HAY Herbert, wanna write a legal PE executable ?
in [ASM]
|
From: Betov on 7 Sep 2007 05:04 hutch-- <hutch(a)movsd.com> �crivait news:1189154136.861074.234000@ 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com: > It is when Herbert claims to have improved on a MASM 1024 byte exe > with a broken example coded in ascii when he claimed he was going to > run another assembler to compete with MASM Keep sure that Herbert can kill you by just breathing, and keep sure that *any* Assembler around is way better than MASM, would it only be because none of the actual Assemblers replicated the serious defects of the MASM Syntax. "competing with MASM" would be unfair: Do not shoot on dead horses. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: hutch-- on 7 Sep 2007 05:24 hmmmm, > I didn't offer any challenge, I asked you to post the short > examples from your challenge with Wannabee. I don't particularly care what you requested, the masm32 project has been available for years and it contains code that I have written. > Seems you are confusing assembly code and machine code. What > I posted was pure machine code and nothing else. You appear to be confusing your confusions. You posted ascii representation of binary code. > > Now as everyone and their dog knows, a legal PE executable file can be > > at its minimum 2 * 512 byte sections which total 1024 bytes yet > > Herbert labours under the misapprehension that a hand coded ascii > > binary file of 922 bytes is an executable PE file. > > Now I know that a legal Win32 executable has to have > at least 1024 bytes. And you now know, there is a legal > Win32 application with only 922 byte (ok, it does only > run in 32 bit Windows, so it can't be executed for example > in Win3.1). Maybe you can tell me, what's "illegal" with > the 922 byte Win32 application? Doesn't in correctly > display the message box on any 32 bit Windows? You are simply mistaken here. When you can verify that your 922 byte application runs on EVERY Win32 version from the earliest 32 bit version of WinNT to current Vista then you may have something to say but the PE specification actually DOES run on all versions of 32 bit Windows. Windows 32 bit PE executable files are a specification from Microsoft, it is not subject to your personal interpretation. Here are the results, your EXE is a broken pile of junk. It runs on my win2000 but there is no garrantee that it will run an all versions as it is not a legal 32 bit PE file. ========================================================================= Microsoft (R) COFF Binary File Dumper Version 5.12.8078 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1992-1998. All rights reserved. Dump of file H:\herbert\demo.exe H:\herbert\demo.exe : warning LNK4048: Invalid format file; ignored ========================================================================= DumpPE v2.20 (c) Copyright Tenth Planet Software Intl., C Turvey 1995-2005. All rights reserved. Non-Commercial use only. 'demo.exe' not an .EXE or .DBG file. ========================================================================= In a HEX editor it looks like encrypted data. Run the file and is startup is laggy and is a lot slower than the console startup time. > Can you please explain which "sheer brutal power of MASM" is > necessary to write a 1024 byte executable which displays a > window? We are still waiting for: Who said it need the sheer brutal power of MASM to write a 1024 byte window. It just happens to be the legal minimum size for a 32 bit PE file. > Ok Hutch, let's see one of your MASM examples so we can decide if it's > possible to improve it using a better assembler. But don't give us a link, > post it right here, the complete source (with all necessary include files) > for a short demo which can be assembled with MASM. Done years ago, the MASM32 Project at www.masm32.com . What you have not done yet is tell what assembler you are using. So far your code looks like hand coded binary. > But if you really want a second challenge besides the one with > Wannabee you have to provide a little bit more than a 1k program > which displays a window. For example, show me the MASM source > of a program which displays the OS version and where the same exe > works in 16 bit DOS and 32 bit Windows. What is the big deal, its done with a DOS stub for a standard PE file. Write your legal 16 bit DOS executable file, set your linker options to use it as a DOS stub for a 32 bit PE file. Dos app runs in true DOS, 32 bit PE file runs in 32 bit Windows. If you need tuition, buy a book. Regards, hutch at movsd dot com
From: Betov on 7 Sep 2007 05:47 hutch-- <hutch(a)movsd.com> �crivait news:1189157045.439433.178440 @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > the masm32 project has > been available for years and it contains code that I have written. Which is? Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Herbert Kleebauer on 7 Sep 2007 05:59 hutch-- wrote: > > I didn't offer any challenge, I asked you to post the short > > examples from your challenge with Wannabee. > > I don't particularly care what you requested, the masm32 project has > been available for years and it contains code that I have written. So you refuse to enter the ring. > > Seems you are confusing assembly code and machine code. What > > I posted was pure machine code and nothing else. > > You appear to be confusing your confusions. You posted ascii > representation of binary code. No, I posted pure binary code. Sometime it happens that a binary byte is displayed as a 'a' or 'Z'. > You are simply mistaken here. When you can verify that your 922 byte > application runs on EVERY Win32 version from the earliest 32 bit > version of WinNT to current Vista then you may have something to say > but the PE specification actually DOES run on all versions of 32 bit > Windows. Windows 32 bit PE executable files are a specification from > Microsoft, it is not subject to your personal interpretation. The other way: show me a single 32 bit Windows version where it doesn't run. > In a HEX editor it looks like encrypted data. Run the file and is > startup is laggy and is a lot slower than the console startup time. Most binary file looks like "encrypted data" in a hex editor. > > Can you please explain which "sheer brutal power of MASM" is > > necessary to write a 1024 byte executable which displays a > > window? We are still waiting for: > > Who said it need the sheer brutal power of MASM to write a 1024 byte > window. It just happens to be the legal minimum size for a 32 bit PE > file. Because you wanted to give us some examples of the "sheer brutal power of MASM" and then posted this example. > > Ok Hutch, let's see one of your MASM examples so we can decide if it's > > possible to improve it using a better assembler. But don't give us a link, > > post it right here, the complete source (with all necessary include files) > > for a short demo which can be assembled with MASM. > > Done years ago, the MASM32 Project at www.masm32.com . Then extract the one example which best shows us the "sheer brutal power of MASM" and post it here. > What you have not done yet is tell what assembler you are using. So > far your code looks like hand coded binary. I always hand code the binaries when doing assembly programming. Only MASM and HLA user let the "assembler" generate code which they didn't write explicitly themselves. > > But if you really want a second challenge besides the one with > > Wannabee you have to provide a little bit more than a 1k program > > which displays a window. For example, show me the MASM source > > of a program which displays the OS version and where the same exe > > works in 16 bit DOS and 32 bit Windows. > > What is the big deal, its done with a DOS stub for a standard PE file. Sure, but I want to see the "sheer brutal power of MASM" to do it in a simple and readable way.
From: Frank Kotler on 7 Sep 2007 07:12
Herbert Kleebauer wrote: .... > gver.com>gver.exe > del gever.com Funny thing is, with this typo, you've given 'em a clue. They're gonna figure it out! Mmmmm, maybe not... (I thought I was disassembling data, too :) Best, Frank |