VOGONS

Common searches


Mounting c as c:\ ; what is the nature of the risk?

Topic actions

  • This topic is locked. You cannot reply or edit posts.

First post, by Wounded Ronin

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hello all,

I've been a DOSBox user for many years but I've never posted here before. I have always dilligently avoided typing "mount c c:\" and have instead typed "mount c c:\directory" for my old games since this is recommended by the DOSBox documentation.

However, recently, I've encountered a situation where in order for a game to run correctly I must type "mount c c:\". When I want to play SSI Gold Box D&D games using DOSBox if I mount the virtual drive as anything but c:\ the game gives me an error when it tries to save anything, but when I use "mount c c:\" the game runs perfectly.

What exactly is the degree of risk when I use "mount c c:\"? DOSBox warns me off with red letters and it makes me nervous. What are the chances of my hard drive being wiped clean if I play SSI Gold Box games using DOSBox with "mount c c:\"? Is the risk so great that I should simply not play those games? Or is the risk actually pretty small and theoretical?

I'd appreciate if you could give me some advice.

Reply 1 of 15, by Freddo

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The main problem is that a program/game (or some old DOS virus) will run in DOSBOX and change things in C:\WINDOWS\ with old Windows 3.x stuff, and thus ruin the whole Windows XP installation.

Or that the user accidently change some real system settings, which is very possible for those who doesn't know DOS very well.

Doesn't really make any sense that SSI Gold Box D&D require a different mount either. I wonder what causes that.

Reply 2 of 15, by Wounded Ronin

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Thank you very much for explaining to me in more detail the risk of "mount c c:\". The warnings make more sense in light of the possibility that some DOS programs might edit stuff in the c:\windows folder.

Let me see if I'm understanding this correctly, then. If I had an old DOS executable that did something to c:\windows the risk to my system would be exactly the same whether I ran it in DOSBox or whether I just decided to run it using Windows XP. This would be because the entire problem in such a case would be that program trying to access c:\windows. Is that right?

If that's true, it seems like I'm not really in any danger running Champions of Krynn after "mount c c:\", considering that I've already run it several times and it hasn't done anything bad to my Windows installation, and it seems unlikely that that game would ever try to modify c:\windows.

Reply 3 of 15, by dh4rm4

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Please don't mount your C: drive as C in DosBox because frankly, it's stupid and unsafe. There are important files and folders used throughout the ENTIRE structure of the SYSTEM drive (Not just the Windows folder) that XP is installed within and so it's far smarter and safer to mount a folder as a drive in DOSBox. Put it this way, you've already been warned and have had a reasonably detailed answer given. If you still wish to blindly mount your C drive then don't be surprised if something goes wrong and kills your XP installation.

Reply 4 of 15, by Wounded Ronin

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

If you read my last post, I was trying to verify that I was understanding the situation fully by asking a question. I wasn't saying that I "still wish" to go ahead and use "mount c c:\" all the time.

Thanks for your clarification about the structure of the system drive, though.

I'll have to figure out a way to make Champions of Krynn be able to save, though, and I ran a search for some older threads on CoK. I'll have to play with the configuration of the save directory. Maybe the reason that CoK can't save has to do with a mismatch between the virtual drive and the actual directory of the software.

Reply 8 of 15, by Zachariah

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

That it did not wend wrong doesn't mean it's without risk. It's simply good practice to put all your games in c:\dosgames and mount c:\dosgames. If it's to much typ work to you, use c:\dg instead.

And yes, Wounded Ronin is correct that running SSI Gold Box D&D games by mounting c:\ is not going to bring any additional risks, as it probably would have gone wrong before already if it did. But nobody can guarantee that for 100%. And with different games, you take again a risk if you use c:\.

About the save problem. I think the game got the directory structure where it's installed in saved somewhere. Try to move it, but keep the dir stucture intact. For example, when it's installed in c:\program files\dosgames\SSIgame\ then move it to c:\dg\program files\dosgames\SSIgame\ and mount c:\dg\

If that doens't work, try to reinstall the game, or manually edit the config files (if possible).

Reply 9 of 15, by doomer

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

No game requires you to mount c c:\
The reason is that when you mount a directory like c:\dosgames\dos it automatically becomes the root in dosbox. Then you install the game in dosbox and everything is fine. Trust me, I've installed many games and none ever required this command. None ever will.

PS: That comment about mount c:\ not being dangerous was ridiculous. But after their pc's root system files get corrupted and windows refuses to boot they will blame dosbox. I just don't get it.

Reply 10 of 15, by augnober

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Some MSDOS viruses were (and are) capable of infecting various EXE's and other files throughout the filesystem through modifications. If you mount your whole drive, you are opening your system up to infection by old MSDOS viruses. It is likely that some of these viruses would render a new Windows executable useless, since the authors made assumptions (re: executable structure, the platform, etc.) that were true at the time of writing, but which are no longer correct. For this reason, even a relatively innocuous virus from the past could be quite destructive (although incapable of using the new host executable for further reproduction).

There is some good news... To my knowledge, many old viruses were quite primitive and were incapable of seeking out new executables for infection. Sometimes, another executable would not be infected unless you manually ran it after the virus has become resident in memory. Since you probably won't attempt to run a Windows executable from under Dosbox, any files you have mounted that are unrelated to Dosbox should be fairly safe from these ones. Were there other viruses more intelligent than this though? Likely, yes. Were they widespread enough that we should take precautions against them? Maybe.. I'm no expert. Some people would prefer not to take this chance since it is an unnecessary risk.

Someone else mentioned that old apps made assumptions about Windows that are no longer true. This is another example of an old and broken assumption leading to destruction. It's better not to put your applications in an environment where their assumptions are incorrect, and in which they have been untested. Predicting what may happen when the application goes into an untested environment isn't an easy task, in part because it is generally no one's priority to analyze each app in detail to see everything that it does and report it to everyone. The detailed workings of the apps you're running are unknown. So if you put it in with your new files, you might be unlucky enough to get the first taste of its negative side effects in a new environment.. as unlikely as it may be.

Personally, I put all my Dosbox games and applications under single root directory which basically acts as a virtual harddrive. It's no trouble for me, since I prefer this kind of organization anyway. Of course.. my Dosbox executables aren't safe from the effects of other Dosbox apps, but that's an acceptable risk to me because nothing I run under Dosbox is critical.

Reply 11 of 15, by wd

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Author
Rank
DOSBox Author

and were incapable of seeking out new executables for infection

Some recursively infect all executables. Be sure you know what you're
telling about virus stuff.

many old viruses were quite primitive

That's exactly what makes them dangerous. They don't care much about
the system, some stupid ones even execute a "del c:\*.*" or irreversibly
overwrite parts of executables.

Reply 12 of 15, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

When I'm in the mood to destroy my system I'll mount c c: and will start the Win3.11 setup. Just curios what it will destry on its way 😀

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper

Reply 13 of 15, by Wounded Ronin

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I really like history; as an undergrad I majored in history with an international relations concentration. So I was actually very happy to read about old viruses in the DOS environment since they are now historical. I enjoy learning about things relating to older computing, such as BBSes, old DOS games, punch cards, etc.

Reply 14 of 15, by Gene Wirchenko

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I use WordStar under DOSBox. I have committed mount c c:\ and had nothing bad happen. I figure that I am safe for what I am doing. YMMV, and you (and I) have been warned.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko