luckybuck Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Bug/65 the final chapter: https://atariwiki.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Bug65 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pirx Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 invalid certificate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckybuck Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 No, just browser problems at your site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Same here. The problem must be catching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Works fine for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+MrFish Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Same problem here. I had to add an exception. It's happened to me numerous times on various machines, via connections on the west coast and east coast of the U.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckybuck Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 The site is on IPv6, will forward your posts, please stand by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+sm3 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 The "exception" in Firefox is probably because "The certificate is not trusted because no issuer chain was provided." I guess this a known issue with certs from CAcert.org: "for most web users, a certificate signed by CAcert behaves like a self-signed certificate." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cas Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) invalid certificate? No, a CACert Certificate that can be checked via DNSSEC and TLSA (aka DANE, ask your browser vendor to support RFC 6698 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6698 or install the DNSSEC Validator Plugin from https://www.dnssec-validator.cz/ Or you can import the CACert Root Certificate from http://cacert.org Carsten Edited February 4, 2015 by cas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Jefferson Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 The problem is that the CA root certificate is not "trusted", which means it's not in your browser's list of root CAs. To get on that list, there's a usually a small fee and some mild vetting. CACert.org obviously hasn't done this. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cas Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 The problem is that the CA root certificate is not "trusted", which means it's not in your browser's list of root CAs. To get on that list, there's a usually a small fee and some mild vetting. CACert.org obviously hasn't done this. Correct. But no user should (blindly) "trust" the CAs pre-installed in their browser. IMHO CACert, as a community driven CA, is more trustworthy than many of the government or commercial CAs. The current CA "trust" model is very much broken, the new DANE model of checking the certificates against a fingerprint in DNSSEC secured DNS is the way forward (instead of a long list of "trusted" CAs in the browser). Once the certificates from EFF/Mozilla "let's encrypt" will be available in summer 2015, I will probably switch to their certificates, which EFF/Mozilla promise will also be in the browsers CA store. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Jefferson Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Yes you are probably right... although I don't enough about DANE. DNSSEC hasn't caught on to the extent we need yet either though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolRetroGamer Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) So....among 3 browsers I use daily without issue anywhere else online but I have to jump through hoops to access that link? And the issue is on MY end? Sorry, doesn't work that way in my book. Daily browsing for years and only rarely see this issue which is always resolved when the site updates their certificate accordingly. The end user should not have to do anything to access a legitimate site issue free. Basic casual people browsing are expected to install / import something? I'll pass thanks. Just not that important to take a chance doing things I know nothing about just to see a website. Chrome message: Your connection is not privateAttackers might be trying to steal your information from atariwiki.org (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Back to safetyHide advanced This server could not prove that it is atariwiki.org; its security certificate is not trusted by your computer's operating system. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection. Proceed to atariwiki.org (unsafe) NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID IE: There is a problem with this website’s security certificate. The security certificate presented by this website was not issued by a trusted certificate authority. Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server. We recommend that you close this webpage and do not continue to this website. Click here to close this webpage. Continue to this website (not recommended). More information If you arrived at this page by clicking a link, check the website address in the address bar to be sure that it is the address you were expecting. When going to a website with an address such as https://example.com, try adding the 'www' to the address, https://www.example.com. For more information, see "Certificate Errors" in Internet Explorer Help. Firefox message: This Connection is Untrusted You have asked Firefox to connect securely to atariwiki.org, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure. Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified. What Should I Do? If you usually connect to this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue. atariwiki.org uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because no issuer chain was provided. (Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer) Edited February 8, 2015 by OldSchoolRetroGamer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Yeah: this is the only website I actually WANT to visit that has these issues. 99.9999999 per cent of legit sites somehow manage to avoid such problems. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fujidude Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 It goes against my grain to add an exception for a certificate that, when you come down to it, I really don't have any real basis for trusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckybuck Posted February 8, 2015 Author Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) BUGV4FIX.COM ; We are still searching for that file, it seems to be lost. Any help, any hint in that case is very much appreciated. :-)# At the end of the Bug/65 manual we can read: 1. Copy the files BUG65.COM and BUGV4FIX.COM to a version 4 disk using the COPY24 command (see the DOSXL manual for details on this command). 2. At the version 4 "D1:" prompt, type the command: BUGV4FIX (RETURN). 3. The file BUG65.COM on that disk is now compatible with version 4 of DOSXL. WARNING: Do NOT perform the BUGV4FIX command on your version 2 master disk! Creating a non-relocatable version# In order to allow itself to be relocated virtually anywhere in memory, BUG/65 as shipped includes a relocation bit map and relocation program. In addition, relocatable BUG/65 always loads in at locations $9800 through $BC00. If these addresses are "poison" to you (e.g., if you want to use BUG/65 with a cartridge plugged in), you may wish to produce a non-relocatable version designed to run within an address range you pick. If so, USING A 48K SYSTEM, simply specify the loadpoint, as shown in the preceding section (e.g., via BUG65 7000) and allow BUG/65 to load and relocate. Then exit to OS/A+ (via Quit) and use OS/A+ intrinsic command SAVE to save a non-relocatable version. The address range to be SAVEd may be calculated as follows: SAVE filename.com loadpoint+$200 loadpoint+$1FFF Thus, if you had specified "BUG65 7000", you could save the non-relocatable version via SAVE BUG7000.COM 7200 8FFF thus also giving it a name which will later remind you where it will load at. To execute this non-relocatable version, simply type in its name (BUG7000 in the example shown). Summary of major features of BUG/65# • A full set of debugging commands - change memory, display memory, goto user program with break points, etc. • Binary file read and write, including appended write • A disassembler • An instant assembler providing labelling capability • Expanded command addressing capability: hex or decimal addresses, + and - operators supported, relocated addresses supported • Read or write disk sector(s) • Multiple commands permitted in a command line. Command lines can be repeated with a single keystroke or repeated forever with the special slash operator. • Support for relocatable assemblers - the base of a module can be specified and then used to reference addresses in that module • BUG/65 commands can be executed from a command file, and there is a command to create command files • Hex to decimal and decimal to hex conversions provided • Memory protection of BUG/65's code and data. BUG/65 won't allow you to use a BUG/65 command that will destroy any part of BUG/65 itself. For example, you can't use the Fill command to overwrite BUG/65's code. • Page zero sharing. BUG/65 shares page zero with a user program by keeping two copies of the shared page zero locations - one for the user and one for BUG/65 itself. Enjoy! P. S. Enabling your browser to have access. You don't do it for yourself and your own protection, you do it for your country! Edited February 12, 2015 by luckybuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckybuck Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) For all of you, who don't have access to: https://atariwiki.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Bug65 Here are the files: Manual with all pages: BUG-65 Version 2.0 manual-final with errorpage.pdf PDF-page no. 4 has the only one error page: 'ERRORS IN YOUR BUG/65 MANUAL' Errata: As of this moment, it is not understood, why the there mentioned commands: N, O, R', R", W' and W" do not work with the above version 2.0 of BUG/65. Either we have version 1.1 for real, while 2.0 is shown at start or something else is wrong here. Anyway, the mentioned pages on the error page do match with pages in the rest of the manual. Maybe the 'old boys club' from the golden age can solve this? Any help in that case is very welcome at any time. We really appreciate if you can help us. Please take into account, that in the manuals above version 1.1 is mentioned, while just version 2.0 above is available up to now. If you own version 1.1, please let us know. We can make you an offer, you can't resist. ATR-Image with all versions, just version 1.1 is missing up to now: OSS Bug-65 with OSS DOS XL 2.30p 2000-9A00.atr Same as above, but with a color version instead of the 9A00-version: OSS Bug-65 with OSS DOS XL 2.30p 2000-9000 and 3000 Color.atr One version along with MAC/65: MAC-65 2.00 and 4.20 with Bug-65 2.0 and DOS XL 2.30.atr Command Summary - part 1: Command Summary - part 2: User Command Handler Example with line numbers:BUG-65 User Command Handler Example 1.txt User Command Handler Example without line numbers: BUG-65 User Command Handler Example 2.txt Full(!) User Command Handler Example - part 1: Full(!) User Command Handler Example - part 2: Edited February 12, 2015 by luckybuck 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckybuck Posted February 15, 2015 Author Share Posted February 15, 2015 Thanks to Allan, we now have the OSS newsletter from summer 1983, in there we finally found the patch we searched for: 5 REM BUG/65 BUG -- VERSION 4 PATCH PROGRAM 10 XIO 36,#1,0,0,"D:BUG65.COM":REM UNPROTECT FILE 20 OPEN #1,12,0,"D:BUG65.COM" 30 FOR I=1 TO 2668:REM MOVE TO PROPER POSITION 40 GET #1,C 50 NEXT I 60 PUT #1,12 70 CLOSE #1 To make the patch to BUG/65 do as follows: 1) Insert your BASIC cartridge or use BASIC A+ disk. 2) Place your BUG/65 disk into the disk drive. 3) Use this BASIC program above to apply the one byte patch so that BUG/65 will work with OS/A+ version 4. To save your time, I have already done this: MAC-65_2.00_and_4.20_with_Bug-65_2.0_normal_and_V4_ready_and_DOS_XL_2.30.atr further the "old" versions in different kinds: OSS_Bug-65_with_OSS_DOS_XL_2.30p_2000-9A00.atr OSS_Bug-65_with_OSS_DOS_XL_2.30p_2000-9000_and_3000_Color.atr 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2.thumb.gif.e02053713b107932e02cd0fe3d53c01b.gif)
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.