Subject: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
@MSGID: <62CED254.38559.dove-syncdisc@bbs2.ipingthereforeiam.com>
@REPLY: <62CE3C07.7149.sync@bbses.info>
@TZ: ff10
On 7/12/2022 23:29, MRO wrote:

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 :::

I don't want your lips anywhere near my ass.

---
� Synchronet � IPTIA - bbs2.ipingthereforeiam.com:2323

Subject: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
@MSGID: <62CED322.38560.dove-syncdisc@bbs2.ipingthereforeiam.com>
@REPLY: <62CE3BDA.7148.sync@bbses.info>
@TZ: ff10
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.

---
� Synchronet � IPTIA - bbs2.ipingthereforeiam.com:2323

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 :::

Subject: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
@MSGID: <62CED7E2.38563.dove-syncdisc@bbs2.ipingthereforeiam.com>
@REPLY: <62CE3BB5.7147.sync@bbses.info>
@TZ: ff10
On 7/12/2022 23:27, MRO wrote:

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 :::

If you would just take your meds, you might not imagine so much.

---
� Synchronet � IPTIA - bbs2.ipingthereforeiam.com:2323

Subject: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
@MSGID: <62CF0656.38567.dove-syncdisc@bbs2.ipingthereforeiam.com>
@REPLY: <62CEE8D0.7153.sync@bbses.info>
@TZ: ff10
On 7/13/2022 11:46, MRO wrote:

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 :::

Got any proof or are you announcing your opinions as facts again?

---
� Synchronet � IPTIA - bbs2.ipingthereforeiam.com:2323

On 7/7/22 20:10, cadeon wrote:

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
antivirus + antimalware that you can run on it that is still supported. Restricting ingress ports from your router may well be enough.

Would avoid using IIS on it, as it's really old and unsupported so may
have high risk security bugs. Same for RDP access remotely. Maybe
running linux with ssh (on a non-standard port), a better option would
be wireguard, if you need remote access like that.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

On 7/8/22 12:13, cadeon wrote:

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've had a lot of similar issues, like the network socket just hung...
but as I was running via a reverse-proxy didn't bring it up at the time.

I also mostly use NNTP myself, so again, didn't particularly worry about it.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

On 7/8/22 12:24, cadeon wrote:

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.

arm64 is probably the way to go... a lot of projects are 64-bit only,
even on the arm side.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

On 7/8/22 22:00, MRO wrote:

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.

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
Win7 on disk space... there are decrapifier scripts that work pretty good.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

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.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

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.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: Tracker1 to Tim Radde on Sat Jul 16 2022 01:30 pm

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.

absofuckinglutely.
i'm glad there's atleast a few people here with a brain.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: Tracker1 to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat Jul 16 2022 01:34 pm

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.

you can do this and that and do it with a wiffleball bat.

But the best thing is to just do things the right way the first time.
people should take the path of least resistance and not attempt to put old exploitable operating systems on the internet. I don't care if they jail their system. someone can use commonly used 'hacktools' to take it over and then they're giving away a free server to everyone on the internet to do whatever they wish. that's just stupidity.

that's why i say: don't be a nick andre.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

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.

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.

Where I'm getting stuck is VLAN trunking. While it's easy on my router to create a VLAN on a virtual wireless interface with its own SSID, or assign a single VLAN to an ethernet interface, I'd like to have all VLANs on my ethernet ports and switch VLANs on the clients. It looks like some Windows Ethernet drivers support that natively, and Realtek has a switcher for Windows.

I'd then feed a gig ethernet port to my proxmox server and put VMs in differing VLANs based on function.

I'm using OpenWRT as my main router an DD-WRT as an access point/switch that my ethernet backbone plugs into, I'm pretty sure they can talk VLANs
together.



... The strongest steel is forged in the fires of a dumpster.
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

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.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: Nightfox to Tracker1 on Mon Jul 18 2022 11:34 am

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.

maybe it was your hardware or the settings you chose.
i have 2 windows 10 vms running on my server.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

I agree with everything going on here. Running an insecure OS is stupid, especially without the reasonable steps many folks are mentioning here. It's not just your machine you're risking, it's everyone else's, because your machine may get used as a platform for further attacks.

*but*

<gets out a gas can to relight this flame war>

According to shodan.io, there are 6,912 known Windows XP machines on the unrestricted open internet right now. Most of them are in Korea and China, and most of them have MS-SQL and/or Telnet open. So yea, they could be bots.

If we widen that search to just any version of Windows, Shodan is aware of 2,815,587 exposed Windows machines. 1.3 million of which have 3389 (rdp) *open to the internet* - and half a million have WinRM open to the internet. There are certainly bots here.

Windows XP makes up less than a quarter of a percent of the open internet accessible windows hosts right now.

So,
I agree that connecting something to the internet in an insecure manner is a bad idea, and we need to monitor our stuff inbound and outbound.

I also agree that security through obscurity isn't a thing.

*but*

XP isn't a target anymore. It's not very capable and the exploitable host count is tiny. Windows 7 definitely is a target right now, as it's modern enough to be useful and it's unmaintained.

Windows 10, 11, or Linux can be easily exploited if the administrator doesn't update or monitor their stuff, the systems are useful and there's a lot of them. The attack surfaces on these modern systems is much larger.

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)

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: cadeon to MRO on Mon Jul 18 2022 09:04 pm

^ 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)

so you agree that running xp on the internet is stupid. yes we all know that except some guys that are hard up for attention or autistic.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

On 7/17/22 07:30, Kurt Weiske wrote:

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.

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.

Debating on running it direct or via Proxmox... If I go proxmox, will
have one port for internal access to the Proxmox host, and the other
three going into the pfsense/opnsense/ipfire VM inside it. From there,
there will be an external wan, internal lan and internal server lan.

That's about as far as I'm planning to go. I'm currently using a
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X for my main router, but have all the internal
ports trunked... I'd like to isolate the webcams to a separate vlan, but
not sure if I'll take the time... I might just take the "server" vlan
and send that to the edgerouter, or something else and isolate the
security cameras and a few other things on the second device... anything
with more ports, just gets more expensive and difficult.

I also got my LTE modem last week, that should be fun. (link below) only
down side, is waiting months for shipments from china on these things.

Router:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3256803804266682.html

LTE Modem:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/2251832653372597.html
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

On 7/18/22 11:34, Nightfox wrote:

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.

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?
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

On 7/18/22 21:04, cadeon wrote:

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)

To an extent, the OS *REALLY* doesn't matter, if you're running a router/proxy/firewall and only directing expected inbound traffic to
services you are intentionally running, and you can reasonably trust
those services not to allow "escape" to the host environment.

On a BBS, the risk is more likely to be admin access to a
terminal/console program with elevated privileges which can be mitigated somewhat by running as a more restricted user. With newer windows,
especially server, ntfs and synchronet, it's not too hard to do. But
you're less likely to have the visibility you may want by running it as
a service, of course RDP on windows is decent enough, as is local
console if logging in locally and not switching users.

XP and 7 were before they started hiding much of that access from local admins, so shouldn't be too bad either. YMMV, have fun with it.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: Tracker1 to Kurt Weiske on Thu Jul 21 2022 02:51 pm

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.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: Tracker1 to Nightfox on Thu Jul 21 2022 02:56 pm

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?

I haven't. But probably not a big deal now, as I've moved my BBS to Linux.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

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.

Porque no los dos?

Also……. What are some other indicators that someone online may be seeking attention and/or intolerantly autistic?

Yep these are the things I’m thinking about.

I’ll likely end up running it in a docker container anyhow… but old stuff is fun, so if I can work out how to do XP reasonably sanely I may.

Subject: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
@MSGID: <62DC468B.64666.dove.sync@realitycheckbbs.org>
@REPLY: <62D9CA64.43412.dove-syncdisc@roughneckbbs.com>
@TZ: c1e0

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.

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.


... Centrifugal force reacts to the rotating frame of reference.
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

On 7/21/22 20:38, MRO wrote:

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.

LOL... I know of a few people using the router at least, which has been decent... haven't played with the LTE modem yet. AliExpress is really
the only way to get a current LTE modem. As to the router, was less
expensive and higher model than the ones in stock and available on Amazon.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

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
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

Subject: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
@MSGID: <62DFFBA3.64705.dove.sync@realitycheckbbs.org>
@REPLY: <62DDD243.43446.dove-syncdisc@roughneckbbs.com>
@TZ: c1e0

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'm not there yet. :)

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.


... How does this work, is there an orientation?
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

On 7/25/22 07:28, poindexter FORTRAN wrote:

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.

Yeah... I have two of the four on my Synology bonded as well... but it's to/from my personal desktop and the synology I want to speed up a bit.
That and be able to handle more devices effectively.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com