HAY Herbert, wanna write a legal PE executable ?
in [ASM]
|
From: hutch-- on 9 Sep 2007 19:04 Herbert, > Which lie? I said I have a executable which is smaller than > 1024 bytes and which, when executed, displays a message box > on all Win32 versions. I even posted the binary so you could > test it yourself. Where is the lie? First you took up Wannabee's challenge and made reference to using an assembler yet you posted no source code. You offered your binary in the context of a win32 PE file yet what you posted was a dos COM file with an embedded win32 1k example in it which was compressed. It required a console and the 16 bit subsystem to run the com file which in turn called the 1k 32 bit PE file. Starting the 16 bit subsystem and a console is why you code performed so badly when you have to remember it was a simple MessageBoxA call. Even the kids can do better than tat. > Where is your first MASM example? In front of the second one which is in front of the third one which is in front of the 4th one etc ..... You have over 100 to write equivalent example for in RotAsm from the MASM32 project but remember you must also be able to match the binary libraries and the pre- processor code in MASM, RotAsm crayon scribblings will not do. I will be particularly interested to see the RotAsm equivalent of the binary libraries in MASM32. Inlne assembler is not an equivalent to a MASM library. Do you have a really bad tasting hat that is rough and fiberous ? Would it clean the sh*t out of you if you chewed it and ate it ?
From: //o//annabee on 9 Sep 2007 20:10 P� Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:29:07 +0100, skrev hutch-- <hutch(a)movsd.com>: > HAY Wannabee, > > Better whip out that hat and start chewin on it, this following pile > of crud is using code / macros that you have not published according > to your challenge. paste into a RosAsm [File/New (empty)], press F6 and it will run at once. > >> [push | push #1 | #+1] >> [call | push #L>2 | call #1] >> >> [DialogTitle: "Minimum RosAsm" 0 >> Message: " --- Assembler Pure and Simple --- ", 0] >> >> [MessageBox | #=4 | push #L>1 | call 'USER32.MessageBoxA'] >> >> [ExitProcess | Push 0 | call "KERNEL32.ExitProcess" ] >> >> main: >> push &MB_OK | push DialogTitle | push Message | push 0 | call >> 'USER32.MessageBoxA' >> >> push 0 | call "KERNEL32.ExitProcess" >> >> ;; >> The following are the same function calls using a selection of RosAsm >> user defined macros. Type checking are not fully implemented >> in the currect version of RosAsm, but He is working on it :) >> ;; >> >> MessageBox 0 Message DialogTitle &MB_OK >> ExitProcess >> ______________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> DING! > > DONG. :) seem to reflect each our state of mind over this
From: Frank Kotler on 10 Sep 2007 03:26 hutch-- wrote: .... [Wannabee] > Come up with There's the crux of it. Clearly (although he doesn't say so), he meant post "the complete code" and doesn't accept posting a link as "coming up with". You may not agree, I may not agree, but Wannabee claims you haven't "come up with" the code. .... > 2. and I will write the RosAsm equivalents > Wannabee MUST produce what MASM can produce in the SAME format > according to his challenge. If it is not the SAME format he loses tha > challenge. What do you mean by "format"? PE? You called Herbert's example "illegal", in spite of the fact that it works as advertised. Would that rule it out? Seems to me if he can come up with the same functionallity, that ought to be close enough. Obviously, since he's not using a linker, they wouldn't be "binary identical". > 3. All called code must be present, except for Win32 API code. > All code IS present in the MASM32 Project including the required > binary libraries that are created with MASM. Yes, but Wannabee wants it "posted". I'm not sure why, since he can't really use it anyway (unless he'd one-click disassemble/reassemble it). Seems to me, if you posted the source to an example, and it called "strlen", he could probably figure out how to do an "equivalent" without you having to "come up with" anything. In the case of a more "exotic" library call, it might not be unreasonable for him to expect source - or just a "spec", perhaps - to be "posted". Likewise any macros that are "unobvious". To be honest, I don't see too much of that stuff - I think he ought to be able to come up with an "equivalent" from just the plain source, but he insisted that "everything needed to assemble" had to be "come up with". (I assume this excludes Masm, link, etc.) I'm not "fighting you" on this. On the contrary, I think some people get off easy... "Oh, we can't go to the MASM32 site, it might be illegal.", "We can't go to SourceFrog, it might be owned by crime&co." (it is), "Oh, we don't Yahoo."... Sometimes I post stuff from those places, or put it on my website, just to say "you can't get off that easy, here it is." But if you don't want to say which of your examples might be particularly "interesting" to try to duplicate in RosAsm (or Nasm, or to convert to Linux), no problem to me... Best, Frank
From: hutch-- on 10 Sep 2007 03:32 HAY Wannabee, > paste into a RosAsm [File/New (empty)], press F6 and it will run at once. I don't care where it will run, you are violating the specs of your own challenge by not posting ALL the code. You are using code/macros that are not published. Can't RotAsm do these thing with its pre- processor ? > All called code must be present Your rule, not mine and as you have not complied, its hat munching time. Don't think that Herbert or wolfgang or Frank can save you, that hat is still here waiting for you to start chewin.
From: Betov on 10 Sep 2007 03:35
hutch-- <hutch(a)movsd.com> �crivait news:1189377877.362701.119290@ 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: > With the capacity of RotAsm I would not recomment > that you take up Wannabee's the challenge. :) You, being unable to show any Source of yours, nobody could ever take a challenge that does not exist. Betov. < http://rosasm.org > |