Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4 machine?

retrocomputing.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4 machine?

#71

Post by jcpham2 »

FWIW these slotket adapters and such for compatibility on the right boards, usually Abit, Asus, and maybe even MSI back then, Well they had REAL overclocking abilities - How fast is your RAM and what kind of clock settings can the motherboard get away with in terms of multipliers? This was the earlyish days of overclocking - Celerons and Pentium IIs

I once had a Celeron 600 in one adapter for compatibility and then that was in Slot II to Socket 370 adapter, something comparable to [1] happily chugging along at 1.2Ghz, maybe even got that bad boy up to 1.4Ghz under Windows ME of all the OS before I eventually fried that CPU.

[1]http://krick.3feetunder.com/370mod/

Re: Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4 machine?

#72

Post by z500 »

ale42 wrote: post #24
smokel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have forgotten them, but there were also books printed on paper.

As long as you had access to a library... When I was 14 or so, I used the MS-DOS DEBUG program to run step-by-step an executable that did something to change blinking to high-intensity background in text mode. After one hour or so I found the magic BIOS call... which of course was documented in the technical manual I found in the library one year later (because new school = new library with more books).

When I was a kid I used to have this Charles Petzold book that I learned this stuff from, it was basically my Bible. I don't have it anymore, I wish I could remember what it was. People recommend Code a lot, but I don't think that was it.

Edit: it wasn't Charles Petzold at all, it was DOS Power Tools by Paul Somerson

Re: Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4 machine?

#73

Post by jcpham2 »

aesegiopiuaer wrote: post #40
H8crilA wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember when Win95 could be crashed or even rooted just by pinging it the right way? We really have come a long way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_of_death I also remember SMB vulnerabilities that stayed unpatched for years on some machines. That was already when Metasploit existed, so you could inject VNC into most Windows hosts on local network with just a few commands. These days at least the patching is sup…

I remember when CdC released Back Orifice to remote control Windows machines, like ejecting CDROM and such [1]. We really did come a long way, where 0-days go for 20 million dollars. [2]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Orifice 2: https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/27/russian-zero-day-seller-of...

I actually bought and wore the back orifice t-shirt from the CdC website in high school. Did any machines have that software installed? Maybe.

Re: Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4 machine?

#74

Post by necovek »

MBCook wrote: post #67
H8crilA wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why this is downvoted, the comment is on point. Is it because it is partly gpt-generated content? I wonder if patching memory worked in the debugger, if not this would have to be done by manually editing the kernel file with IDA or something, and rebooting the machine. But in either case this is a good way to find the problem.

That’s likely. ChatGPT is not reliable, dumping its explanation of an issue isn’t valuable. It’s noise. Everything in the comment before that was great, no reason vote it down for that.

If you don't want to be seeing ChatGPT generated content here, you should downvote it to discourage the poster from doing so. This is a perfect use of a downvote IMHO.

If you don't mind or care enough, obviously don't downvote, and if you love it, upvote it. That's how we get our community to develop some shared standards of communication.

FWIW, if someone wants ChatGPT content, they can just go to ChatGPT too.

Re: Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4 machine?

#75

Post by hedora »

cm2187 wrote: post #22
H8crilA wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember when Win95 could be crashed or even rooted just by pinging it the right way? We really have come a long way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_of_death I also remember SMB vulnerabilities that stayed unpatched for years on some machines. That was already when Metasploit existed, so you could inject VNC into most Windows hosts on local network with just a few commands. These days at least the patching is sup…

I remember those days. Even into the late 90s early 2000, modems (including ADSL) didn't come with a router, you had to establish a PPPoE connection from your computer, which also means your home machine was directly on the WAN with no firewall protection. I can't remember which version of windows but it must have been 98 or ME, you had to rush to download and install a patch when you connected it first to the intern…

This discussion is so funny.

I never encountered any of this, except that one roommate liked to brag about his expensive win 9x box, and me and another roommate would take turns using our junky linux and nt desktops to “pause” his machine with “ping -f”, usually in the middle of a lecture about how amazingly fast it was.

Later, we had an openbsd router running on an old 386 that we jammed a few old 10MBit 3com cards into (later, Linux, plus $20 ne2000’s).

Those things had 100% uptime other than power outages, ne2000 swaps, and the time I unplugged it after 50 gallons of water ran through it (stayed up, worked fine after I made a new copy of the soggy boot floppy).

Later we ended up with some shitty belkin router, etc. “Unplug it and plug it back in? Really?”

Eventually, I got a WRT54GL (emphasis on the L) which worked for a few years.

Now I’m back on OpenBSD. The only software downtime is due to PG&E power cycling it 100 times, and fsck expecting me to send a “y” over the serial port one of those times. Now it is double battery backed.

It works, but I’m living in fear of the day my PC Engines APU board finally gives up the ghost.

Also, sometimes our starlink’s linux cpu hangs. You’d think they could get that right. It’s not like it’s as hard as building a car, launching rockets, or operating a network that’s used for public safety announcements.

Re: Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4 machine?

#76

Post by smolder »

jcpham2 wrote: post #71

FWIW these slotket adapters and such for compatibility on the right boards, usually Abit, Asus, and maybe even MSI back then, Well they had REAL overclocking abilities - How fast is your RAM and what kind of clock settings can the motherboard get away with in terms of multipliers? This was the earlyish days of overclocking - Celerons and Pentium IIs I once had a Celeron 600 in one adapter for compatibility and then t…

Overclocking was fun, but I'm also glad modern CPUs can precisely control clocks and voltages to make use of what used to be safety margin.

Re: Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4 machine?

#77

Post by titzer »

H8crilA wrote: post #19
tzahifadida wrote: post #5

I build a port check way back to determine if services are up. It crashed half the company by simply opening a few tcp ports to the machines. Ridiculous days :)

Remember when Win95 could be crashed or even rooted just by pinging it the right way? We really have come a long way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_of_death I also remember SMB vulnerabilities that stayed unpatched for years on some machines. That was already when Metasploit existed, so you could inject VNC into most Windows hosts on local network with just a few commands. These days at least the patching is sup…

Ah, the good ole days of "hey what's your IP address?" followed by typing those four magical numbers into Winnuke and then watching a person just drop off ICQ. Still makes me chuckle. That worked for years.

Re: Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4 machine?

#78

Post by mingus88 »

JohnFen wrote: post #70
mistrial9 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IBR (Internet Background Radiation) that is really unpleasant.. engineers worked, companies worked and volunteers also worked to make the modern Internet, then selfish-clever, thieving, control-oriented militaristic jerks from WINDOWS filled the content with WINDOWS virus activity to play cheap stealing tricks on unsuspecting people. And you call it "the Internet" .. it has nothing to do with "the Internet" as much…

Windows deserves a lot of criticism, but let's be honest and fair here... this would have been the case regardless of what OS was dominant.

It would be more fair to criticize the corporate culture at Microsoft in the 90s that led to this situation.

They simply didn't really care. If another OS was dominant, it is easy to argue that fundamental security issues could have been addressed in a better fashion, if management wanted it to be so.

To wit, this is the same era of computing that spawned OpenBSD. You can't say with a straight face that OpenBSD would have been brought down by oversized ping packets or be allowed to accept traffic out of the box like Windows was.

Re: Why does trying to break into the NT 3.1 kernel reboot my 486DX4 machine?

#79

Post by mistrial9 »

mingus88 wrote: post #78
JohnFen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows deserves a lot of criticism, but let's be honest and fair here... this would have been the case regardless of what OS was dominant.

It would be more fair to criticize the corporate culture at Microsoft in the 90s that led to this situation. They simply didn't really care. If another OS was dominant, it is easy to argue that fundamental security issues could have been addressed in a better fashion, if management wanted it to be so. To wit, this is the same era of computing that spawned OpenBSD. You can't say with a straight face that OpenBSD would…

totally agree -- lived it
Post reply on HN