Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: WannaCry Ransomware and XP fix . . .

  1. #21
    Junior Member johnhoward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 30 Times in 21 Posts
    Rep Power
    132
    Reputation
    287

    Default

    I cant believe anyone would still be running XP and on the internet ??? If you have to run XP for god sake dont let it loose on the internet , lol it more then likely wont last very long.



  • #22
    Premium Member
    hoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    -30.7719955,121.495211
    Age
    54
    Posts
    4,934
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 2,938 Times in 1,277 Posts
    Rep Power
    993
    Reputation
    35490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnhoward View Post
    I cant believe anyone would still be running XP and on the internet ??? If you have to run XP for god sake dont let it loose on the internet , lol it more then likely wont last very long.
    Unfortunately a lot of ATMs /pos machines etc. run XP embedded.
    To upgrade them to W7 or w10 would be a logistical nightmare and cost a fortune.
    We all know how much banks love spending their own money.

    Sent from my LON-L29 using Tapatalk

  • #23
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    901
    Thanks
    827
    Thanked 812 Times in 393 Posts
    Rep Power
    358
    Reputation
    12428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoe View Post
    Unfortunately a lot of ATMs /pos machines etc. run XP embedded.
    To upgrade them to W7 or w10 would be a logistical nightmare and cost a fortune.
    We all know how much banks love spending their own money.

    Sent from my LON-L29 using Tapatalk
    Mate, Banks never spend their own money. Everything is passed on. This is why the Bank Tax is such a stupid idea. I suspect the only way to bring them to heel would be to somehow institute fair dinkum competition, and I just can't see it happening.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to DB44 For This Useful Post:

    nomeat (17-07-17)

  • #24
    Junior Member Surething's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 203 Times in 123 Posts
    Rep Power
    124
    Reputation
    2800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsemmens View Post
    Wine works for many things, however, adding another layer between the program and its intended target may not be possible. e.g. if you have a windoze program that communicates directly with a Wigwam that talks to the gooses Bridle, The Wigwam may not recognise the prorgram if it uses a virtual machine which is exactly what Wine is.
    Maybe a typo and you mean 'isn't'. Wine basically as an emulator just adds a compatibility layer between Linux/MacOS/BSD and the Win programs which you wish to run on them (as per the original WINdowsEmulator). If the API calls aren't understood they are converted into POSIX calls which the foreign OS can understand and utilize. It's done on-the-fly which may mean that everything happens slower than on a native Win OS or indeed a Win visualizer such as Virtualbox or VMware. Wine isn't an emulator of the other ilk, i.e. a CPU emulator like Unicorn (This is where the current WineIsNotanEmulator acronym comes from). Therefore although maybe it's a little simplistic to call it an interpreter or translator really from the average user's point of view that's what it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoe View Post
    Unfortunately a lot of ATMs /pos machines etc. run XP embedded.
    ...........
    Yes, they do still run it in numerous cases. A different version of XP to that used in home, business or server versions however. It should be appreciated that Windows Embedded POSReady 2009, based on Win XP SP3, is still fully officially supported until at least 2019. The earlier WEPOS based on SP2 lost support early in 2016 but I seriously doubt any major players would still be using that and would have updated older hardware to WE POSReady 2009 or later long ago, or have replaced the hardware completely if for any reason it wasn't compatible with at least the SP3 based OS.

  • #25
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    6,003
    Thanks
    4,540
    Thanked 3,041 Times in 1,552 Posts
    Rep Power
    1312
    Reputation
    52080

    Default

    And just to complicate things, is also more a hypervisor/virtual machine (albeit at a higher ABI level) than an emulator (hence "Wine Is Not an Emulator").
    From here:. It matters not whether Wine is a VM or an Em, to the hardware that it is attempting to communicate with, it may still be a bridge too far.
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • #26
    Junior Member Surething's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 203 Times in 123 Posts
    Rep Power
    124
    Reputation
    2800

    Default

    I do get your point, but semantics are important there. That reference you've quoted [Wine is not an emulator] is to CPU emulators exactly as i also said above. For instance as reference by that stackoverflow poster and as i mentioned above are both CPU Emulators. The Wine website itself describes Wine as a compatibility layer, which means it sits between the non-native software and an OS to interpret commands into something that can be understood by that OS. Therefore, it's absolutely not a VM in the normal sense that's taken to be i.e. a functioning guest OS on a host OS. Wine basically [over-simplistically] acts as a 'go-between and translator' and in that sense it's emulating understandable commands. Just like some printers have HP LaserJet Emulation built into their software. I think the poster in stackoverflow was trying to 'keep it simple sam' at the end but forgot the precise semantics in that final sentence. The rest of the thread and his complete post makes it plainer what he was conveying. His entire post:
    Virtual machines make use of CPU self-virtualization, to whatever extent it exists, to provide a virtualized interface to the real hardware. Emulators emulate hardware without relying on the CPU being able to run code directly and redirect some operations to a hypervisor controlling the virtual container.

    A specific x86 example might help: Bochs is an emulator, emulating an entire processor in software even when it's running on a compatible physical processor; qemu is also an emulator, although with the use of a kernel-side kqemu package it gained some limited virtualization capability when the emulated machine matched the physical hardware but it could not really take advantage of full x86 self-virtualization, so it was a limited hypervisor; kvm is a virtual machine hypervisor.

    A hypervisor could be said to "emulate" protected access; it doesn't emulate the processor, though, and it would be more correct to say that it mediates protected access.

    Protected access means things like setting up page tables or reading/writing I/O ports. For the former, a hypervisor validates (and usually modifies, to match the hypervisor's own memory) the page table operation and performs the protected instruction itself; I/O operations are mapped to emulated device hardware instead of emulated CPU.

    And just to complicate things, Wine is also more a hypervisor/virtual machine (albeit at a higher ABI level) than an emulator (hence "Wine Is Not an Emulator").
    From the Wine mob themselves:
    Wine (originally an acronym for "Wine Is Not an Emulator") is a compatibility layer capable of running Windows applications on several POSIX-compliant operating systems, such as Linux, macOS, & BSD. Instead of simulating internal Windows logic like a virtual machine or emulator, Wine translates Windows API calls into POSIX calls on-the-fly, eliminating the performance and memory penalties of other methods and allowing you to cleanly integrate Windows applications into your desktop.
    My emphasis in red above. Ref:

    This is prob getting way OT now so i won't be further drawn on the differences between or similarities of VMs, Emulators and compatibility layers. I guess it's all so much horse feathers to many ppl anyway.

  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •