| |
| |
| |
|
Comments:
<0> anyone know if the BIOS/DOS data area at 0x50:0 is written to by the BIOS itself, or just by DOS?
<1> please don't flame for this question
<1> what kind of compensation is required in order to find the return address on the x86_64 opposed to the x86
<1> if any
<2> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_***embly_language
<2> read that.
<1> thx
<2> and a bunch of the links in the topic ;)
<2> if you have understanding of x86 ***embly to begin with you should be okay..
<2> what exactly are you trying to do?
<2> exploit something?
<1> : )
<2> nobody will help you.
<1> Just learning for fun
<1> I help myself
<2> good.
<2> http://www.google.com
<2> :)
<1> ; )
<1> I cant believe that when I ask that question in a C programming channel I get I response like "what is he trying to do?." That scares me.
<1> a*
<1> Buffer overflows and the like should be the basic foundation of a programmer.
<2> ...right
<2> solotitan: no your question was also seriously dumb.
<2> but that's beyond the point.
<1> yea, but I'm not programmer
<2> Now that everybody is aware of what you're trying to do, you will likely get the RTFM response.
<2> no, you're worse.
<1> I stated my n00bness
<2> regardless.
<2> goodnight, i'm too tired to deal with idiots tonight.
<2> goodnight guys.
<2> so basically you wanna learn just enough to write exploits?
<1> you seem to be liked well
<2> nah, I just know kp.
<2> that and the whole it's 2am on the east coast.
<1> no it's just the fact that I can step into a C programming room having little knowledge of vulnerability's that can exist in applications that they program and they do not?
<1> same here
<1> and that really is disturbing
<2> that they don't program exploits?
<2> wow, what a concept, you seriously are a troll.
<2> Goodnight.
<1> Dude that is totally wrong
<2> bye.
<1> man you have been leaving for 20 min now. go on
<2> this conversation is over apologies for filling your backlogs.
<1> just promise me if you code you understand what your doing
<1> I'm though with this preschool chat.
<3> clear
<4> Hi!
<4> I am interesting about Ubiquam U-300 arch
<5> i have a small qtion : afaik X+ !X =1 and 1 + XY = 1 but !a!b!c +a!c +abc != 1
<5> sorry if i ask in the wrong place ..
<6> jabka: huh?
<7> wth?
<5> what ? ..
<5> wrong place ..
<5> ?
<8> hello. I am having trouble with a very simple ***embler file: http://pastebin.com/867291
<8> The ***embler will give this error:
<8> C:\Programas\fpc21\rtl\symbian>as -o prt0.o i386\prt0.as
<8> i386\prt0.as: ***embler messages:
<8> i386\prt0.as:6: Warning: .type pseudo-op used outside of .def/.endef ignored.
<8> i386\prt0.as:6: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized character is `_'
<8> On windows
<8> Whats wrong with this simple ".type _E32EXE,@function" statement?
<8> I saw some examples and they dont need .def / .endef to use .type
<9> masm ?
<8> no, Gnu ***embler
<9> k
<10> sekelsenmat: .type as you used it is ELF-specific
<10> windows doesn
<10> 't use ELF, so you can't use .type on windows
<10> just remove it
<8> So, how do I define a function on windows?
<8> the "FunctionName:" + global is enougth?
<10> sure
<8> oh, thanks
<8> another thing, are there several incompatible object formats on Windows called COFF??
<8> I tryed using CodeWarrior Linker to link GNU ***embler generated .o files, but it rejects them
<8> and both codewarrior linker and gnu ***embler are suppose to use COFF format
<8> at least codewarrior linker should use COFF
<8> Does anyone know the default format generated by GNU ***embler? I tryed to google, and it says to be coff ... but could be a different version of coff, dont know
<11> Ist hier jemand bei Versatel?
<12> english, please
Return to
#asm
or
Go to some related
logs:
#css
#css
apt-get ncurses ubuntu
cannot open display xchat-gnome
jkdf2 port
ubuntu mount: special device /dev/mapper/ does not exist
#gentoo
dapper nis kstartupconfig
Matrox tv cable pinout
compiled kernel tcp_syncookies missing
|
|