Just about every Windows and Linux device vulnerable to new LogoFAIL firmware attack
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Yes, but "on top of" isn't the same as "is."
There's a few ways to think of UEFI. One could think of it as having a core BIOS, with a whole new functionality bolted onto it. From what I can find, that's not really the way it was designed, but that thinking would be similar to the DOS -> Windows 95 relationship.
The other way is more like the relationship between Windows XP and DOS, in that it's a new thing, but includes a way to emulate DOS to provide backwards compatibility. This is closer to how UEFI with its CSM module works, from what I can see, in that UEFI is new firmware with a new hardware implementation, but included CSM for backwards compatibility for hardware/software looking for a BIOS. One difference is that UEFI with CSM is near perfect BIOS emulation, with some enhancements, while XP wasn't compatible with all DOS programs.
Either way, it's wrong to say "UEFI is BIOS," just like it's wrong to say "Windows 95 is DOS" or "Windows XP is DOS."
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Your comparison of BIOS on UEFI with DOS on XP is correct because both are emulations on top of an unrelated base system, much like Wine or DOSBox on top of Linux. Windows95 is different because it was still DOS under the hood, so it was still properly a DOS family operating system.
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
They were not pirate ROMs. You can tell, because they don't have BASIC.
The BIOS was for DOS, not for BASIC.
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
They were clones, not pirate ROMs, that's correct.
But the BIOS was for DOS and BASIC. It still provided screen, timer, keyboard etc. And if nothing else, it's a damned sight smaller to do an INT xx instruction (2 bytes) than a near call (3 bytes) or far call (5 bytes), especially if you're going to call exactly the same API and need to do a PUSHF at the start to make the IRET at the end work ok. You may as well just do the INT in the first place.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
My first 'clone' PC included a photocopied manual where 'IBM' had clearly been white-outed from the original. I'm pretty sure the BIOS had the same treatment. There were some pretty fly-by-night outfits around back in the 80's, especially outside the USA.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
moosemaimer
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Adrian Black just did a video where he dumped the ROM from an old clone mobo and it started with "THIS IS NOT IBM BIOS", as a means of being able to run software that wouldn't start if it didn't see "IBM BIOS" in the ROM.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I mean, we can get into the technical details of how Windows 95 actually works, but what you originally quoted was my question:
Is your answer to that "yes"? Because if it's anything other than "yes," then you're agreeing with my main point.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
It has a kernel, a file system, a networking stack, drivers for common peripherals like printers and mice, APIs for software developers, and a user interface. What features does it lack that Windows has?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
No it's not. Windows 95 is a layer of libraries and services that ran on top of DOS. Saying Windows 95 is DOS is akin to saying Doom is DOS, or Commander Keen is DOS, or Lotus 123 is DOS.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
Well, you're mostly there.
As for whether one can describe Windows 95 as running "on top" of DOS, I've had that discussion before:
https://meincmagazine.com/civis/threa...-for-windows-10.1483703/page-11#post-40839299
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Thank you for letting us know. I was on the edge of my sandwich... I mean seat. Sorry, my sandwich was sitting on the armrest and I confused the two for a moment.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Am I blind?! Where's the link to the article/whitepaper? And if it is there, why is it not linked in the first or last couple paragraphs?
Here it is for the lost: https://binarly.io/posts/The_Far_Reaching_Consequences_of_LogoFAIL/
Here it is for the lost: https://binarly.io/posts/The_Far_Reaching_Consequences_of_LogoFAIL/
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I always thought Raymond Chen's explanation of the grotty internals was pretty good. If I understand, DOS was used as bootloader for actual OS, but its internal state was also duplicated to the 32-bit side and kept in sync with the Windows side... and if someone had patched or hooked DOS in their DOS drivers, any system calls were still forwarded to the actual DOS code running inside VMs
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071224-00/?p=24063
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Ah yes, Rog Strix. I fought with him in the ogre wars. Rog Strix was a barbarian of few words but could be trusted to watch your back with his trusty sword, the Razer Abyssus ripped from the depths of a three headed Naga Trinity before smashing her egg cooling vents.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)