DOS Applications in WindowsXP

[danielwang]

Yeah, but if I remember, the Windows NT architecture works with something similar to block device files, and the expandability allows for special entries that redirect to other files or even through a program. Sure there are major design differences, and major flaws in each (dammit I am going to write an OS someday) but it's possible. Too bad Windows isn't open source... and a bit closed I might add.

In Windows NT (thats XP, 2000 and .NET) you can use Mountrefs:
\\?\Volume\{00000000-1234567890-abcdefabcdef} etc, is same as
\\\multi(1)disk(2)rdisk(0)partition(1)

and the likes. There is a way to mount a NTFS drive anywhere on the system and some people took advantage of this to do redirection to some extent. Pipes, yes, are in windows using the <>;:-| system... oh don't forget there is a pack you can install to add some limited Unix-like functionality to the NT system as well! This currently ships with the director's cut of Windows .NET Advanced Gundam Hacker Edition, which includes other Hacker Features as well .

I'm currently doing research to see what system I would have to use to get devices to pipe through a special driver. I'm thinking on-the-fly symbolic Zip, having CSS-ed DVD's appear as regular movies and making three coundcards act like a surround card. Ah, but Windows is closed source. Which is a GOOD thing!


Btw, wouldn't symbolic linking cause major security issues and such? I have, on both Linux and Windows, pointed a folder at itself and have been able to do things like:
C:\ goes to C:\root\
so then I can use this to access C:\myfile.txt
C:\root\root\root\root\root\root\root\root\root\root\root\root\root\root\myfile.txt
What if someone symlinks to files they don't own? If some idiotic Linux worshipper decides to install Apatchie without spending the right amount of time hacking around the settings, someone could point some innocuous location http://linuxbox.sucker.local/~harryhacker/mylocation to \etc\shadow, which is onyl readable by the root, another flaw of the OS (only one superuser, and always 1 superuser, which the services want to run as)

ciao.

[trythil]

Btw, wouldn't symbolic linking cause major security issues and such? I have, on both Linux and Windows, pointed a folder at itself and have been able to do things like:

Not with a proper file permissions model. If you set your permissions correctly, symlinks do not pose a significant security threat.

Symlinks assume world-readable status, but the files that they link to do not necessarily have the same permissions as the symlink. The stress on "not" is very necessary.