Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[dmr]

Might as well respond to Rob, though there are several
suspended historical questions.

The first VAX machines our own group (1127) bought were VAX 11/750s.
The Reiser+London folks in Bell Labs at Holmdel had already done
the 32V (on 11/780) that travelled to Berkeley and became 4.* BSD;
here, we were still on PDP-11/70. About the same time our
larger organization (112) decided to buy a central server for
things like mail and Usenet and various shared data: this was the
VAX 11/780 called Alice (I get mail first sent to dmr@alice.att.com).
These all, at first, ran 32V, but not the version that was
distributed.  John Reiser and Tom London did quite a few
interesting things, including an inherently more sophisticated
virtual memory scheme than earliest BSDs--at least, for example,
treating the VM page pool as integrated with the buffer cache.

However, at some point the Holmdel group perceived that
as a Unix research project they were at an end point;
USG and System III and then V were being
thought of as a potential product as divestiture approached.

They, and we, decided that 32V was over.  The VAX BSD distributions
had begun, and Chesson brought in an early BSD (I think 4.1c)
and ran it on the experimental 750.  No one here was enthusiastic
about touching its paging scheme, but this (maybe a slightly
updated) system had the character-device part scooped out
and replaced by the stream I/O mechanisms in 8th Edition.
Once this was working well enough, it displaced the 32V
systems, eventually on alice and her companion rabbit.

The early 11/750 had plenty of bugs.  I forget the precise
details of why copy-on-write wasn't easy, but it was
approximately that incorrect status was stored on a
a write-to-read-only page fault.  This or a similar bug
also affected stack extension.  (Something like: if a
calls instruction is the last one on a page, and the
stack pointer refers to a page not in memory, the
saved instruction location is not that of the faulting
instruction, but something else).

Re Presotto's observation about ICP/IP:  the
8th edition system including Streams was already pretty
much in place by the time that Robert Morris adapted
the then-current BSD TCP/IP stack to streams.  At that time,
we were using either serial communication over various modems,
and more notably Datakit. Looking back at this, one of
the satisfying things is that the communication structure
built then was adaptable so smoothly to TCP/IP when
the protocol's importance became undeniable.

	Dennis

[9fans] SMC PCMCIA Ethernet card

[Mike Fletcher]

Which ethernet driver comes closest for the
SMC 8040TX Fixed-Port PCMCIA Adapter?  It claims to be 
ne2000 compatible.

I've tried the EC2T, but it doesn't set up the #l0 driver.

aux/pcmcia sees it as a '10/100 Port Attached PC Card'

MS Windows runs it OK on port 0x300 and irq 11, so I know
the card works.

I'd appreciate any ideas anyone has on it.

-Mike Fletcher
 EECS Dept
 Tulane University

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Boyd Roberts]

> >>i think i thought EGREG had something to do with it as well.

not known to work reliably at any speed, but the code is huge.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi,

> I'll let someone who knows answer, such as Dennis.
> Boyd is wrong.

I thought that Thompson did it quite early on and by the time he
announced it with that paper the compiler had long since been replaced
by Johnson's PCC.

PCC was at its late formalative stage around March 1976 according to
Dennis.

    http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/firstport.html


Ralph.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[forsyth]

>>i think i thought EGREG had something to do with it as well.

that, i suspect, would be chesson, and might have been prompted
by the mpx implementation.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[rog]

> The closest we got to using 4.n BSD was when Robert Morris, now at MIT,
> imported the 4.1c TCP/IP stack into 7/8th edition (I believe in 84)
> nominally as my summer student.

it's funny, i'm not entirely sure why now, but i'd always assumed there was
some connection between the 9th/10th edition and BSD. i think my
misapprehension came from the existence in the 10th edition manuals of
deprecated(2), which held some sys calls that i'd assumed were unique
to the BSD lineage.

i think i thought EGREG had something to do with it as well.

  rog.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[rob pike]

When Dennis wakes up he'll say more, but my foggy memory holds that
although we ran a 32V kernel for a while, we eventually cut over to a
Berkeley kernel that was then hacked to ribbons and eventually led to
the 8th edition.  It may even have been multi-step: Berkeley, 32V,
Berkeley.  There was a lot of hand-wringing over which kernel the
research machines should run.  Hands still wring today, on occasion.

-rob

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 363 bytes --]

Huh, I was at Berkeley from 79-83 and Ken wasn't anywhere to be seen.
I believe he left Berkeley as a student aroung 66 and taught there
for a year in 75 on sabbatical from the labs.

The closest we got to using 4.n BSD was when Robert Morris, now at MIT,
imported the 4.1c TCP/IP stack into 7/8th edition (I believe in 84)
nominally as my summer student.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2065 bytes --]

From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@fr.inter.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:51:20 +0200
Message-ID: <003401c14a5e$9feb1710$a2b9c6d4@SOMA>

> It seems more recent than I had guessed - or could the 1984 article
> have been written some time after Ken's experiment??

iirc, i think he is rumoured to have done it around when he went to UCB.
that musta been the early '80s 'cos i think that how he came back with
4.1BSD which became 8th Ed (it was around in '84).

yes, correct your family tree diagrams now :)

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[rob pike]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 78 bytes --]

I'll let someone who knows answer, such as Dennis.
Boyd is wrong.

-rob


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2587 bytes --]

From: Digby Tarvin <digbyt@acm.org>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:46:23 +0100 (GMT/BST)
Message-ID: <200110010946.KAA21139@cthulhu.dircon.co.uk>

Yep - that was it. A brilliant explanation too. Thanks to all that
pointed it out to me.

It seems more recent than I had guessed - or could the 1984 article
have been written some time after Ken's experiment??

Regards,
DigbyT

rob pike:
> This was described in Ken Thompson's Turing Award lecture:
> 
> 	http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95
> 
> -rob
-- 
Digby R. S. Tarvin                                              digbyt@acm.org
http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Boyd Roberts]

> It would have to grow *up*ward to prevent an overrun of a local
> variable from affecting the previous call frame.

yeah it took me a few reads of that to work out that stack grew *up*.

i was thinking, now how did the vax do it?  P1BR/P1LR trickery.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Digby,

> I have often wondered if it just urban legend, or is there a basis in
> fact?

It was Ken Thompson and he described it on accepting the ACM's Turing
Award.

    http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/

Cheers,


Ralph.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Bobby Dimmette wrote:
> From a security aspect, the we32000 was immune to stack-based buffer
> overflow attacks because the stack grew downward leaving the call/return
> structure unaffected.

It would have to grow *up*ward to prevent an overrun of a local
variable from affecting the previous call frame.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

dmr@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> ... AT&T Federal Systems
> did do System V/MLS certified to B1 or B2 or so.

What I found especially fascinating was that the security
policy was enforced even within the 5620 terminal's
windowing system, so that the user could not cut and
paste data between levels in the "wrong" direction.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Boyd Roberts]

> It seems more recent than I had guessed - or could the 1984 article
> have been written some time after Ken's experiment??

iirc, i think he is rumoured to have done it around when he went to UCB.
that musta been the early '80s 'cos i think that how he came back with
4.1BSD which became 8th Ed (it was around in '84).

yes, correct your family tree diagrams now :)

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Digby Tarvin]

Yep - that was it. A brilliant explanation too. Thanks to all that
pointed it out to me.

It seems more recent than I had guessed - or could the 1984 article
have been written some time after Ken's experiment??

Regards,
DigbyT

rob pike:
> This was described in Ken Thompson's Turing Award lecture:
> 
> 	http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95
> 
> -rob
-- 
Digby R. S. Tarvin                                              digbyt@acm.org
http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[rob pike]

This was described in Ken Thompson's Turing Award lecture:

	http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95

-rob

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Boyd Roberts]

> On the subject of sneaky Unix hacks, it reminded me of a story
> that I think I first heard back in my student days the late 70s
> which I think was attributed to you Dennis...

it was ken.

> I have often wondered if it just urban legend, or is there a basis in fact?

it's all explained in _reflections on trusting trust_:

    http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Digby Tarvin]

Thanks for the fascinating read.

On the subject of sneaky Unix hacks, it reminded me of a story
that I think I first heard back in my student days the late 70s
which I think was attributed to you Dennis...

As I recall it was a trojan horse attack based on a modification
to the C compiler which caused it to recognise when it was compiling
the login program, and insert appropriate sneaky back door in the
generated code.

The really sneaky bit was that it also recognised when it was
compiling an unmodified source for the C compiler, and inserted
this and the modification above in the generated code.

The end result was that no modified source code need remain
on the system, but a complete rebuild from clean source would
result in the back door still being generated....

I have often wondered if it just urban legend, or is there a basis in fact?

Regards,
DigbyT

dmr@plan9.bell-labs.com:

> I've been interested in this too, though until now I've
> never asked TD about it directly (but just did).
>
> I retrieved the internal tech-memo version of Duff's paper
> from the BL library's collection.  It's a big page-scan
> (768KB in PDF).  Usenix doesn't seem to have the published
> version.
>
> For the moment, it's available at
>  www.cs.bell-labs-com/~dmr/tdvirus.pdf
>
> If Tom objects, I'll withdraw it.  But it's a nice paper.
>
> 	Dennis
--
Digby R. S. Tarvin                                              digbyt@acm.org
http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Bobby Dimmette]

I think the backplane/peripheral IO was the biggest problem for the
3B2.  And it wasn't solved just by putting an R3000 on the system
board...  There was a project around 1992 to port the Plan9 file and cpu
kernels onto the mips version.  In the end, it did not prove practical.
If they had just used VME...

 From a security aspect, the we32000 was immune to stack-based buffer
overflow attacks because the stack grew downward leaving the call/return
structure unaffected.


Boyd Roberts wrote:

> > System V/MLS is still being used in a few places today.  It was
> > available on the 3B2 (we32k and mips versions) and x86 platforms.
>
> i'd forgotten about that system.
>
> those 3B2's [we32k] were horrible machines.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Boyd Roberts]

> System V/MLS is still being used in a few places today.  It was
> available on the 3B2 (we32k and mips versions) and x86 platforms.

i'd forgotten about that system.

those 3B2's [we32k] were horrible machines.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Bobby Dimmette]

System V/MLS is still being used in a few places today.  It was
available on the 3B2 (we32k and mips versions) and x86 platforms.  It
was certified C2 and B1.  The government had a contractual requirement
for MLS, but access controls seemed like a good idea anyway.  The
constraints of MLS affected usability and made it difficult to sell.

dmr@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:

> Gwyn's correct, by the way, that AT&T Federal Systems
> did do System V/MLS certified to B1 or B2 or so.
> This was independent of the McIlroy and Reeds work,
> though I'm certain there was consultation.
>
>         Dennis

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Boyd Roberts]

> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/tdvirus.pdf

i love the scan.  i know that i'd read it, i just can't think how.

paul vixie changed gatekeeper's kernel in '92/93 so that only root
could set the public execute bit as a form of certification, which
duff speaks of.  of course, this was just glue but nevertheless a
clever, easy to implement and efficient hack.

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[dmr]

Thanks for the typo-correction for the URL:

http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/tdvirus.pdf

is indeed the correct current place.  I heard from Duff
that he's content to have it visible.

The topic is somewhat off-topic for Plan 9, but not
by too much, because similar schemes remain plausible
in Plan 9 systems.  Among the small changes to recent
filesystems/protocols is the transmission and maintenance
of a last-modifier UID for files--one of the minor but
useful diagnostic tools that help.

Gwyn's correct, by the way, that AT&T Federal Systems
did do System V/MLS certified to B1 or B2 or so.
This was independent of the McIlroy and Reeds work,
though I'm certain there was consultation.

	Dennis

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Anthony Mandic]

dmr@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:

> For the moment, it's available at
>  www.cs.bell-labs-com/~dmr/tdvirus.pdf

	Slight typo here. Correcting the second dash to a dot
	brings up http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/tdvirus.pdf
	as the URL.

-am	© 2001

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[dmr]

 > apparently point 18 in the references section of "Multilevel Security in
 > the UNIX Tradition" ( http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cstr/163c.ps.gz)
 > lists a paper by tom duff called "Experience with Viruses on UNIX
 > Systems" (Computer Systems 2, 1989), which apparently tells the tale of
 > this very same virus you were discussing today...

 > i can't find the paper unfortunately, but it definitely sounds
 > interesting

I've been interested in this too, though until now I've
never asked TD about it directly (but just did).

I retrieved the internal tech-memo version of Duff's paper
from the BL library's collection.  It's a big page-scan
(768KB in PDF).  Usenix doesn't seem to have the published
version.

For the moment, it's available at
 www.cs.bell-labs-com/~dmr/tdvirus.pdf

If Tom objects, I'll withdraw it.  But it's a nice paper.

	Dennis

Re: [9fans] on the topic of viruses

[Boyd Roberts]

> i can't find the paper unfortunately, but it definitely sounds
> interesting

some of us know our history ...

[9fans] on the topic of viruses

[andrey mirtchovski]

apparently point 18 in the references section of "Multilevel Security in
the UNIX Tradition" ( http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cstr/163c.ps.gz
) lists a paper by tom duff called "Experience with Viruses on UNIX
Systems" (Computer Systems 2, 1989), which apparently tells the tale of
this very same virus you were discussing today...

i can't find the paper unfortunately, but it definitely sounds
interesting

andrey