5132ts2@hound.UUCP (T.SCHONFELD) (08/25/85)
I have seen a number of postings pertaining to IBM bulletin board software. The following information has been brought to my attention, and I am relaying it to the NET: Bytemaster Software is selling their popular BMBBS software (out for the Apple II series of computers for almost two years) for the IBM series now (Pc,Pc Jr., XT and AT). The package includes most standard BBS features including pass- words, downloads, userlog, chat and many utilities for the sysops. The cost is $74.95 plus shipping ($2). You can contact Bytemaster at their BBS at 201-992-9893 or write to them at: Bytemaster Software P.O. Box 366 Livingston, NJ 07039
indra@utai.UUCP (Indra Laksono) (08/27/85)
> I have seen a number of postings pertaining to IBM bulletin board > software. The following information has been brought to my attention, and I am > relaying it to the NET: > > Bytemaster Software is selling their popular BMBBS software (out for the Apple > II series of computers for almost two years) for the IBM series now (Pc,Pc Jr., > XT and AT). The package includes most standard BBS features including pass- > words, downloads, userlog, chat and many utilities for the sysops. The cost > is $74.95 plus shipping ($2). You can contact Bytemaster at their BBS > at 201-992-9893 or write to them at: > Bytemaster Software > P.O. Box 366 > Livingston, NJ 07039 What does this have that FIDO doesn't have already? FIDO is public domain, but the amount of docs encourage you to send for it from the author. ..{allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo}!utcsri!utai!indra
john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (08/27/85)
]From: 5132ts2@hound.UUCP (T.SCHONFELD) ]Message-ID: <1328@hound.UUCP> ]Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ ] ]Bytemaster Software is selling their popular BMBBS software (out for the Apple ]II series of computers for almost two years) for the IBM series now (Pc,Pc Jr., ]XT and AT). The package includes most standard BBS features including pass- ]words, downloads, userlog, chat and many utilities for the sysops. The cost ]is $74.95 plus shipping ($2). You can contact Bytemaster at their BBS ]at 201-992-9893 or write to them at: ]Bytemaster Software ]P.O. Box 366 ]Livingston, NJ 07039 I certainly hope it is better than the version for the Apple. A couple of the local boards are running this software. In some ways it's very good, but seems to have some serious limitations- like no protocol file transfers! The best BBS software for the PC I've seen is FIDO. (I don't run one, but they are the *nicest* systems to call.) Does anyone know of an IBM BBS running under TBBS (The Bread Board System)? This is a system which originated on the TRS-80 and was ported to the PC and to CP/M. (It was the nicest TRS-80 system to call.) -- Name: John Ruschmeyer US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Phone: (201) 222-6600 x366 UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john ...!pesnta!moncol!john Disclaimer: Monmouth College is a mecca for diverse opinions. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that the above opinions are those of anyone but me. Silly quote: Son, you're mixing ponderables again...
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (09/03/85)
In article <673@utai.UUCP>, indra@utai.UUCP (Indra Laksono) writes: > What does this have that FIDO doesn't have already? FIDO is public domain, > but the amount of docs encourage you to send for it from the author. > ..{allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo}!utcsri!utai!indra OK, then -- who's the author? And where? -- "We don't serve their kind here!" "Huh?" "Those 'droids! They'll have to wait outside!" Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/17/85)
> In article <673@utai.UUCP>, indra@utai.UUCP (Indra Laksono) writes: > > What does this have that FIDO doesn't have already? FIDO is public domain, > > but the amount of docs encourage you to send for it from the author. > > ..{allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo}!utcsri!utai!indra There is one thing FIDO doesn't have that I'd like: the ability to run a second program from inside itself. I have a couple of programs I'd like to be able to call remotely & I'd like a bit more protection than CTTY COM1: and a bit less money than UULINK. Speaking of which: I'd think UULINK would make a real hot BBS program if there were a restricted shell type version.
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/22/85)
It's actually trivial to set up "restricted shells" within UULINK. Since every remote login user can be directed (if desired) to any desired program (including COMMAND.COM, which is the general case) people are free to set up whatever they want for remote users. One UULINK user threw together a very simple "restricted shell" and sent it to me (it's only a couple of screens worth of code). I decided not to try include such programs in the current package itself since different persons would have different ideas of the sorts of restrictions, and levels of restriction checking and other "shell" features, that they really wanted for remote access users. If I can find a general purpose "restricted shell" that isn't too large I may decide to include it in the package. However, in any case, it is very simple right now to set up individual UULINK logins to run specific programs rather than COMMAND.COM, and (as the UULINK user I mentioned above demonstrated) programs for more elaborate restrictions on what can be remotely run (e.g. "restricted shells") are very simple to write and drop directly into the existing UULINK remote access facilities if desired. --Lauren--
bet@ecsvax.UUCP (Bennett E. Todd III) (09/23/85)
In article <206@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > ... I have a couple of programs I'd like to >be able to call remotely & I'd like a bit more protection than CTTY COM1: >and a bit less money than UULINK. Speaking of which: I'd think UULINK would >make a real hot BBS program if there were a restricted shell type version. UULINK is distinctly steep for a RBBS system; I think it is also very reasonably priced for an MS-DOS implementation of UUCP/netmail/netnews. The remote login capability is, according to Lauren, not intended for secure multi-user access, but just to allow you to check mail from home. I wanted to be able to give others logins for mail, and wrote a restricted shell. Since the login program can be a .BAT file (use REMOTE.BAT as a template) and you can start up whatever program you like, write a trivial shell that only allows whatever commands you want. I can give you mine of you like. Lauren isn't too interested in trying to go too far with secure remote login, since the MS-DOS EXEC() code has timing window bugs, and DOS's process structure doesn't allow much short of a reboot to prevent a program from changing the resulting run-time environment. -Bennett -- "Hypocrisy is the vaseline of social intercourse." (Who said that?) Bennett Todd -- Duke Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706-7756; (919) 684-3695 UUCP: ...{decvax,seismo,philabs,ihnp4,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!duccpc!bet
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/24/85)
The key point is that it is certainly possible for people to set up any UULINK remote login user to run whatever programs might be desired. My primary goal in remote access was to make sure that the primary UULINK remote access program itself could be run safely and reliably. Later, I added "generalized" remote access capabilities for other programs that people might want to run remotely, but it should be remembered that "generalized" remote access is always a problem with MSDOS due to the way many programs behave (e.g. playing around with memory in odd ways, etc.) and the lack of memory protection in MSDOS. There is no problem if properly written programs are executed automatically for particular remote login users. The best example of this is the UULINK "uucico" remote access program itself which is the most commonly run program for incoming callers. This program takes direct control of the COM ports and is very secure and reliable on the system since it was written with remote access in mind from the start. Running the UULINK "uucico" via remote login is very secure. In fact, it provides a higher level of security than is found on many Unix systems. The program takes great pains to preserve the runtime environment of the system and keep MSDOS running smoothly. It was this program that was my primary concern for remote access, but I decided to allow more "generalized" remote access as well for whatever "special" applications people might want remote login users to be able to run. It is of course up to the people who set up these remote users to determine what sorts of users (and programs) they want to allow to access their systems, and through what sorts of control programs. More detailed questions on this topic should probably be sent to me directly--I think we're starting to get into too much detail for this newsgroup. --Lauren--