's Pro edition does not say anything about bootable CD's) Adaptec's new version supports Bootable CD's I also Found a Page that kinda is a walk through : http://nikko.simplenet.com/goldentime/bootcd01.htm it has some links to some Windoze based iso9660 imaging software. -=- Asmodian >< -=- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Drivers for a CD-R I saw something you wrote about having a Phillips 2600e and I was wondering if you had the drivers or knew where I could get them. I need drivers for Dos and for Win98. I couldn't trace them down too good on the site so if you have them or even know the names let me know. Thanx --Pabst SCSI Devices are fairly easy to find drivers for.. Phillips has some dos drivers for the 2600x (internal or external) on their web page.. http://www.pc.be.philips.com/service/cdr.html There you will find Some drivers (dos and win98) for the 2x00 series burners.. The ASPI one should work for dos. The shuttle drivers come with the burner sw package.. but i didnt see it on their tech support page. The shuttle Parallel port drivers are now supported by linux in the 2.2.x series kernel. Linux also supports quite a few scsi cards, so install support in for the scsi card plus generic scsi device support and the scsi cdrom option and your in business. -=- asmodian -=- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- L0pht Crack Question Hi, I would like to get a copy of L0phtCrack. Is there anyway to get it as freeware? Or the only way is to buy it from L0pht? Please advice. Regards Calvin Take a look at http://www.l0pht.com I beleve that there is a Version out by l0pht that is crippled, but free too use. Of course l0pht would just love you to purchase it.. I am un aware of any versions that are GNU, or Freeware.. -=- asmodian x -=- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Morgo >Subject: HiR Article hir8-4.txt >Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 01:24:15 -0400 > >Greets ! > >I read your article at >http://axon.jccc.net/hir/articles/hir8/hir8-4.txt > >Have you tried Adaptec Easy CD Creator 3.0 yet ? > >Hope this helps, Morgo According to Adaptec's web site, the newest version they have out is version 3.5. The deluxe-golden-does-everything-un-crippled version offers Video disk creation, in addition to all the other stuff like bootable cd's and such. Adaptec is asking 99$ for that. I cant remember what version i got with my CD-R. -=- Asmodian X -=- here's their product page: http://www.adaptec.com/products/overview/ecdc.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Hackers Information Report 9 Network-Tuned OS Overview By Axon _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Recently, I've been messing with different Operating Systems. As many people have, I've had my usual Windows 95 experience, and those of us who have been around a while have had our fun with MS (or IBM, Free, Dr) DOS. I found Linux, and was instantly lured by its stability, speed and lack of hardware requirements (I've been able to run it on some pretty minimal systems with good results). Converting directly from "the OTHER, unstable and proprietary operating system" to Linux got me really thinking about what a difference the Operating system makes to performance. I'm sorry, but I want an operating system with Services! Back in the days of Windows 95, I would try all sorts of software that added "servers" to the system. I loved them, but they crashed often. Windows 95 was NOT intended to run as a machine with open services. Being an Information Technology Major, I have to take classes that deal with network servers, and these classes break into three tracks. Students MUST take at least the "introductory level" class in two of the tracks, and then take the "advanced" class in one of those, in order to get the degree. The Three tracks are "Windows NT" (NT4), "UNIX" (Solaris), and "Netware" (Whatver version came out this week. The netware class actually changed what version of Netware they were using halfway through the course due to a new version coming out...scary). I'm not touching netware now. I might later, but netware isn't really a contender for the "Internet Services" networks, and is more tuned for File and Print sharing. So, UNIX and NT it is (as far as my degree's concerned) The UNIX class isn't ever full enough so they keep postponing it, so I haven't had a chance to play with Solaris yet. This semester looks promising, as the class actually filled up completely, and I'm one of the lucky ones who got in. At defcon, I was exposed to FreeBSD, and decided to give it a try. It's TRULY different than Linux. Little differences will be pointed out later in this article. I hope to eventually try almost all of the major OS's for the Intel (x86) platform, although I know I can't possibly mess with EVERY little obscure OS that was written for x86. I decided I would do this study on just a few of the OS's that were tuned towards being "Servers". The system I am using for this experiment is a Second Generation Classis Pentium system, running at 120 MHz, not overclocked. It's got 64 Megs of RAM. The Operating systems were placed on Wetern Digital Caviar 22000 (2.0 Gig) Drives, placed inside Removeable Cartridges that slide into a Bay Receptacle inside the system. As you can see, I took time to make sure all the OS's had a fair chance at proving how well they hold their own on a system. I chose the P120 because it's pretty much a "Generic" machine. It's pretty stripped down, having only the hard drive, a 12x IDE CD-Rom Drive, and a 3com Etherlink III (3c509) NIC, and of course the floppy drive. I figured this type of machine would be powerful enough to run all the OS's I wanted to try. Here are the contestants: _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- OS Reason I tried it _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Linux (RedHat 5.2) with updates I'm most familiar with RedHat FreeBSD 2.2.8 FTP install Recognized for security/stability FreeBSD 3.1 from CD-ROM Test the diffs between versions Windows NT4 Server, SP4 You think the whole world uses a REAL OS? _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- What really got me thinking about this "contest" was the fact that I am basically being *FORCED* to take a class on Windows NT4 Administration. I knew it was more power-hungry and less stable than any UNIX will ever be, but I wanted to know HOW they all stacked up... so here is where I tried. The Following Categories are addressed here: I. Boot-up time in seconds II. Features that differentiate each OS III. "Processing Power" on a relative scale put together by Axon IV. Ease of administration, Things that make administration easier V. Woes of administration VI. "Out of the box" security VII. Software installation IIX. From the user's standpoint IX. Ease of cross-platform network integration X. Closing Notes _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- I. Boot-up time in seconds Granted, this may not be a "totally fair" method of testing boot- up time, as there may be more stuff running on one OS than the others. This isn't meant to be some sort of judging scale, just an estimate of about how long a "server-ized, yet close to default" install will take to boot to a login screen. Redhat: 109 Seconds FBSD228: 117 Seconds FBSD31: 99 Seconds NT4SP4: 138 Seconds _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- II. Run-of-the-mill features that differentiate each OS RH52: Setup is a breeze. If there was ever such a thing as a "fool proof" Linux install, this would probably go up there. It's well documented in the manual, however the startup screen never mentions that the manual is on CD, or where it can be found. It just says "if you have this manual read the section on `foo' before fooing". Initial setup is basically a "one size fits all" kernel that is slower than a custom-compiled one, but it usually gets the job done nicely. Linux has tons of freely-available software, and a long list of supported hardware makes this a REALLY robust Operating system. FBSD: FreeBSD has an interesting package management system that can keep track of your files, and upgrade packages nicely. Not quite as friendly as RedHat's RPM, but it does its job nicely. Both FreeBSD Versions I tried had one thing that I loved at first sight: "Ports". This is a selling point of FreeBSD. It has a very unique build environment in /usr/ports that breaks ported software down into sections such as "security", "shells", "x11-wm" (WindowManagers), etc. Then each specific ported program has a directory of its own. There is NO source code by default in any of the program build directories. You just type "make install", and it fetches the tarball, applies some patches to make it work with FreeBSD, configures the Makefile, compiles, and installs. Like that! Down-side: installing ports can be tedious on a slow-compiling machine or if your bandwidth sucks. On a more positive note: The stuff is compiled on your system, works great, and "make deinstall" is cool! There is quite a bit for Free Software out that works with FreeBSD, but Hardware support and major program support lacks behind Linux so far. FreeBSD has an amazing feel of stability, form, and function while using it. NT40: While not being quite the heavy hitters the more UNIX-ish OS's were on the lower-end test system, it's a cinch to admin. It's somewhat difficult to navigate all the strange menus to do all your sysadmin work, but after using it for a while, you learn where stuff is. This is a good Server OS for file sharing and the like on a Windows network if you need an easier-to-maintain server. NT can be made to handle modem-dialup connections and establish PPP/TCP-IP/IPX connections over the modem, just like the UNIX-type OS's. Full remote program execution is limited, however NT can act as a "terminal server", where terminals (Network Computers) feed off the NT box. Software that adds other fun server functionalities is widely available, but most of it is commercial (expensive). _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- III. "Processing Power" on a relative scale put together by Axon FBSD: FreeBSD 3.1 came in first as far as using the default kernel setup. It runs more things at once smoother than any of the other OS's tested. FreeBSD 2.2.8 came in a close second. This is truly a "Pocket Rocket" OS. RH52: While RedHat Linux really screams on the P120, (compared to other OS's), it was outperformed by Both FreeBSD's. One must compare need for hardware/software support before choosing FreeBSD or Linux. It WAY outperforms DOS and Windows 95 (which aren't part of this article). It easily roasts NT4.0 when it comes to processing power. NT40: Bogged down, but useable. The UI was kind of choppy and crufty on our little 120 MHz box. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- IV. Ease of administration, Things that make administration easier NT40: By far, the winner of the "ease of administration" award. If it is possible to sit a monkey at a server to keep it alive, this is the OS that I would choose. Graphical menus and help systems make it so that anyone can keep the box alive after 2 weeks of experimenting with it. RH52 Redhat is controversial throughout the Linux world. Some people argue that it's "Too MS-ish". Redhat comes loaded with goodies. It's been built around administrative tools that require X-Window System. These admin tools are kinda MS-ish, but they get the job done. It would definitely take longer for someone to learn and get comfortable administrating a RedHat box, but the admin tools are good for the beginners. I like the fact that I can edit the config files with vi, and get the same results without a GUI front-end program. There are even front-end programs to help you select kernel options before you re- compile your kernel. FBSD FreeBSD 2.2.8 is next in line. There is the added bonus that there are less config files than Linux, and the config files are larger, and control more aspects of the system, resulting in more centralized control of the OS. FreeBSD 3.1 comes in dead last, but not far behind FreeBSD 2.2.8. This is due to even MORE options for the kernel and config files. FreeBSD's package management will not only fetch the latest versions of the software you try to install, but will also self-grab/install any other programs or libraries that the program needs (Known as dependencies), resulting in an install-and-go package installation. The FreeBSD project has done a really good job on their "FreeBSD Handbook" which, when I printed it, took up a whole 3-inch ring binder. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- V. Woes of administration NT40 It does take real skills and knowledge to use the advanced aspects of NT, including security. Learning the menu structures is a pain, and I still get lost now and again when going on a clicking rampage. Any powerful remote administration abilities are non-existant without outside Third-party programs such as VNC (See HiR7, article 6). RH52 The graphical admin tools can also be just as confusing as Windows NT's stuff. Also, RPM (Redhat Package Manager, used for installing programs) makes the Admin get any dependent libraries or programs and install them separately. FBSD Administration's just difficult! FreeBSD totally sacrifices user-friendliness for speed and stability. There's not really a good administration tool. Anything you can set during the installation process can be changed with the "sysinstall" tool, but that's about it. Anything else must be edited in the config files by hand. Kernel compile options are read from, you guessed it, a config text file that you have to edit by hand, and documented lines in the default config file are scarce. To really tap the power of the kernel, you have to access the FreeBSD Handbook and see what it has to say. Kernel options are documented well in there. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- VI. "Out of the box" security FBSD FreeBSD 2.2.8 wins out on being most secure out of the box. FreeBSD 3.1 came in second. FreeBSD just doesn't care about user friendliness. Bost FreeBSD 2.2.8 and 3.1 came stock with a system known as S/Key, a one-time password system. All you had to do is run a keyinit program for each user that you want to be authenticated in this manner. I found no vulnerabilities in 2.2.8 and in FreeBSD 3.1, there was only the Free86 vulnerability out of the box, and it was easily fixed. RH52 Out of the box, not horribly secure. Redhat 5.2 shipped with a lot of little holes, but they were simple to fix with the RPM files from RedHat's site. NT40 Okay... Just NT4.0 with no service packs... it's scary, and easily exploitable. I upgraded to SP4, and it still had some unresolved issues, all the way to allowing a user to add him/her self to the local machine's Administrators group. This is a VERY bad thing, and the exploits are as simple as running a program. Point. Click. Admin! _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- VII. Software installation This is REALLY a personal-preference deal. You'll see. FBSD Both 3.1 and 2.2.8 are the same here. Ease of software installation is a plus, but it's slow, because it usually involves compiling the program. It's really a "start installing and switch to another console" situation. No questions asked, and if it needs another program, it goes and gets it without complaining. RH52 RPM (as I said before) will install a binary package in a hurry. The problem is that IF it needs another program, it requires user interaction to go and get it. Oh well. Not quite as easy as FreeBSD. Not all Linux Distributions use "RPM". Debian GNU/Linux uses a different packaging tool that DOES go-fetch the other packages. NT40 If clicking around menus and asking if/where to install stuff is for you, then I guess NT is the OS of champions. Otherwise, I consider it bothersome and time-consuming. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- IIX. From the user's standpoint NT40 Clicky, clicky! This is by far the easiest OS for the end users to adapt to. This technology dates back to when cavemen pointed to objects with sticks (equivalent to the mouse) and made grunting noises (equivalent to clicking mouse buttons). It's almost natural, or something. Unfortunately, this method of machine interaction requires the computer to do extra work determining what the user is trying to do, and drawing pretty pictures on the screen to ensure that even the most idiotic user knows what's going on. RH52 Don't get me wrong, UNIX systems have Graphical User Interfaces, too. They just aren't as friendly, and the user still needs to know how to use a keyboard for some practical applications and file manipulation. Redhat has tried to make the X window system more friendly, but they haven't gone as far as MS has (yet). FBSD FreeBSD 2.2.8 and 3.1 are both the same here, as well. There aren't as many cool user-geared graphical things distributed with them. There are a few, but not as many as there are for linux. This would be the hardest OS for an end-user to get used to. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- IX. Ease of cross-platform network integration RH52 RedHat made sure they packed their distribution of Linux chock full of networking abilities by default. Redhat can do Apple Talk, TCP/IP, Netware, and over TCP/IP it can act like a Windows NT file/print server, as well as utilizing resources on an NT Network. Usually, the protocols can be set into action without so much as a reboot. FBSD FreeBSD can integrate with any network that Linux can, but it's a little more difficult to implement. NT40 NT can handle most of the protocols, but I don't think that it does appletalk by default. Windows 2000 adds this ability, but only as an AppleTalk SERVER. It can't browse resources on an appletalk network. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- X. Closing Notes Really, it's hard to tell "what's the better OS here?". That is totally based on application of the server. This article was not designed to flaunt one OS over another (okay... just a little), but you probably see some definite pros and cons to each OS. This is meant to be a "Guiding Light", so that you know what will be the wise choice. I do not promote OS bashing too much. Each Operating system is good and bad in it's own ways. 100% "BAD" operating systems hat have nothing to offer over other operating systems quickly disappear or become scarce in the world (ahem, OS/2?, CP/M? what???). You get my picture. I'm outta here. Happy serverizing, guys! --Axon ----------------------------=( HiR Issue #9 )=---------------------------- -----------------------=( Creation of the Coupler )=---------------------- ------------------------------=( By: Axon )=------------------------------ ------------------=( Digital Pictures on the HiR site )=------------------ Creating a coupler, eh? Well, this is the mammoth that I've been wanting for the longest time... An article, with instructions, on how to make the acoustic coupler. Granted, I did not "create" the acoustic coupler... But indeed I did come up with a way to make one out of some cheap stuff that can be found at any wal-mart and radio shack store... The best part is that I spent less than $20 making this beast. It's not at all professional looking, and it's not as "heavy-duty" and rugged looking as some of the expensive couplers on today's market, but it makes a decent connection, and that's all ya need. It's not as compact as the production couplers, either; BUT IT'S A COUPLER! Wow your friends and amaze them, cuz you can tell 'em you wired this one up yourself (but tell 'em Axon told you how to do it!) This Coupler can only handle about 2400 bps on a good phone. This is plenty for checking e-mail, telnetting to a unix box, or getting on the local Bulletin Boards. It's sufficient for getting online from a payphone. The reason the connection is slower than a store-bought coupler is because the more expensive ones have a lot of fancy stuff, anti-echoing filters and the like. I don't have the expertise to build this type of circuit, but this coupler DOES work. I HAVE tested this on a lot of payphones already, and it seems to work great at 1200 bps (which is what I usually use on payphones with my high-end coupler, too). So far, I've put about 10 hours on the coupler, and I haven't had to change the battery in it yet. Actual battery runtime might differ according to your modem. ALSO: As with my coupler, there are probably some PCMCIA (laptop) modems that this doesn't work with... It should work with almost any external modem. Test it with an external modem if you have any problems. ------------------------=( Some Background Info! )=----------------------- The theory behind the coupler is simple: It takes modem sounds from a modular jack, and converts them to audio sounds, and forces them into the microphone of a telephone handset. At the same time, it's also listening to the handset's speaker, and converting that back to electrical signals, and forcing them back into the modem, through the modular jack. This allows one to connect via modem in areas where you can't find a safe modular phone jack to plug into. This is great for hotels and offices with digital phones, at pay phones in the airport, or anywhere. You just strap the coupler to the phone handset, and use the modem normally (after inserting change in pay phones, if needed) I have a store-bought high-end VERY nice acoustic coupler, but the more and more I thought about it, the more and more I saw that my coupler is just an inside-out telephone... Obviousely, hooking 2 telephones together with a phone cord won't allow the 2 phones to talk to each other, there has to be a voltage source or something, so I took a chance by slicing one of the wires (the green one in this case), and placing a 9-volt battery across it, in series. The 2 phones that were on either end of the cord would actually hear the other end. The 2 phones acted like normal. (NOTE: Hooking 2 modems together with a phone cord that has a 9v battery wired in series will allow the 2 modems to communicate without using any telco phone lines!) I plugged one end of the cord into my laptop modem, and held the phone on the other end close to our office phone, so the Mics and speakers were facing the opposite way (end to end, speaker to microphone), and made a real-life 300 BPS internet connection. This is where it all began for me. I quickly drew up a sketch of what I would have to do to make a normal phone into a coupler. I then went and bought the parts and made my first coupler at home in a matter of hours. When it was done, it worked great, just like my store-bought one, but a lot uglier. For 20 bucks worth of parts, I am pleased! -----------------------=( Some Assembly Required. )=---------------------- This is going to be the official hands-on article for HiR 9. For those of you who still like soldering, and cutting wires, and opening stuff up, this is for you. For you software-only guys: this is NOT an easy project to undertake, but feel free to try. Worst case: you're out about 20 bucks of parts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parts List: From Wal-Mart: $7.97 I bought a cheap Unisonic "Slim Line" (model #6420 FG) from Wal-Mart. But any single-piece phone (doesn't have a cord from the base unit to the handset) will work fine, I'd guess. $0.96 A 3-pack of medium suction cups (1.5 inches diameter, but we only need 2 suction cups. I tried large ones, WAY too big). These will become cut up and no-longer good for suction cups. We're using them to keep noise isolated away from the speaker and microphone. $2.44 30-inch velcro straps. These are going to hold the phone handset down to the coupler, to maintain as much isolated noise as possible. If loud noises get picked up by the coupler, it could be mistaken for data, and may even cause you to disconnect. Most of the modern modem protocols can handle this type of noise without actual data errors, but play it safe. From Radio Shack: $1.89 Set of five 9-Volt battery terminals. We just need one, though. This will connect the 9-volt battery to the coupler's phone line. Opt. You may want to get a small project case or a battery holder. Determine this after you open your phone up. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Open the phone up. Remove screws, snap the case open, whatever. Try not to damage the phone's outer plastic too much, because if there is enough room for a 9-volt inside there, it saves you from using a project case. Be CAREFUL with the wires to the Mic and Speaker. 2. Try to get the guts out of the phone case. Loosen up the speaker, mic, ringer buzzer, and the circuit boards. You should be able to get all the stuff out, leaving an (almost) empty shell of the phone. Try to get just the circuit boards in there, as the speaker and mic will be on the outise of the case at the end of this project. If there is enough room for a 9-Volt battery to fit inside and close the case, then you should probably stick with this phone shell as the case for the coupler. 3. Cut the centers out of the suction cups so that they fit the mic and speaker nicely. They should be fit so that hot-melt-glue can be used to hold them in place. They should look like this (but DO NOT glue them on yet!): speaker Microphone Suction cup-->\_____/ __________ \__/ <---Suction cup | | / Circuit / |__| \___======/ Board / // |________/========== _ \\ [ | =====================[_| <-- RJ11 Jack. 4. This is where you may need some soldering skills. The Speaker wires will probably be really short. You will probably want to lengthen them up by adding more wire, like 4 or 5 inches. Just lengthen it up a bit so that it can be positioned to reach the microphone of almost any handset. 5. Now, to add the battery. You need to cut the green wire coming from the RJ-11 Jack on the phone. Wire the 9-volt battery terminal in series with the green wire... This should be done inside the case or inside the phone if you verified there was enough room for it. It should look like this: _|_ to circuit board... --> |-------------------------------------------------- < Red Wire RJ-11 | ___|--------------_ _---------------------------- < Green Wire | \ / \ Inside Phone _\__/_ \ o__O \_ | | | 9v | |____| 6. I mounted the microphone on the top of the phone case, and placed a Velcro strap by the microphone. I kept the speaker loose so it could strap onto almost any phone, and I put velcro on it as well. Finished, it looks like this (you may need to drill holes for wires to run through. This is roughly what my finished coupler looks like: \_____/ ______________________\_/_ <-- Mic (built speaker | | / \ into case) \___==============| | [] |____________________________|========= [] [] [] ^^^ velcro --> [] [] [] Phone cord [] [] (to modem) [] <--velcro->[] -----------------------=( Using your new coupler )=---------------------- I basically strap the speaker of the phone handset to the microphone, and strap the coupler's speaker to the handset's microphone, hook it up and modemize. Also, there's no need for an on-off switch for this coupler. It only connects the battery when the modem goes off-hook to dial, and while connected. When you disconnect, the battery's not in use anymore. There was an article earlier, in HiR 1 called "List of hacking necessities", and I cover some general useage of the Acoustic coupler in there. I did find some more info on changing what Baud rate your modem is using. You probably have to set your modem for 1200 to 2400 bps for the coupler to work. Table of AT commands to set baud rate limiters. I've run across 2 sets of AT commands. All of my modems work with one of these or the other, but I can't guarantee that either one of these sets will work for your modem. I won't go all the way up to 57,600 bps... if you need to limit your speed, you'll have to limit it to 9600 or lower (on a commercial coupler). Like I said, 2400 is about the best that this home-brew coupler will pull. Baud Rate (bps) AT Command Alternate AT Command -------------- ---------- -------------------- 300 ??? AT&N1 1200 ATF4 AT&N2 2400 ATF5 AT&N3 4800 ATF6 AT&N4 7200 ATF7 AT&N5 9600 ATF8 AT&N6 -------------- ---------- -------------------- Happy hackin', and the digital photos are going to be linked from the HiR 9 page as soon as I have them sucked off the digi-cam, to show you what my coupler really looks like... If you want to download them, They'll be downloadable as hir9pics.zip and hir9pics.tar.gz from the HiR 9 page, and in the HiR_Archive section of the ftp site... -._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.- Hackers Information Report 9 Windows 2000: What is it and why does it matter? Written by Axon ...Guess I'd better give Shouts to MSDN (or else?) -._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.- I recently got ahold of a Windows 2000 (Advanced Server) Beta 3 CD (Microsoft Developer Network stuff, for beta testers. My boss just happens to be one of them...) I looked at the system requirements, and gasped for air. This thing was gonna be a BIG HOG!!! If I had to describe it in a single sentence, this would be the one: "Windows 2000 is almost nothing more than Windows 98 sitting on top of an NT Kernel, but it requires almost enough hard drive to install NT4 AND 98." Now, let it be known by all, this is the Advanced Server Version of Windows 2K... From my understanding this is the equivalent of The Enterprise NT Server. If i'm not mistaken, There will be a Windows 2000 End-user version (Windows 2000 Professional), Windows 2000 Server, and Windows 2000 Advanced Server. I am playing with Advanced Server, so don't expect all this stuff to be in all versions of Win2K. ... I had enough ram in my Bitch Box (tm), you know, the one that I used to rank Server-OS's earlier this issue? The total hardware pricetag on the big W2K is a PII 300 or better, with at least 64 megs of RAM, and the OS takes up a whopping 250-Megs (or so), making it, I believe, the largest hog of all OS's currently known to mankind. This should not bring one glimmer of surprise to any of us, because "hey, it's Microsoft we're dealing with here." It DID run on the P120 though, if what it was doing can be qualified as "running". Not all is lost, though. Of all the Microsoft OS's (and i've tried them all, even the original OS/2 released by MS), this one FINALLY gives some built-in features I like (as well as quite a few that I loathe, but I'll get over it). Let's take a look at some new and cool things that W2K has to offer, first... (Some things might show up in both good and bad categories) * NTFS Filesystem adds per-user, per-file access control * Uses the NT Kernel, making it easier to manage threads * MS Actually lets administrators telnet in, and they added some new command-line programs that let the admins do some cool stuff remotely or from a command prompt (I'll cover the new commands later) * Almost all of the current DoS Windows attacks don't work on it * Network status (connect/disconnect) and things like changing IP Addresses, adding protocols, etc. no longer require a reboot And, of course there is some stuff I just don't like (and neither of these lists are complete): * NTFS Filesystem is slow and can still be read by anyone who has a linux floppy with NTFS in the kernel, or has NTFSDOS on a Win95/Dos boot floppy * It likes to use 131 megs of my 64 megs of ram (it likes to swap) * You can no longer create bootable floppies with it * The NT kernel doesn't play games for crap! * It STILL lies about having to reboot (as in, it says reboot and this will work, you say "no", and it works anyhow, without the reboot) * 2 Words: Active Desktop. It looks cool, but MAN it's a HOG! * IE is built RIGHT in, no getting around it...sigh * MS Actually lets Administrators telnet in, so now they can send thier usernames and passwords in the clear across TCP/IP lines that are easy to sniff, and have NO password hashing whatsoever (as if that makes much of a difference) So, as you can see, you don't want to be switching back to MS Operating systems from your cool Linux/*BSD/Solaris-Intel Boxes just yet. If you have a spare machine that's capable of running this, and you can afford it, I would advise playing with it. It offers quite a few cool little features that I'd wish MS would have thought about long ago. -._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.- Commands, commands, commands...(It's still not all point-and-click, guys!) Yah, they added some stuff... some cool stuff, actually. Take, for instance, the new command interpreter (now shortened to "cmd.exe") has built in functions that make it "kind of" act a little more unixy... for instance it now accepts dual-pipes to run the second command only of the first command fails, or double-ampersand to only run the second command if the first one's successful. All these commands can be run within a command prompt (and a telnet session!) Check this out: findstr It's GREP! it uses regular expressions and works through pipes! This is amazing...kind of. assoc allows administrator to change what file types are associated with what applications ftype modifies file type bindings to file extensions (.txt) cacls modifies, adds, or views user access permissions for individual files or directories. Schweet! at a command-line interface to the Windows 2000 internal event scheduler. This is VERY cool stuff! tlntadmn "telnet admin", allows admins to change what port telnet service runs on, how many users can be on at a time, lists current telnet connections, and allows admins to drop specific connections. Kinda nice... start Start can open up a window on the box itself and run something in it... kinda fun, fairly useless so far as I've seen. compact allows file-by-file compression, decompression, or compression status queries. * Over a telnet session, "Alt" key combos can be generated by pressing "-A" followed by the key you were going to use (I.E. -F for the File menu in the Text DOS Editor would be -A, followed by the "F" Key. -._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.- Stability: I must say, for being as much of a hog on resources as it is, I haven't really been able to crash it. Windows 2000 (just the beta pre-release) seems DARN stable, which actually took me by surprise. I think MS finally got their act together when it came to the NT kernel. I could always bomb out NT4's kernel, dropping it to it's knees, and making it go BSOD (Blue Screen of Death). Things I've found that BSOD NT4's kernel: Trying to spawn processes while the machine is locked (as in, waiting for a login or at a password-protected screen-saver), running certain Windows 3.x programs, and a handful of other "normal" things that just kill NT. W2K isn't like that. Some of the old DoS attacks make it use a little more CPU (up to 60%, but not 100% like the old ones). This tells me that MS fixed up the TCP stack quite a bit (but not enough, yet). The kernel is larger than the NT kernel, but seems to be a lot more stable and feature-rich from what I've seen. If you have a spare machine with the power to run this thing decently, I would consider it. No word on how much cash one will shell out for it, though. -._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.- Why the heck is Windows 2000 a reality? Didn't 98 just come out, and isn't there already a "second edition" in the works? Actually, yes, 98 just came out recently, and they really shafted you guys. Windows 98 is NOT Y2K compliant as originally proclaimed by the MS Empire. Once upon a time, there was also a whole load of patches and stuff for Win98 available from MS's web site mirrors, too. Those went Bye-Bye... MS is going to apply all those patches plus some, and release a "Win98 Second edition" thing, that will run you poor guys a pretty chunk of change... I mean really... So, with all this happening, why is Windows 2000 already in the works? It all has to do with MS wanting everyone to run Windows NT. Back in the day, before Windows NT 3.51, Bill Gates said that this "New Technology" operating system that was under construction would be the way of the future. Everyone would use it. It would be the end of the days of MS-DOS (which is still the primary underlying OS Kernel for 95 and 98. If you want to be honest, not much has changed from the days of MS-DOS 5.x with "C:\windows\win" in the autoexec.bat file.) Why get rid of DOS, you ask. Sometimes I wonder the same thing, but I guess MS thinks that NTFS is "more secure", which it kind of is, mostly to remote users. But Windows NT was "much too difficult for the end users" at first; and it didn't (and still doesn't) play the cool games very well. It was ugly, and had tons of bizarre menus and options that only would make sense to a system administrator. The latter part hasn't changed a whole lot either, there are literally TONS upon tons of options, menus and trees to expolore, but Windows 2000 looks and feels a lot like a stabilized Windows 98 box. Windows 2000 makes an attempt to nice up the menus (that is, give really verbose menu options so that it's fairly clear what's gonna happen when you click on stuff, and believe me, it helps when there are so many things to choose from). If you're used to NT 4.X, you're gonna be lost for a day or so on your Windows 2000 server box. Things are in different places, and there are less administration programs, and the ones that are there do a lot more than their older, NT4 cousins. If you're using (or have seen) Windows 98, it'll be comfortable, but a lot of admin stuff you're not really used to seeing. Windows 95 users will be lost even longer than the NT4 users, but they'll manage. This is truly the attempt to "make" everyone use NT. Windows 2000 is totally based on a revised NT kernel, and is even installed from an "i386" directory off the CD, much akin to the Intel NT4 installation. It is installed on a fat16/fat32 drive, and can remain that way if the user wishes. The partition may be changed over to NTFS at any time by the admin, but it requires a reboot. -._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.- NTFS WHAT?! Once changed to NTFS, there is no going back. It's NTFS for good. I would recommend using NTFS only if you want to have multiple users (local and remote) that you don't completely trust with the files. NTFS basically only adds user-by-user and group file permissions, which are accessible through the "properties" dialog for each file and directory. Converting to NTFS adds another folder tab to the dialog, allowing the administrator to edit the ACLs (Access Control Lists) for the object. If the permissions are set to allow it, certain users might be able to read the ACLs as well, and if misconfigured, users will be able to EDIT the ACLs...so be careful. ACLs have a kind-of pyramid structure. Possible permissions: Full Control Modify Read/Execute List Contents (folders/directories only) Read Write Each of these can have three states: Granted, Denied, or Neutral. If Denied, all "grants" are nulled, and Deny takes precidence. This means if you give the user "me" read access, and deny the group "Everyone" read access, the user "me" who is in the "Everyone" group (all local users are in Everyone, and this can't be changed), then the read access you granted "me" becomes denied because of the deny rule that also exists. However, if "Everyone" just isn't granted or denied read access, while "me" *IS* granted read access, "me" will retain the read access, and the null read-denied bit for the "Everyone" group won't overcome "me"'s access rights. Since "Everyone" doesn't have read-access granted, they can't read it anyways, and everyone is happy. If a user is given "Full control" over a file or directory, all other access permissions are immediately granted unless overcome by a "Deny" due to a group they are residing in. Remember this when troubleshooting file access problems. NTFS can be easily overcome at any time with NTFSDOS (a DOS tool that can be used by a user with a bootable floppy. It allows reading and writing to any file on the NTFS drive) or a linux boot floppy with NTFS in the kernel. This works with all versions of NT that implement NTFS. (NT 3.51 used HPFS) Of course, you realize this relies on a few factors, including Physical access, and the BIOS set to be able to boot from floppy or CDROM. I would recommend password-protecting the BIOS settings area, and turning off floppy/cdrom boot, which is a good idea anyways. This will help prevent a malicious user with physical access from compromising your system (although psysical access usually means easy admin access anyways, but it never hurts to make it harder). I would also recommend you get a copy of NTFSDOS or a crafted linux bootdisk kit that offers NTFS access (available on the web). Try it out, and get comfortable using it, because one day, you might need to recover something. If you ever need to recover it, go into the bios settings, enter your password, enable floppy/cdrom booting, and proceed, disabling floppy booting when done. This practice will ensure that you have access to recover files in case of an emergency, and will keep most anyone else from doing it the same way you did. -._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.- Hacking Windows 2000 Remember all those fun hacks for Windows NT? You know, like the ones where if you had an account and physical access to the box, you could add yourself to the administrators group, and all those? Well, so far as I can tell, not a single one of them work against Windows 2000. I may be wrong, but I've tried all the toys I found for NT4, and nothing works. About the only thing Windows 2000 seems to be vulnerable to is the boot floppy with an NTFS tool (covered in the previous section), and sniffing password hashes/raw telnet/ftp sessions. I would say your best bet is the sniffing route. I have not tried l0phtcrack against Windows 2000, but results are welcome by our readers (and I'll post your findings and appropriate credits on the News page and in the next issue of HiR). -._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.- The Windows 2000 Registry I'm not even going to TRY to get too specific here, as the Windows 2000 registry isn't much different from the Windows NT Registry. I'll give ya some pointers on system policies, though... First things first... In windows 95/98, it's easy for the end-user to change his/her own registry permissions, because there is no defined "Superuser" level account... you know as well as I do that anyone with a few extra minutes on their hands will eventually be able to gain full access on your Win95/98 box, no matter how hard the policies are locked down (see "Windows 95: User Friendly means Hacker Friendly", HiR issue 6 Article 7). Under the NT environment, there is REALLY an administrator account, and that has access to everything, therefore, the need for any user to be able to change policies around is depricated (and just plain bad). Normal users can not run registry patches or edit the registry in any way that would allow them more access. Period. Policies are in a similar location to Windows 95. Follow the registry tree! Your policies would be under: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies ^^|^^ |_--> NOT \WindowsNT\ Windows 2000 Policies are pretty much Identical to Windows 95 Policies (in fact, the policies are Identical to Windows 98, to the best of my knowledge). The new policies add a couple of policies to do things such as Disabling "Windows Update" (which goes out and tries to grab updates from MS, also telling MS what you have on your machine, uploads your Windows 2000 serial number, and other evil things). -._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.- Operating-System wise, How does W2K score? It's maybe a 6. It's possibly the best MS Operating system I've seen. If it's not the best, I would have to say it's the most intuitive. Will I switch to it from Linux, FreeBSD or some other UNIX-derived OS? Not on your life. It's very cool, but there is still something to be said about using too many resources just to make sure the user has an interface to run programs. Windows 2000 doesn't have what it takes just yet; I can do cool raw-socket operations for UNIX OS's, and that means I can have a lot more network fun. I can also do more work in less time, because my OS isn't wasting gerbil-wheel rotations on drawing cool pictures on the screen, and if it IS drawing, it's doing it through X11 or SVGAlib, both of which use less resources that whatever MS is doing with their API to let pictures onto the screen. The only real way I can describe what is happening is if I relate the operating system to the body of a car, and the hardware of the computer to the engine of the car. Here goes: If the car's body (the OS) is huge, and bulky, not very streamlined, and weighs a lot, the engine (processor, memory, etc) will have to work harder, and it will never run as fast as it could with a lightweight, sleek, and small body. Windows 2000 takes up 250 megs on the CPU for an install. I've seen a linux system use 3 megs of ramdisk space to run just fine. Which do you think is going to let the end-user use the processor (or hard drive for that matter) more efficiently? --Axon HiR 9 Novell Netware Inside Out By Asmodian X -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Introduction [-1]: Novell is one of those old school company's that became really popular because their Netware server software could run on just about any old PC machine, and client with just about anything. The downfall of Novell is that it got old and inflexible, and ignored the Internet and the Unices and TCP/IP, until it leapt up and bit them in the ass in the form of Windows NT(tm). Albeit Novell still out guns NT in performance, and security, it just lacked a pretty looking server, and the ease of use part. That factoid wasn't solved until the advent of Netware 5, which draws on TCP/IP and XFree86 for the gui. During this article I will briefly mention some of the ability's that Novell Version 4.1x and above has. And briefly go over how Novell works. Table of Contents: -1. Intro 0 Components of a Novell network .5 Overview on The Server 1 Overview of The client 1.5 Overview of the Services 2 Overview of Security 2.5 Overview of File Rights and Filters 3 Overview of NDS and NDS permissions 3.5 Roto-routing 4 IPX/SPX Sappiness 4.5 Summary 5 Netware 5 and Other After thoughts. Section [0] What makes a Novell Network? Novell networks are usually made up like all other Ethernets (or token rings) are. Network Card, Cable, hub, Server and or routers, Brouters and bridges. Novell relys on client software to work, and the server is the only point where a person can access the file system, (unless your using windows 9x's SMB sharing protocol.) Job-wise, there's a few CNA's(Novell Certified Network Administrator) who actually take care of the users, and some specialized CNE's (Cert. Net. Engineers) that actually perform maintnence and design new additions to the system. The CNA's generally don't know a whole lot about anything, and have done a little bit of computer work. To become a CNA you must memorize a bunch of lists, protocols and garbage, the regurgitate all of it onto the test which costs around 80 to 100$(US). Generally speaking they have to pull up the book to do anything more complicated than adding users and managing the print ques. The CNE's however have had ten times that amount of education, and actually know something about the system. (I'm not a big fan of Cramming sessions for tests, you get nothing out of it). Plus in my opinion its a useless piece of paper, but on the other hand, it gets you the money, and in most cases the job. So go figure.. The Server, Part [.5] The server is an x86 (probably Intel) which is crammed into a closet somewhere under lock and key. The server by itself is useless, except for the few utility's you can run on it in the form of NLM's (Netware Loadable Modules) Neat stuff like, EDIT, Servman and other stuff like that. The server itself can be locked away for long periods of time with out fear of lost productivity because other than being a server, its a useless paper weight. So what if you need to get at the startup files for the server? easy. Most administrators will set up a blurb in one of the startup files to load a remote access module LOAD rspx (spx remote protocol) LOAD remote This is a text book example of how to load the remote console server. This is also a gaping security hole. <*See The security section for more information.*> The Console then can be controlled by a client program called "rconsole" which resides on most dos/win, or win9x clients. Any logged in user can run rconsole, but needs to know the password to get console. -=-=-=-=-=-=- The Client [1] At this point we know roughly the place of the server (which I plan to get into more of that later.) But now we must talk about the client. A Novell Client, is the very first thing that is run (service wise) on your Bill box (dos/win3.1x, win 9x/NT) It Throws up a login screen, and allows you to connect to a certain Novell server, or into a user profile which resides on to another branch of the Novell Directory Service (NDS). We will talk more about NDS later, so don't blow a neuron. Security Difference Between Novell 3.x/4.1x and Unix type security. [UNIX] A Unix box just sits quietly on the network waiting for some one to connect to a service, and use it. The Unix server (assuming it is currently running TCP/IP) has an actual address. Which means it will reside at that logical location on that network, regardless of which user is using the Unix box, or what its Physical Address it is using. A Unix box does not require logins for certain types of services. Like for instance: World Wide Web Finger Time/Date Character Generator These do not require a person to login to the service, they are for the most part PUBLIC services. And relys on the security of the network to keep unwanted users from accessing those services. [Novell Netware] A Client has no static address, it just sits there listening for SAP (Service Announcement Protocol) The Client knows what servers are out on the network by listening for their services broadcasted by server. example: A server broadcasts that it is a server, and is residing at Physical Address xxxxxxxx. A client hears this and places the server on its list of servers that the user can access. Once a user chooses to connect to a server, the user must enter a username, and or password for that server/service. The Server validates the user. Then the client is issued a Connection number made up of their NIC card's Physical address, and some of the users information. The user is counted as a connection to the server, and the Administrator can see which user is logged in at which machine, just by looking at the connection number. A great advantage of using Netware 4.1x is that NDS allows a person to access resources on multiple servers by logging in just once. -=--=-==-- [1.5] The Services Novell Netware 4.1x provides File sharing, Printing, Software liscencing services, email ...blah blah blah... you get the point. Novell Netware even supports TCP/IP. A person could set up an IPX to IP gateway, or just have IPX and IP co-exist on the same network. Another neeto thing is setting up telnet services on the server. From there a person logs in, then gets an XTERM (XFree86 Terminal) that spits out a server console. (Xterm's are usable on Un*x machines, and there's also Win9x Xclients that can display the XTERM. It shows up like remote does. Novell also has a slew of Unix like services, like FTP, HTTP and even addressing services like DHCP and stuff like that. in any case, Novell Netware provides the standard snafu services that every one else does plus a few proprietary services. -=-=-=-=-- [2.0] Security. Novell Netware has 4 layers of security. 1. Login (session based): the server does not acknolage your existence with out logging in. 2. NDS (Novell Directory Services): Checks what access you have on the entire network. plus access to database on users 3. File System Rights: (s)upervisor(r)ead(w)rite(e)race(c)reate (m)odify(f)ile scan(a)ccess Control 4. File Attributes: (there are many many many many attributes) ie. read only, don't compress...etc (Novell Security Goofiness) Many administrators will have a guest account that they use temporarily for temp workers or new employees. So that in it self defeats the purpose of layer 1. NDS Cant be directly accessed. But by default you have access to the system volume. If you can get there take a look in the etc directory. Thats where the system stores setup. Most files you don't have read access too, but there's a fun bug in Netware 4.11. If the admin setup TCP-IP, the setup proggie puts the rconsole commands in a publicly readable config file password and all. So you skip all four layers and have direct access to the console. The console does not look very pretty, but thats where you set up all of the services.. go figure.. I implore you, be nice to the admin, tell them about this and ask them to fix it. It can be fixed by simply removing the world readable attribute from the offending file. It can also be fixed by putting in a script file that it self is hidden, but the system can still run it. Another note, the actual console shows your every move so your presence is not totally invisible. Another note is that the admin can actually set up a screen saver password that would make it more difficult for a person to get through. [2.5] File rights and Filters (I.R.F) File rights are one of the most important features that Novell has. (File rights) R Read contents of a file W Write Stuff to a file C Create a new file in this directory E Erase file in this directory M Modify File Attributes F File Scan (allows you to see what files are in this directory) A Administrator (the god bit) no matter what they have set up in this directory in the way of permissions, they no longer apply to you. you can see the permissions using the ndir dos command, or by viewing the properitys on the file by right clicking on the file and choosing properitys. The file rights R and F, are by default assigned to all directory's. In-order to control what inherited rights a sub folder gets, an administrator will set up what is known as an Inherited Rights Filter. Also known as an I.R.F. An IRF can block certain rights from being inherited from a higher folder. the Attributes in Brackets "[]" are your users effective rights to that folder. the "-" stands for an IRF. Root+ [RW MF ] | +Fred+ [RW MF ] | +Jim+ [R- -F ](*the W and M attributes have been blocked*) | +Larry [R F ] (* The folder Larry inherited only the R and F attributes and not the M and W attributes. *) [3.0] The Novell Directory Service(s) or N.D.S, and its attributes NDS was one of the primary features that Novell added to Netware 4.1x. It exists in Netware 5 and Has actually been ported to Windows NT Server. With NDS a User can use resources (like files servers and printers ... blah blah blah) any where on the novell network that he/she/it has been given rights to. It no longer requires a separate login to get to other servers resources. N.D.S is essentially a big database of services and where they are located at on the network. To make a long story short, when you add a computer to a network, you add an individule being to a communications medium. When you add a Novell Server to a Novell Network, It is Assimilated into a collective entity, ala Borg. So its a good way to reduce the work of administrating a bunch of servers because if you talk to one server, you have talked to them all. Some of the resources that a person will see on an NDS database will be, Users, Orginisational units (something to compartimentalise your resources) Groups, printers, Print ques, mail ques ....Blah blah blah. The Database has its own structure and design, and has changed in design a wee bit from Netware 4.1x to Netware 5. A bug in Netware 5's NDS design will crash the entire NDS database if you assimilate it into an existing Un-patched Netware 4.1x network. The NDS database can be stretched out to reside on multiple servers, just in-case a server bombs out, the database will still be some what intact. this is done through partitioning. All or part of a database can reside on a server. This can accomplish several things. First it keeps server traffic down, because multiple servers can take care of business. Second, you can create a logical structure for a network. By logical I mean that it used to be that a large department needed its own server to control its own resources. With NDS people could make a logical branch for the department, and utilize resources from all over the building rather than investing in redundant equipment. Another Note, File servers also reside on NDS as an Object. At only one point in NDS you can put an IRF onto an object to stop the administrator Right. And that place is on the file Volume it self. It is an effective road block to separate NDS rights and File Rights. (NDS Rights) Slightly more numerous than File rights, NDS rights not only control a users access to certain objects, but to NDS data as well. NDS keeps track of attributes to those objects. Information such as Name age, address, phone number, date of birth ... what ever the admin puts into the users object. There are Object Rights(Make news objects delete...etc), and there are Property Rights (database info) Those Object rights are: o S Supervisor (*anything you want to do can be done*) o B Browse(*See what stuff is*) o C Create(*Make New stuff*) o D Delete(*Delete Stuff*) o R Rename(*Rename something*) The Property Rights are: o S Supervisor (*As above*) o C Compare (*Something to the effect of checking to see if something exists, or yes/no property comparisons and stuff like that. ie.. it can tell you that 75% of the users live at the same address*) o R Read (* Read that objects properitys*) o W Write(* Change properitys on said object*) o A Add Self (* you can manipulate your own properitys and stuff something akin to supervisor rights but not quite as direct*) IRF's also exist in NDS, and work in pretty much the same manner as the File IRF's do. [3.5] Roto-Routing IPX/SPX is alot faster than TCP/IP on a LAN, but runs into problems when it starts being used in a WAN (Wide-Area-Network) environment. Ie. from City to City, or country to Country Links. IPX/SPX can only be bounced through three routers before the packet gets lost and dies. Where as TCP/IP can be routed indefinitely. IPX/SPX typically is most effective on a single segment. Ie every ones using the same medium. Like for instance, an IBM token ring network is nice and spiffy for IPX/SPX because all of the computers, and the servers exist on the same piece of Wire (so to speak). What Routing Does Is that takes a packet of information, sees if its for a computer locally, and if its not, it sends the packet up to the next network layer (usually a MAN(Metropolitan Area Network), or a WAN(Wide area network). Which other routers take a look at the packet and see if its for them, and then if it is for a computer on their segment, they snarf it, and the process repeats it self. Note: Netware 5 uses ONLY TCP/IP now, which solves the routing problem. [4.0] IPX/SPX SAPPINESS Sap not only runs from pine trees, but it runs out of Netware 4.1x and Netware 5 servers as well. SAP stands for Service Announcement Protocol. Sap is how Clients can see what services there are on a Novell Network. The Client just stands there stupid and waits for a server to announce its presence to the world. SAP simply contains the MAC address of the resources, and what the resource is. SAP can run out of clients too. For instance, a person can run the Pserver program to announce to the rest of the network that your printer is ready to accept print jobs. (of course the server still has to be there to manage the print ques and stuff) Note: Netware 5 makes full use of the TCP/IP broadcast address for SAPing purposes. [4.5] Summary Novell is one of the most popular Network OS's around. The rumors of Novells Demise is greatly exaggerated by everybody's favorite spin doctor... Mr. Bill. Most established company's use Some form of Novell or another for their lans. In the way of security, Novell is pretty good, though their target market didn't buy it because of that, and have been known to do stupid things with their security. [5.0] After thoughts Information on Novell the company and its products: HTTP://www.novell.com Security Announcements that first pointed out the Config file flaw. Bugtraq Mailing list archive. http://www.geek-girl.com/bugtraq/ The Ugly Red Book that Costs too much for what it actually provides. Clarke, James David, IV. " Novell's CNE Study Guide: IntranetWare/Netware 4.11" Novell Press, San Jose 1997 ISBN 0-7645-4512-4 Slightly biased Summary: Although Jam packed with fruity information on Netware, This book is poorly orginised. The incessant "Words of wisdom" and the authors Flaming ego tend to distract your attention from the actual content. This book requires a long attention span, and perhaps some form of Ritilan to fully digest. Im not suprised if this book was in part sponsored by the midwest pulp association, weighing in at a paltry 1570 pages. Asmodians Slightly biased Rating: If your stuck in the wilderness and need to start a fire, do not have any qualms about burning this book, you will be missing nothing.. Telecom guide. Green, James Harry. "The Irwin Handbook of Telecommunications 3rd Ed." Irwin, Chicago 1997 ISBN 0-7863-0479-0 Summary: This book is some what dry, however it is concise and very to the point. I found it easy to read, and it was very factual. It goes into great detail on the telecommunications industry. A must read if you want to feel the telecomunication industrys pain. ////////////////////////////// /_\ o |} (\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ / | || / ///////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ More OS Stuffs: ////////////////////////// /////////////////////////// Red Hat 6.0 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////// by: Axon \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ While I didn't get ahold of Red Hat's 6.0 in time for my OS comparison, I got it on the 10th of May (The day it was released in stores). There are a LOT of good things, and a lot of bad things about Red Hat's latest crack at the "User Friendly" distribution. If you believe in leaving your linux box with stock interfaces, I really hope that you've got a fast machine. 6.0 comes stock with both KDE and Gnome. While the majority of the setup process is still an ncurses based text pseudo-GUI, once you've completed the X-Window System configuration, you're given the option to "Boot in GUI mode", instead of having to manually change it over. If you installed KDE or Gnome, Red Hat 6.0 will replace xdm (X Display Manager) with either Gnome's gdm (gnome display manager) or kdm (K Display Manager, part of the K Desktop Environment package). Both gdm and kdm offer more than xdm. Gdm has an options menu that allows the user to select a different interface before they login. It also allows the user to select different language sets. Some of the language sets work better than others, and none of them are carried outside the window manager and it's applets. Kdm only has a drop-down menu for the user to select what window manager they want to use. Both gdm and kdm have a "shut down or restart" button of some sort on the login screen. This can be disabled or controlled with the root password. Gnome alone is just kind of a Window Manager Extension. A "Gnome" Session is really Gnome running on top of the Enlightenment window manager (although it's easy to make it run on top of WindowMaker, if you installed it. This is (to me) a much more appealing combo, but still a CPU Hog). Both KDE and Gnome/Enlightenment, while they make the end-user sigh in relief, take up massive amounts of memory and CPU when compared to most other window managers such as WindowMaker, fvwm, or icewm. They look very pretty, and they're a snap to get used to, though. It's my guess that Red Hat 6.0 will become one of the first widely-accepted "Desktop Linux Distributions" for corporations or universities, because it's really easy to get up and running, and easy to use, as well. It's already being used a lot for these applications, but I'm still willing to be that Red Hat 6.0 will increase the widespread use of Linux as a "Normal" Desktop OS. As far as installation changes are concerned, there is an "Authentication" screen in the installation process, where you're given options to use NIS authentication, shadowed passwords, and MD5 passwords. The printer setup screen allows you to select a NetWare printer if you've installed NetWare Connectivity in the packages. Previousely, no matter if you installed netware connectivity or not, you had to add netware printers after the system was fully installed. "Select Individual Packages" now breaks the packages down into an "expanded package tree" view, which is kind of annoying to those of us who were used to the older method. Red Hat 6.0 (when bought from the store) also ships with 2 books that are very well-written, an "Official Red Hat 6.0 Installation Guide" and an "Official Red Hat 6.0 Getting Started Guide". The manuals, as in past versions of Red Hat, are also included on the CD, but only in HTML format, not in PostScript. They are in /usr/doc/rhmanual (install manual) and /usr/doc/rhgsg (getting started guide). When you buy Red Hat 6.0, it comes with 30 days of free phone installation support. Between the getting started guide and phone support, there is no reason that almost anyone wouldn't be able to use Red Hat 6.0. It's THAT user-friendly. Also, when you buy it from the store, you get a CD full of mostly RPM-packaged whole applications that basically work right out of the box. This is full of commercial software (I think) and it can't be downloaded from official Red Hat sites. So, is it a waste of $65-$70 at your computer store, or a whole day (or 3) of downloading and burning to CD? I don't think so. It's easy to customize, and not horribly insecure out of the box. It needs some work to be a secure server, but for the desktop user, it's great. You could probably convince your other family members to use it after getting them an account and forcing them to play with it for a few minutes (show 'em The GIMP!) I'm not sure I would run out to buy the package from the store (I didn't). because I didn't really give a rat's ass about installation support or manuals (especially when I've used so many different OS's that I don't need installation support and the manuals are on the CD). My advice is to find a friend that has it and burn a copy (or go to cheapbytes and get it from them for $1.99. This one includes only the first CD, not the source code CD, and it doesn't include any paper manuals, just the electronic on-Disc ones). It's too soon to tell if there are any new security vulnerabilities floating around within the bowels of Red Hat's Latest release. Keep your eyes on BugTraq! --Axon On Going Digital By Frogman (note: Of intrest to some, this article, except for this note and some minor typographical changes has been written on a TI-92 in the text editor. I transfered it to my 'miggy with Amiga92 and a parallel cable I built. I just opened the raw variable, found that it contained ASCII and some other nasty control chars and cleaned it up into this.) Some time ago I purchased a microcassette recorder. I've used it to record many things, including some of the DefCon 6.0 presentations (I should have gotten the CDC's BO release on tape!) and my thoughts on certain subjects. One of them is my initial thoughts on going digital. In my own words: And so it begins. Heh, Frogman gets personal with an elctromagnetic device. Who would have thought the day would come? Digital technology and all it's wonders is no match for an analog recording, except for the fact that one's friggin' permenant and the other erodes away in the dusts of time. Immortality, that's what it's all about. Overrated media-hype. The digital immortality, still f***ing analog. In my 90's world, my way of thinking, everything is simplification. What do you do to simplify analog? What is analog? High, low. The difference between is called analog. When the difference no longer matters, 'cept that there is a difference, that is digital. Both do erode in the way of time. The only question is, how fast? The fact that there is a difference is still discernable. The fact of how much, that get's fuzzy. That is the difference. Like I said, immortality is f***ing overrated. Who ever wants to be immortal has go something wrong in their head. Who wants to be the same person for centuries,nothing changing over time? Nobody else change over time? Who wants to be the same person they were six billion years ago? That's immortality. Immortality won't last you about three years and go away. Immortality is f***ing forever. People want to live forever, they will see their friends, their family, everyone they either knew, hear of, cared about, thought about, considered dating, considered f***ing, whatever. When they are gone you'll still be around six billion years from now. Watching ---------- world. ------ ----- friggin' planet. Like I said, overrated media-hype. Well, for the time being we can ignore the immortality aspects and such. They stem from a philosophy class I was taking at the time. What I want to focus on is the deal about analog vs. digital and their self refrencing traits. As I said, digital is a subset of analog, where all that matters is the fact of a difference in states. Converting from analog to digital is not all that hard, simply identify a regular period to meaure from, mark high and low points, and thats about it. The conversion of digital to analog is tougher, because of the missing information. To start, we need a new way to get from analog to digital that describes the wave. One way to do this is to increase the period to identify not just highs and lows, but the rise and fall values in between. But digital doesn't allow for anything but two values, right? Well, we can combine those two values into patterns to represent bigger numbers, like we do in base 10, or decimal. The old standard of digital to analog conversion in the home market was 8 bit. The analog signal was abstracted into a list of numbers representing the value of the wave at a point in a given period. Well, by narrowing the time between two gaps, we can get a good approximation of the wave, even to the point that we end up going past the abilities of out 8 bit value set. In that set we are abstracting the wave in to values of 0 to 255 or from -127 to 128. The problem with this is that small sublties in the wave are lost if they are between two values available, The way to correct this is to base the conversions on a larger set, such as 16 bits. This gives us a range of 0 to 65536 or -32767 to 32768. This gives a much clearer and accurate abstraction of the wave. If memory serves, this is about on par with the average quality that the human ear identifies. Now, with a much clearer way of going from analog to digital, going in reverse is quite simple, just convince some DAC (digital to analog converter or circuit) to smooth out a few rough edges, and we have our original waves general look back. The problem I identified with analog and digital (before heading into the immortality rant) are clear, when you consider the proposals I have just made about conversions. The analog wave is being approximated and abstaracted into a string of numbers, which can be stored and coppied in an exact form, since they are working in a bounded set, ie. the range allocated by how many bits you use. The waves exact properties are lost in the conversion, but the only known ways to reproduce analog waves is by approximation. So, having found that digital is a subset of analog, and that the subset can be used to represent values larger than the individual digits in the set, we can guess the whole "digital is better" mindset really isn't true. Digital is what we have to do. That sounds alomst ominous, but digital is the only way to maintain exact copies of our analog world, only suffering a loss of data in the inital conversion. Now that some chunks of theory and analysis are out on the table, if you've read this far, you may be wondering where this is leading. There are many applications for this whole topic, but in this issue I want to focus on audio, specifically analog to digital and vice versa, especially in the case of data transmission, such as modems. =] This all brings me around to the coupler Axon built. Why don't people use couplers more often, you may wonder? Well, acoustic couplers convert signal to signal, just like a hardwired modem. But they have more conversions, and therefore more room for data loss. A modem converts the digital signal from a souce such as an RS-232, RS-442, PCMCIA, ISA, PCI, or what ever interface goes from the computer to the modem. It is digital all the way. From the modem down the phone line to the next modem is an analog connection, which a basic analog signal is sent that the other modem can pull the digital highs and lows out of. From there it gets sent to the other computer throught the whathaveyou interface digitally. Nice, one conversion to and from analog. But what about the acoustic coupler? We start at the modem this time, and the initial digital to analog conversion. From there it goes through the coupler, which blasts the analog signal from a speaker. That speaker approximates the analog electrical signal, and turns it into moving air. The air in turn moves the microphone of the handset the acoustic coupler is attached to. The microphone apporoximates the air movement into an electrical signal, and sends it merrily on its way through the phone line,as in the strait modem to modem example. What this shows is two more analog to analog approximations to the data signal in top of what is there to start with. Those approximations can be royally screwed if the speaker on your coupler sucks, the microphone in the handset sucks, or the air movement in between is interefed with, which sucks. And what you have learned today, I hope is that approximation is necessary, to a degree. Too much approximation ruins the abstraction of the analog data, and ruins this whole point of using digital tools to reduce data loss. --------------------------------------- " Teach me how to hack !@#$ " by Ixl ---------------------------------------- Teach me how to hack ! i wanna be a hacker ! how do i use winnuke ? I'm sure most of you either hear these questions or are the one's asking them. I'm writing this article for the people who are asking them,i've decided that i'm sick of hearing these questions on irc and everywhere else for that matter. So load up ms word kiddy's and start reading. Now i'm sure most of you wannabe-hackers must think that "hacking" is something glorious and the "in" thing these days,let me fill you in on a little secret,it's not ! First off let's define hacking,in my opinion hacking is not defacing websites,it is not launching denial of service attacks against servers ,it's not running the latest exploit against unpatched boxes. These are all things that *almost* anyone can do,they are not very complicated and do not take much technical ability. What is hacking you ask ? Well depending on whom you ask,you will get a different answers,if your asking me,i would have to say hacking == the pursuit of knowledge ,that is the simplest way i can put it,it's not the pursuit of knowing how to run the latest version of winnuke,it's the pursuit of learning how an operating system works,how programs are written,why certain things work the way they do. In all honesty this is not an overnight thing,it is a life long journey which never ends,to be a hacker is to strive day in,day out to educate yourself and move ahead. Now you might be thinking at this point that i'm full of shit because i don't type in l33t hax0r sp3ak , the truth is ,i think it's pointless,and nobody undertands what the fuck your saying,don't do it ! Also i'd like to point out that i'm *not* claiming to be a hacker,nor have i ever made that claim,i simply love computer's,i love hacking my config files,i love shiny new boxes to old 386's,i love seeing something i never have and experiencing the joy's of learning about it. That is what "hacking" is about,creating things and doing things for positive instead of negative. Now i'm sure at this point your probably wondering, "when is this guy gonna teach us how to be hackers ? " ,well i can't do that,nobody can,only you can do that.What i can do is point you in the right direction. I'm sure i've lost about 75% of you reading this becasue i'm not giving out "10 steps to root" or "cracking porn sites",but for the rest of you 25% that are actually interested in moving ahead and actually understanding how that big white box on your desk works,i will help you out. First off if you don't love your computer and enjoy sitting in front of it for endless hours,your probably not gonna get very far, learning takes much time and patience,it is not an easy task,but if you are motivated and are willing to put in the time,your already ahead of the 75% of the kids who just want to brake into things for no reason. Let's start with the machine right next to you,have you ever taken it apart and looked inside ? Do you know how your machine boots up and communicates with your hardware ? If the answers are no then you should definately start there. Go out and look for some text files on the basics of how computer's work,almost any old dos book will cover the boot process,how programs are loaded into memory and why,how the operating system is the "shell" between you and your hardware. You must start at the beggining and learn about the basics before you can move on,there are millions of text files out there,more than you could read in a lifetime. Instead of using your internet account to lounge on irc and ask people for answers,go out and find them ! If you don't know how to do that,then load up your browser and go to www.yahoo.com , it will be a great help to you. After you've learned about your machine and all the peices inside you will have a better understanding of why your computer behaves the way it does,and why the operating system is so important. I'm assuming the majority of you are running win95,and are comfortable with it,i'm not going to tell you to switch to another one,but i will tell you this,win95 is not the only operating system out there. There are many other's that are much nicer (IMHO),if you want to get into networking and understanding how computer's communicate,start with an operating system that has more features and was designed with networking capabilities in mind,try freebsd or linux, you'll be amazed at how much more you will understand when your editing all your configuration files by hand, instead of some stupid wizard doing it for you . Now at this point i'm hoping your interested and want to go even further to your quest of being a hacker,i'm sure you've realized by now that a unix based operating system is very important and can help you a lot more. Also i would like to point out that if you've installed linux or bsd that there is plenty of documentation that comes with them,and that reading them before you ask questions is the smart thing to do. Next on the list would be learning about networking,learn how computer's communicate on a network,there are unlimited texts on this and i'm sure by now you know how to find them. After that move on to a programming language,if your not ready for that start writing small shell scripts,then eventually move on to C . After all this you will realize the joy of learning on your own,the thrill of solving a problem all by yourself,i'm not saying don't ask questions,just make sure you've tried to answer them for yourself before asking someone else. In conclusion,you've now probably have a good idea of where you can go with all this,the possibility's are endless. No longer will you have to rely on other people to get where you want to go,you will hopefully be self-reliant and eager to push yourself,and this is what *hacking* is about. ------------------------------------------------ --<*>-<|>-<*>-- Hackers Information Report Issue #9 Hacker Newz --<*>-<|>-<*>-- Well, the HiR Crew did it once again... We've compiled yet another information-packed issue of Hackers Information Report, and we picked up another writer along the way! Axon says this probably one of the funnest issues he's been involved with since the whole thing began. Classes are winding down for most of the writers, and everything is turning out pretty good so far. Despite our slow-down in information divulging, HiR is STILL healthy and alive, looking for more information and constantly thinking up bizarre technologically-focused stuff to give to you, the reader. Ixl is the newest writer in the HiR Crew. He joined up with us about a month ago, expressing an interest in both gaining information and taking what he knows and learns in the future, to share it with those who will read it (this means you). Ixl joins us from Canada, and has recently taken interest in Linux & FreeBSD after the typical hacker phase of realizing "Windows just doesn't cut it all the time". Great Newz: Axon finally got into the UNIX Administration class for the fall semester, so in a few months, you could expect to see some Solaris articles (and hopefully they don't decide to switch to Linux for the class. Right now, it looks like Solaris is going to be the platform used, and we'll see if they'll let students play with a Sun Ultra 1 or if they'll force us to use the Intel Edition of Solaris...) Also, as things build up before the Ultimate Gathering of Hackers in Vegas (AKA DefCon 7), Some of the HiR Crew is again preparing for the sacred outing. There's no stopping us. Rooms are reserved, and hardware has been purchased... It looks like all three of the attending HiR Crew Members (Frogman, Axon, Asmodian) are going to be armed with an arsenal of one laptop and one palmtop per person. Teehee... It looks like Frogman got a sweet deal on a decent palmtop (in addition to the 486 laptop he's always had), and Axon finally picked up a full-size laptop replacement, but still uses his palmtop where a full-size laptop isn't practical. Asmo's got the laptop and was the HiR Member to start us on the palmtop action as well, and a lot of our equipment is gonna be network-ready on arrival. For those of you who make it there, try to find us... We'll probably be handing out printed copies of the mag all the way back from issue #1. For those of you who aren't gonna make it: maybe next year. Save your nickels and dimes, cuz DAMN it's worth it! Rest assured, the entire HiR crew is good at notetaking (and most of us are damn fast typers, too), so there's bound to be some info in HiR 10 or HiR 11 about defcon... hopefully we'll squeeze out #10 before defcon, though... As we were saying earlier: HiR is alive and well, and it looks like HiR 10 will have some interesting things to offer as well. The Crew won't ruin it for you, but we've got some articles already in draft form, just screaming to be expanded on, touched up, and released. It even looks like we'll have another writer, and maybe even a truly bizarre article ("hacking your car" ?! That will cover simple "hacks" that give you more Horsepower/Acceleration and stuff) but that article isn't written yet, and may or may not show up in HiR. I guess it falls under "ethical hacking". Shout outs to: Palmtop computers with real QWERTY keyboards, Mountain Dew, Barq's, Surge, Dr. Pepper, Payphones everywhere you go (for easy online access!), and the Number 42. This issue took a lot of pulling together from all members, and it's probably one of the most informative issues we've released to date in terms of the "cool stuff" department (between technical/philosophical explanations, taking a closer look at some things, and hands on projects.) --HiR Crew, Signing off (06/01/1999) -- Yah, We're Y2K Compliant & Stuff.