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?

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: cadeon to digital_man on Thu Jul 07 2022 04:24 pm�� > 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.��Not really. All 32-bit editions of Windows seem to support 16-bit DOS programs equally well and with NVTDMx64, you can even run them on 64-bit editions if you want.�� > 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...��Yeah, I can make an effort to remove them again in the current builds.�� > 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.�-- � digital man (rob)��Breaking Bad quote #11:�My apologies to the HR department: Grow tumescent with anticipation. - Hank�Norco, CA WX: 84.8�F, 42.0% humidity, 8 mph S wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs�---� � Synchronet � Vertrauen � Home of Synchronet � [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net�

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.

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: cadeon to Digital Man on Thu Jul 07 2022 08:10 pm�� > 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.��no, it's not cool to run windowsxp. you shouldn't have a windows xp computer hooked up to the internet in this day and age.��just run windows 7 32bit.��dont be a nick andre.�---� � Synchronet � ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::�

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:24:29 -0700�"cadeon" <cadeon@VERT> 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?�-- �End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX�telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23�---� � Synchronet � End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com�

From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet

On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 12:38:40 AM UTC-5, Nelgin wrote:

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?
--

What were the specific issues you had with Linux? I have it running on Ubuntu 20.04 Linux with
no issues.
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: cadeon to Digital Man on Thu Jul 07 2022 08:10 pm�� > 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.��I solved the inet_ntop issue, not too difficult, but now I see that archive.dll requires bcrypt.dll which isn't included in XP either. So I'm looking into resolving that. We don't need to create or extract password-protected ZIP files in the BBS, so I think we can do without the crypto support in libarchive (archive.dll) if I can figure out how.�-- � digital man (rob)��Sling Blade quote #6:�Karl: he should've had a chance to grow up. He would had fun some time.�Norco, CA WX: 78.3�F, 58.0% humidity, 1 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs�---� � Synchronet � Vertrauen � Home of Synchronet � [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net�

... 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.

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

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.

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

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/

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: cadeon to Tim Radde on Fri Jul 08 2022 12:13 pm�� > > 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>�-- � digital man (rob)��Breaking Bad quote #40:�This Bogdan character... he wrestled you into submission with his eyebrows.�Norco, CA WX: 81.8�F, 48.0% humidity, 4 mph S wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs�---� � Synchronet � Vertrauen � Home of Synchronet � [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net�

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.

I'll probably install and set up this thing 5 more times before I finally do a production install.

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: cadeon to Digital Man on Fri Jul 08 2022 12:24 pm�� > > 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.��Yeah, the AARCH64 support (particularly for the version of the Mozilla JavaScript library we're using) is not great, so those ARM-based devices (e.g. rPi) are the possible exception where 32-bit may still be preferred over 64-bit.�-- � digital man (rob)��Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #85:�UART = Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter�Norco, CA WX: 84.1�F, 47.0% humidity, 6 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs�---� � Synchronet � Vertrauen � Home of Synchronet � [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net�

On 08 Jul 2022, cadeon said the following...� � ca> > ... now I see that archive.dll requires bcrypt.dll which isn't included � ca> > either. � ca> If we need to bail on XP I feel like we can? It doesn't seem like� ca> 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*��... Condense soup, not books!��--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)� * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi�

Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: cadeon to Digital Man on Fri Jul 08 2022 12:09 pm�� > > ... 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.��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)��Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #18:�CVS = Concurrent Versioning System�Norco, CA WX: 83.5�F, 44.0% humidity, 10 mph S wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs�---� � Synchronet � Vertrauen � Home of Synchronet � [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net�

Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: cadeon to Digital Man on Fri Jul 08 2022 12:09 pm�� > > ... 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.����who is 'we'? do you have a parrot on your shoulder?�---� � Synchronet � ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::�

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: cadeon to Nelgin on Fri Jul 08 2022 12:15 pm�� > > 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/���just have a blank password.�---� � Synchronet � ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::�

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: fusion to cadeon on Fri Jul 08 2022 05:51 pm�� > ca> > ... now I see that archive.dll requires bcrypt.dll which isn't� > ca> > included either.� > ca> If we need to bail on XP I feel like we can? It doesn't seem like� > ca> 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.�---� � Synchronet � ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::�

From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet

On Saturday, July 9, 2022 at 12:17:28 AM UTC-5, MRO wrote:

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.
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

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� >� > 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.���It's pretty stupid to think this.�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.����---� � Synchronet � ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::�

From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet

On Saturday, July 9, 2022 at 7:17:26 PM UTC-5, MRO wrote:

To: Tim Radde
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

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.

It's pretty stupid to think this.
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.
---

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.
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: Tim Radde to alt.bbs.synchronet on Sat Jul 09 2022 14:05:05�� > If they run in a VM? Who would care. Not like some hacker going to be� > able to cause much of a problem there.��there are methods of escaping those sandboxes...�� > If you've got nothing on your Windows system of interest then once� > again who cares.��bot herders care... any system they can add to their bot herd is another one they can sell their services on...���)\/(ark��---� � Synchronet � The SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR�

Digital Man wrote to cadeon <=-�� > Is it time to drop XP support? Am I being silly going this far back in time?� DM> I would recommend Windows 7 myself, at minimum. If it's a simple fix to� DM> still support Windows XP, then I will do it, but I certainly don't� DM> encourage anyone to still run XP.��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.���... What does this mean?�--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52� � Synchronet � .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.�

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 :::�

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: poindexter FORTRAN to Digital Man on Sat Jul 09 2022 08:56 am�� >� > 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.��no because it's windows xp.��they did it with windows 7 also but it's not necessary.�---� � Synchronet � ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::�

On 7/10/2022 17:21, MRO wrote:

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 :::

So, what do you feel like you accomplished with this? I'm curious.

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

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 :::�

On 7/10/2022 22:50, MRO wrote:

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 :::

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.

If you don't like my BBS list, don't use it. Simple.

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.

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

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: dragon to MRO on Mon Jul 11 2022 02:07 pm�� > Why do you troll around message bases treating strangers like crap? � > Different strokes, I guess.��He wants everyone to leave so he can be the only user of DOVEnet, because he's�the only one who appreciates his own unique brand of "intellect" and "wit."�� o� (O) � BeLLy��---� � Synchronet � bbs.brazi.net � www.brazi.net � WARNING: May contain nuts�

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)

Thank you sir - fixed it for me. Launches as expected. I'm happy to be the XP beta tester if XP stays on the menu.

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

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�

On 7/11/2022 23:10, MRO wrote:

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 :::

You're an idiot.

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

On 7/12/2022 09:38, Xerxes wrote:

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

Yeah, there's something deeply wrong with that guy.

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

On 7/12/2022 09:38, Xerxes wrote:

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 forgot to say thanks. Thanks.

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

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 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 :::�

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 :::�

MRO wrote to Xerxes <=-�� > 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�� MR> and those scripts use lists like this guy to find servers on the� MR> internet to attack.��No, they don't, you clueless imbecile. Seriously, you have no idea how �that works if you believe that.�� MR> this guy is doing all the hard work for them.��You truly are stupid. Go back to working your 2-3 minimum wage jobs and �quit wasting people's time on here.����... He's as sharp as a marble.�--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52� � Synchronet � Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL�

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

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 :::�

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

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 <=-�� Tr> Would also add in a software firewall, and severely restrict� Tr> inbound/outbound access, and maybe even isolate it from talking to� Tr> 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)� � Synchronet � Vertrauen � Home of Synchronet � [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net�

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?� By: Tracker1 to MRO on Sat Jul 16 2022 01:27 pm�� Tr> Should note that Windows 7 is also no longer supported by Microsoft. � Tr> 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� >� > Tr> Should note that Windows 7 is also no longer supported by Microsoft.� > Tr> 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)

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

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.�� Tr> Not sure there... I haven't run Synchronet outside Linux/Docker for � Tr> years now. And even then, haven't really been active... I think I had it � Tr> last under Windows Server 2012 or so last windows install I had setup � Tr> for it.�� Tr> Have you tried running one of the decrapifier scripts, and excluding � Tr> 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?

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

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.

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Vertrauen ￭ Home of Synchronet ￭ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Tracker1 wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-�� Tr> That's cool... I've got a 4-port intel mini box that has 4x 2.5Gb ports� Tr> 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

Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible� By: Tracker1 to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Jul 24 2022 04:14 pm�� > 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� > � �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?��---� � Synchronet � The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net�

Tracker1 wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-�� Tr> Yeah, those are pretty cool... One thing to watch out for, is some� Tr> devices that support 10g ports will only do 10g or 1g, not 2.5g, which� Tr> is kind of wild. Just bringing it up, depending on any switches/hubs� Tr> 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 21:16, Moondog wrote:

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?

Am considering the same thing... I really wish they were all configured
as wired devices instead of wireless too. I get why it's better for the companies/installers this way, just not a fan at all.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

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