home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!netnews.cc.lehigh.edu!news
- From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson)
- Newsgroups: comp.virus
- Subject: CHKDSK & PC-DOS 5.00 (IBM) (PC)
- Message-ID: <0009.9212221358.AA03720@barnabas.cert.org>
- Date: 21 Dec 92 15:01:08 GMT
- Sender: virus-l@lehigh.edu
- Lines: 38
- Approved: news@netnews.cc.lehigh.edu
-
- My last last word on DOS 5.00 CHKDSK problem with big disks (promise)
-
- It seems that the same problem *may* exist in PC-DOS 5.00 from IBM
- however I do not have PC-DOS 5.00 so cannot say for sure. However if
- it does exist, here is how to tell.
-
- First PC-DOS VER/R is said to give a slightly different output than
- MS-DOS 5.00 VER/R e.g.
-
- IBM DOS Version 5.00
- Revision 1 CSD URxxxxx 02/92
-
- (note: this version apparently has the "fix")
-
- According the report, PC-DOS uses CHKDSK.COM instead of CHKDSK.EXE
- (though still in .EXE format) and further, it is 16 bytes shorter than
- the MS-DOS 5.00 CHKDSK.EXE (16,184 bytes vs 16,200).
-
- Accordingly, the fragment in question appears to be at DEBUG offset
- DS:2633h instead of DS:263Eh (offset used in my .BAT file was
- different since file was "converted" to permit update).
-
- The same check should be valid (8B 4F 0F 8B F9 indicates the "early"
- version while 8B 7F 0F 32 ED is an indicator of the "fixed" CHKDSK)
- just at the different offset, but as said, I do not have a copy of
- either version of PC-DOS 5.00 so your guess is probably better than
- mine.
-
- *
- |
- abc
- defgh And a Merry Christmas to All,
- ijklmno
- pqrstuvwx Padgett
- yzabcdefghi
- jklmnopqrstuv
- wxyz
- __||__
-