Spun up a Windows XP vm to try out synchronet after having some struggles on Linux (x64). Figured XP would be the best choice for full compatibility- dos, etc.
sbbsctrl.exe throws 'The procedure entry point inet_ntop could not be located in the dynamic link library WS2_32.dll'
As I understand it, this error happens on anything earlier than Vista. I saw that earlier versions of Synchronet had this call removed...
Is it time to drop XP support? Am I being silly going this far back in time?I would recommend Windows 7 myself, at minimum. If it's a simple fix to still support Windows XP, then I will do it, but I certainly don't encourage anyone to still run XP.
I would enjoy staying on XP if it's not too much bother. There's something cool about an "old" stack... but I have no problem with going to a newer windows if that's what needs to happen.
Spun up a Windows XP vm to try out synchronet after having some
struggles on Linux (x64). Figured XP would be the best choice for
full compatibility- dos, etc.
sbbsctrl.exe throws 'The procedure entry point inet_ntop could not be
located in the dynamic link library WS2_32.dll'
To: cadeon
On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:24:29 -0700
"cadeon" wrote:
Spun up a Windows XP vm to try out synchronet after having some
struggles on Linux (x64). Figured XP would be the best choice for
full compatibility- dos, etc.
sbbsctrl.exe throws 'The procedure entry point inet_ntop could not be located in the dynamic link library WS2_32.dll'So you can't get it working on Linux or on Windows. Why didn't you
bother asking for help troubleshooting the Linux side?
--
I would enjoy staying on XP if it's not too much bother. There's something cool about an "old" stack... but I have no problem with going to a newer windows if that's what needs to happen.
... now I see that archive.dll requires bcrypt.dll which isn't included in XP either.
What were the specific issues you had with Linux? I have it running on Ubuntu 20.04 Linux with
no issues.
So you can't get it working on Linux or on Windows. Why didn't you
bother asking for help troubleshooting the Linux side?
What were the specific issues you had with Linux? I have it running on Ubuntu 20.04 Linux with
no issues.
It mostly worked, but the web side in particular didn't want to function. If I tried to access it with a browser I'd get errors or pages the browser couldn't render. I was building it on 22.04 64bit - I was going to come back at it with a 32 bit linux later, but then I decided XP may be more fun.
64-bit Linux would be preferred (over 32-bit Linux) when possible.
Whatever "web side" problems you were having were likely easily fixable if you'd asked. <shrug>
64-bit Linux would be preferred (over 32-bit Linux) when possible.
Whatever "web side" problems you were having were likely easily fixable if you'd asked. <shrug>
Yea either way. <shrug also>
I was thinking of doing a raspi install at one point, but when I looked at the instructions there it shyd away from 64bit. Just assumed 32 may have been preferred due to the software's history. If 64 is the way to go, that's great.
... now I see that archive.dll requires bcrypt.dll which isn't included either.If we need to bail on XP I feel like we can? It doesn't seem like
there's a lot of love for it.
... now I see that archive.dll requires bcrypt.dll which isn't included in XP either.
If we need to bail on XP I feel like we can? It doesn't seem like there's a lot of love for it.
... now I see that archive.dll requires bcrypt.dll which isn't included in XP either.
If we need to bail on XP I feel like we can? It doesn't seem like there's a lot of love for it.
So you can't get it working on Linux or on Windows. Why didn't you
bother asking for help troubleshooting the Linux side?
Because I though an ancient version of windows would be more fun. I was going for the least secure bbs ever, fishtank style. https://xkcd.com/350/
... now I see that archive.dll requires bcrypt.dll which isn't included either.If we need to bail on XP I feel like we can? It doesn't seem like there's a lot of love for it.
i obviously don't decide what amount of effort crosses that line of "okay, we're done with xp now, you have to upgrade," but if it isn't a huge task, it's better to fix the things that keep it working as you go..
otherwise the list gets huge and it ends up being "well, i guess at this point we basically just /have/ to say it doesn't support xp"
imo "because i wanna" is good enough reason to use xp (in the context of bbsing/nostalgiacomputing)
*shrug*
To: fusion
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: fusion to cadeon on Fri Jul 08 2022 05:51 pm
... now I see that archive.dll requires bcrypt.dll which isn't included either.If we need to bail on XP I feel like we can? It doesn't seem like there's a lot of love for it.
i obviously don't decide what amount of effort crosses that line of "okay, we're done with xp now, you have to upgrade," but if it isn't a huge task, it's better to fix the things that keep it working as you go..
otherwise the list gets huge and it ends up being "well, i guess at this point we basically just /have/ to say it doesn't support xp"
imo "because i wanna" is good enough reason to use xp (in the context of bbsing/nostalgiacomputing)
*shrug*well windows 7 was a free upgrade for quite some time. and you can run it for free in limited mode. furthermore windows 7 can run on some low specs. like you can run it on about 500mb of memory on a 1ghz system.
so like i said, don't be a nick andre. people should run something more secure. I don't care what firewall they claim to have it behind.
---
If they run in a VM? Who would care. Not like some hacker going to be
able
to cause much of a problem there. If you've got nothing on
your Windows system of interest then once again who cares. Oh, you care. Then don't run it which you don't.
To: Tim RaddeWho put you in charge dimwhit? Who's the fucking lame ass? Me? Bah, I don't need this. You can kiss my butt. De-subscribing from
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: Tim Radde to alt.bbs.synchronet on Sat Jul 09 2022 02:05 pm
If they run in a VM? Who would care. Not like some hacker going to be
ableIt's pretty stupid to think this.
to cause much of a problem there. If you've got nothing on
your Windows system of interest then once again who cares. Oh, you care. Then don't run it which you don't.
a compromised system can attack other systems at the users home or any other computer on the internet. it can be used to attack governments, distribute child pornography or anything else.
it doesn't matter if it's ran in a vm or not. It's another computer on the internet that can be compromised and attack others.
also, you're using google groups to post here? fucking lame ass.
---
If they run in a VM? Who would care. Not like some hacker going to be
able to cause much of a problem there.
If you've got nothing on your Windows system of interest then once
again who cares.
Digital Man wrote to cadeon <=-
Is it time to drop XP support? Am I being silly going this far back in time?
I would recommend Windows 7 myself, at minimum. If it's a simple fix to still support Windows XP, then I will do it, but I certainly don't encourage anyone to still run XP.
also, you're using google groups to post here? fucking lame ass.Who put you in charge dimwhit?
---
Who's the fucking lame ass? Me? Bah, I
don't need this. You can kiss my butt. De-subscribing from
this group because of assholes like you.
There is a version called TinyXP that strips out most everything from the full version, including all of the apps (including IE) and theoretically would have a much smaller attack surface than plain Windows. It's also tiny and runs in a small VM nicely - when I ran it, it idled at 118 MB of RAM and ran my BBS in a 512 MB VM nicely.
I don't know if it's still a valid option.
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: Tim Radde to alt.bbs.synchronet on Sat Jul 09 2022 08:08 pm
> > also, you're using google groups to post here? fucking lame ass.
> > ---
> Who put you in charge dimwhit?
i'm not in charge.
Who's the fucking lame ass? Me? Bah, I
yep.
> don't need this. You can kiss my butt. De-subscribing from
> this group because of assholes like you.
OH NO! PLEASE DON'T LEAVE. COME BACK!
good luck with limewire too.
---
¨ Synchronet ¨ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
OH NO! PLEASE DON'T LEAVE. COME BACK!
good luck with limewire too.
---
Synchronet ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
So, what do you feel like you accomplished with this? I'm curious.
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: dragon to MRO on Sun Jul 10 2022 09:48 pm
> > OH NO! PLEASE DON'T LEAVE. COME BACK!
>
> > good luck with limewire too.
> > ---
> > ¨ Synchronet ¨ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
>
> So, what do you feel like you accomplished with this? I'm curious.
that some asshole who keeps coming here under other names a few times a year. Are you shedding a tear for him? the angry guy that thinks it's okay to run xp on a vm and become a botnet. what great things he could have contributed.
what do you feel you accomplish by portscanning the whole internet and making a list?
---
¨ Synchronet ¨ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
Why do you troll around message bases treating strangers like crap? Different strokes, I guess.
Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: cadeon to Digital Man on Fri Jul 08 2022 12:09 pm
It appears I fixed the 2 dependencies (inet_ntop() and bcrypt.dll), so give tonight's build for Windows a try on XP. It worked for me in an XP-SP3 VM.
--
digital man (rob)
I think you did little to convince him that running XP might be bad.
You just chased him off. I wouldn't call that a "win", but I really
don't understand your goals.
It's interesting to see how confident you are that your half-baked
opinions are fundamental "truths".
I'm not scanning the Internet. I'm reading the reports of big companies that are scanning the Internet at scale. Occasionally I'll scan an IP
when it looks like they might have changed their BBS port from what I
have in the database.
I think there are more than a few people that think what I'm doing has
some value, but mainly it amuses me, which is really what matters.
Why do you troll around message bases treating strangers like crap? Different strokes, I guess.
what do you feel you accomplish by portscanning the whole internet and
making a list?
I think there are more than a few people that think what I'm doing has some value, but mainly it amuses me, which is really what matters.
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: dragon to MRO on Mon Jul 11 2022 02:07 pm
>
> I think you did little to convince him that running XP might be bad.
> You just chased him off. I wouldn't call that a "win", but I really
> don't understand your goals.
i don't give a shit what you think or what you call things.
> It's interesting to see how confident you are that your half-baked
> opinions are fundamental "truths".
i'm glad you find me interesting.
and my opinion about windows xp IS SOOOOO FUCKING HALF BAKED, isn't it.
> I'm not scanning the Internet. I'm reading the reports of big companies
> that are scanning the Internet at scale. Occasionally I'll scan an IP
> when it looks like they might have changed their BBS port from what I
> have in the database.
whatever dude. you are part of the problem. we are probably getting more attacks because of your website. my friend was running a majorbbs at home and didn't even advertise and there it is on your site, NAMED, even.
> I think there are more than a few people that think what I'm doing has
> some value, but mainly it amuses me, which is really what matters.
maybe you should sell your lists(if you aren't already doing so).
>
> Why do you troll around message bases treating strangers like crap?
> Different strokes, I guess.
I can't remember if i told you to fuck off. but fuck off.
---
¨ Synchronet ¨ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: dragon to MRO on Mon Jul 11 2022 02:07 pm
>> what do you feel you accomplish by portscanning the whole internet and
>> making a list?
dr> I think there are more than a few people that think what I'm doing has
dr> some value, but mainly it amuses me, which is really what matters.
I very much like your list and the statistics and resources on your page.
My BBS is constantly hit with attacks. Constantly. But it doesn't take long to figure out that they are scripts targeting Linux systems to get root access, hitting anything that answers telnet or ssh with any kind of login prompt. Nothing to do with your page.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sysop of Desert Rats Sanctuary --- https://bbs.kn6q.org
---
¨ Synchronet ¨ Desert Rats Sanctuary --- https://bbs.kn6q.org
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: dragon to MRO on Mon Jul 11 2022 02:07 pm
>> what do you feel you accomplish by portscanning the whole internet and
>> making a list?
dr> I think there are more than a few people that think what I'm doing has
dr> some value, but mainly it amuses me, which is really what matters.
I very much like your list and the statistics and resources on your page.
My BBS is constantly hit with attacks. Constantly. But it doesn't take long to figure out that they are scripts targeting Linux systems to get root access, hitting anything that answers telnet or ssh with any kind of login prompt. Nothing to do with your page.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sysop of Desert Rats Sanctuary --- https://bbs.kn6q.org
---
¨ Synchronet ¨ Desert Rats Sanctuary --- https://bbs.kn6q.org
I think there are more than a few people that think what I'm doing has some value, but mainly it amuses me, which is really what matters.
I very much like your list and the statistics and resources on your page.
My BBS is constantly hit with attacks. Constantly. But it doesn't take long to figure out that they are scripts targeting Linux systems to get root
I can't remember if i told you to fuck off. but fuck off.
You're an idiot.
Yeah, there's something deeply wrong with that guy.
MRO wrote to Xerxes <=-
I think there are more than a few people that think what I'm doing has some value, but mainly it amuses me, which is really what matters.
I very much like your list and the statistics and resources on your page.
My BBS is constantly hit with attacks. Constantly. But it doesn't take long to figure out that they are scripts targeting Linux systems to get root
and those scripts use lists like this guy to find servers on the
internet to attack.
this guy is doing all the hard work for them.
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: dragon to Xerxes on Tue Jul 12 2022 05:40 pm
>
> Yeah, there's something deeply wrong with that guy.
i'm sure you think that because i'm not kissing your ass.
---
¨ Synchronet ¨ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: dragon to MRO on Tue Jul 12 2022 05:39 pm
> > I can't remember if i told you to fuck off. but fuck off.
>
> You're an idiot.
aw whatsamatter? you don't find me interesting anymore?
---
¨ Synchronet ¨ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
On 7/12/2022 23:28, MRO wrote:
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: dragon to MRO on Tue Jul 12 2022 05:39 pm
> > I can't remember if i told you to fuck off. but fuck off.
>
> You're an idiot.
aw whatsamatter? you don't find me interesting anymore?
---
Synchronet ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
Actually, idiots can be very entertaining. Not you. Other idiots.
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: Xerxes to dragon on Tue Jul 12 2022 01:38 pm
> dr> I think there are more than a few people that think what I'm doing has
> dr> some value, but mainly it amuses me, which is really what matters.
>
> I very much like your list and the statistics and resources on your page.
>
> My BBS is constantly hit with attacks. Constantly. But it doesn't take
> long to figure out that they are scripts targeting Linux systems to get root
and those scripts use lists like this guy to find servers on the internet to attack. this guy is doing all the hard work for them.
it's already working. look at all the spam.
now imagine what else is happening that we do not see.
---
¨ Synchronet ¨ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: dragon to MRO on Wed Jul 13 2022 10:13 am
> On 7/12/2022 23:28, MRO wrote:
> > Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
> > By: dragon to MRO on Tue Jul 12 2022 05:39 pm
>
> > > > I can't remember if i told you to fuck off. but fuck off.
> > >
> > > You're an idiot.
>
> > aw whatsamatter? you don't find me interesting anymore?
> > ---
> > ¨ Synchronet ¨ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
>
> Actually, idiots can be very entertaining. Not you. Other idiots.
well that's funny because you have nothing to offer other than talking about your scanner site which is used as a database by script kiddies.
---
¨ Synchronet ¨ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
I would enjoy staying on XP if it's not too much bother. There's something cool about an "old" stack... but I have no problem with going to a newer windows if that's what needs to happen.Would make sure you have a good firewall, not sure if there's a good
What were the specific issues you had with Linux? I have it running on
Ubuntu 20.04 Linux with
no issues.
It mostly worked, but the web side in particular didn't want to function. If I
tried to access it with a browser I'd get errors or pages the browser couldn't
render. I was building it on 22.04 64bit - I was going to come back at it with
a 32 bit linux later, but then I decided XP may be more fun.
I was thinking of doing a raspi install at one point, but when I
looked at the instructions there it shyd away from 64bit. Just
assumed 32 may have been preferred due to the software's history.
If 64 is the way to go, that's great.
I'll probably install and set up this thing 5 more times before I
finally do a production install.
well windows 7 was a free upgrade for quite some time. and you can run
it for free in limited mode. furthermore windows 7 can run on some
low specs. like you can run it on about 500mb of memory on a 1ghz
system.
so like i said, don't be a nick andre. people should run something
more secure. I don't care what firewall they claim to have it behind.
If they run in a VM? Who would care. Not like some hacker going to
be able to cause much of a problem there. If you've got nothing on
your Windows system of interest then once again who cares. Oh, you
care. Then don't run it which you don't.
There is a version called TinyXP that strips out most everything from the full version, including all of the apps (including IE) and theoretically would have a much smaller attack surface than plain Windows. It's also tiny and runs in a small VM nicely - when I ran it, it idled at 118 MB of RAM and ran my BBS in a 512 MB VM nicely.
I don't know if it's still a valid option.
On 7/9/22 14:05, Tim Radde wrote:
If they run in a VM? Who would care. Not like some hacker going to
be able to cause much of a problem there. If you've got nothing on
your Windows system of interest then once again who cares. Oh, you
care. Then don't run it which you don't.
Well, there are escalation attacks into VM host environments, so depends
on the VM host and how old it is. Beyond this, it doesn't take much to
be joined into a botnet harming others, it doesn't even take
administrative privileges. You may not care about *YOUR* system, but
when your systems attack mine, I care quite a lot.
On 7/9/22 08:56, poindexter FORTRAN wrote:
There is a version called TinyXP that strips out most everything from the full version, including all of the apps (including IE) and theoretically would have a much smaller attack surface than plain Windows. It's also tiny and runs in a small VM nicely - when I ran it, it idled at 118 MB of RAM and ran my BBS in a 512 MB VM nicely.
I don't know if it's still a valid option.
Should be, and while I would generally avoid using Windows altogether
for anything facing the internet, if I wanted to use an older version of windows, that's likely what I'd do... Did similar with slim win98 for a while...
Would also add in a software firewall, and severely restrict inbound/outbound access, and maybe even isolate it from talking to
anything else other than the router entirely.
Tracker1 wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Would also add in a software firewall, and severely restrict inbound/outbound access, and maybe even isolate it from talking to anything else other than the router entirely.
Should note that Windows 7 is also no longer supported by Microsoft. Windows 10 or newer is likely the best option, though more bloated than
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: Tracker1 to MRO on Sat Jul 16 2022 01:27 pm
Should note that Windows 7 is also no longer supported by Microsoft. Windows 10 or newer is likely the best option, though more bloated than
I had tried setting up a Windows 10 VM in VirtualBox for Synchronet once, but it was really slow/sluggish.
But the best thing is to just do things the right way the first time.^ I agree completely. But OS selection is not the silver bullet to building a sane/secure hosting environment. It's part of it, and depending on what you select, you will have differing sets of other things you need to do in order to host responsibly; many of the things touched on in this thread included.
^ I agree completely. But OS selection is not the silver bullet to building a sane/secure hosting environment. It's part of it, and depending on what you select, you will have differing sets of other things you need to do in order to host responsibly; many of the things touched on in this thread included.
(quietly dons a fire suit)
My next project for the homelab is going to be creating VLANs. I have a "smart kitchen" and a camera setup that I want only accessing specific IPs
on the internet, always wanted a guest network, and have a homelab that I want running on a separate VLAN. It'd be easy once I get that going to
create a sandbox VLAN for obsolete OSes.
Should note that Windows 7 is also no longer supported by Microsoft.
Windows 10 or newer is likely the best option, though more bloated
than
I had tried setting up a Windows 10 VM in VirtualBox for Synchronet
once, but it was really slow/sluggish.
It's got more to do with the operator than it does the specific OS.
But the best thing is to just do things the right way the first time.^ I agree completely. But OS selection is not the silver bullet to building a sane/secure hosting environment. It's part of it, and depending on what you select, you will have differing sets of other things you need to do in order to
host responsibly; many of the things touched on in this thread included.
(quietly dons a fire suit)
Router:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3256803804266682.html
LTE Modem:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/2251832653372597.html
I had tried setting up a Windows 10 VM in VirtualBox for Synchronet
once, but it was really slow/sluggish.
Not sure there... I haven't run Synchronet outside Linux/Docker for
years now. And even then, haven't really been active... I think I had it last under Windows Server 2012 or so last windows install I had setup
for it.
Have you tried running one of the decrapifier scripts, and excluding sbbs/(data|ctrl) from Defender scanning?
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: cadeon to MRO on Mon Jul 18 2022 09:04 pm
except some guys that are hard up for attention or autistic.
Tracker1 wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
That's cool... I've got a 4-port intel mini box that has 4x 2.5Gb ports I'll be playing with next weekend.
Router:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3256803804266682.html
LTE Modem:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/2251832653372597.html
don't burn your house down with those things.
That's cool... I've got a 4-port intel mini box that has 4x 2.5Gb
ports I'll be playing with next weekend.
I keep seeing people running high-powered boxes as routers and running pfSense as a VM, for the time being I'm sticking with my appliance
router. Running OpenWRT it seems to do OK for my needs; a 64 bit ARM processor and 512 GB of RAM should suffice.
I did see an interesting youtube video about a thin client with a
PCI-e slot, for around $100 the tuber got the client, some cabling
needed, and a 4-port gig ethernet card. 2.5ge a possibility, too.
Tempting.
On 7/22/22 07:20, poindexter FORTRAN wrote:
That's cool... I've got a 4-port intel mini box that has 4x 2.5Gb
ports I'll be playing with next weekend.
I keep seeing people running high-powered boxes as routers and running pfSense as a VM, for the time being I'm sticking with my appliance router. Running OpenWRT it seems to do OK for my needs; a 64 bit ARM processor and 512 GB of RAM should suffice.
Yeah, when my home security system and cameras were added my router just doesn't seem to quite keep up, which is what brought the shift. May be using ProxMox on the device, and just map the other 3 ethernet ports
into a VM for the router/firewall software. That way I can more easily
run the couple other things I also want on there (pihole, wireguard, reverse-web proxy with https).
I did see an interesting youtube video about a thin client with a
PCI-e slot, for around $100 the tuber got the client, some cabling needed, and a 4-port gig ethernet card. 2.5ge a possibility, too. Tempting.
Yeah, those are pretty cool... One thing to watch out for, is some
devices that support 10g ports will only do 10g or 1g, not 2.5g, which
is kind of wild. Just bringing it up, depending on any switches/hubs
you plan to use.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
Tracker1 wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Yeah, those are pretty cool... One thing to watch out for, is some
devices that support 10g ports will only do 10g or 1g, not 2.5g, which
is kind of wild. Just bringing it up, depending on any switches/hubs
you plan to use.
I was wondering if it would be better to put all the cameras on
their own managed switch and vlan to take the load off the core
switch?
Running a gig ethernet port on my Proxmox server, 2 gig ethernets
bonded on my Synology. For my needs, that seems to be sufficient -
I don't have any outward facing services except the BBS.
| Sysop: | Chris Crash |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huntington Beach, CA. |
| Users: | 578 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 03:55:34 |
| Calls: | 10,736 |
| Files: | 5 |
| Messages: | 443,458 |