From:	SMTP%"CMU-OpenVMS-IP@sacto.mp.usbr.gov" 23-MAR-1995 08:30:26.54
To:	EVERHART
CC:	
Subj:	Re: New password module for FTP 2.12?

X-ListName: Discussion list for the CMUIP (aka CMU-TEK) TCP Product
    <CMU-OpenVMS-IP@sacto.mp.usbr.gov>
Warnings-To: <>
Errors-To: owner-cmu-openvms-ip@sacto.mp.usbr.gov
Sender: owner-cmu-openvms-ip@sacto.mp.usbr.gov
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 19:17:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: dongray@genrad.co.uk (Derek Dongray)
Reply-To: CMU-OpenVMS-IP@sacto.mp.usbr.gov
Subject: Re: New password module for FTP 2.12?
To: CMU-OpenVMS-IP@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
Message-ID: <1995Mar21.191736.191@genrad.co.uk>
Organization: GenRad Ltd
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
X-Newsgroups: vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.cmu-tek
X-Gateway-Source-Info: USENET
Lines: 39

In article <1995Mar21.184458.190@genrad.co.uk>, dongray@genrad.co.uk (Derek Dongray) writes:
> Is there a new password module/patch available for FTP V2.12? I assume that is
> what the problem is since I have CMU on 2 machines, one running VMS 5.5-2, the
> other V6.1. The 5.5-2 system is fine. The 6.1 system always rejects FTP access
> with the message "530 Login information invalid at remote node".

OK. I worked out the fix. Since everyone now has BLISS (it's free), here is the
source difference...

************
File U$L:[DONGRAY]VMS054.B32;4
   66       IF (Not .Status) Or
   67      ((.Version_String[2] EQL '5') And (.Version_String[3] LSS '4')) THEN
   68           Status = LGI$HPWD (
******
File U$L:[DONGRAY]VMS054.B32;1
   66       IF (Not .Status) Or (.Version_String[3] LSS '4') THEN
   67           Status = LGI$HPWD (
************

Number of difference sections found: 1
Number of difference records found: 2

DIFFERENCES /IGNORE=(TRAILING_SPACES)/MERGED=1-
    U$L:[DONGRAY]VMS054.B32;4-
    U$L:[DONGRAY]VMS054.B32;1

For those who don't program, the old code assumed got the VMS version and then
assumed the major version number was 5 and simply checked that the minor
version number was less than 4. If so, it used the old routines. Otherwise, it
assumed it was VMS 5.4, 5.5, 5.6? and used the new routine. Of course V6.0,
V6.1, etc. break this, so the fix is to add a test that the major version
number is 5 before checking the minor number. Of course, I could have just
zapped the whole test... :-)

--
  Derek Dongray, Systems Manager, GenRad Ltd., Cheshire, UK.
  E-mail : dongray@genrad.com or Derek.Dongray@GenRad.co.uk
  PSS : 234261600119::Dongray        CompuServe : 70374,2745
