OK, so I'll grab http://releases.ubuntu.com/12.04.2/ubuntu-12.04.2-server-i386.iso for my test system.Hang tight....we'll figure it out. There is eventually an explanation for all craziness!MHLOn Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Edwin Smulders <edwin.smulders@gmail.com> wrote:
I have ubuntu-12.04.2-server-i386.iso
To give you a clue,
481d4000 =
0100 1000 0001 1101 0100 0000 0000 0000
b7e2b000 =
1011 0111 1110 0010 1011 0000 0000 0000
It's the inverse, so I guess some signing issue? But I don't know
enough to say anything conclusive
On 2 April 2013 13:36, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting....
>
> I think I'll build my own VM to match your specs so I can do more debugging.
> You're using Ubuntu 12.04 x86 desktop? Do you think the following link is
> what most closely resembles your base build?
>
> http://releases.ubuntu.com/12.04.2/ubuntu-12.04.2-desktop-i386.iso
>
> Thanks!
> Michael
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Edwin Smulders <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> This is the actual /proc/pid/maps of the process I just tested
>>
>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5670138/
>>
>> On 2 April 2013 13:26, Edwin Smulders <edwin.smulders@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > http://paste.ubuntu.com/5670124/
>> >
>> > Change is improvement, I guess :)
>> >
>> > On 2 April 2013 13:25, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hey Edwin,
>> >>
>> >> OK, update to r3264 and I will keep my fingers crossed that this solves
>> >> the
>> >> issue.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the quick reply!
>> >> Michael
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Edwin Smulders
>> >> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5670109/
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Edwin
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2 April 2013 13:12, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Hey Edwin,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Hmm, yes, if you don't mind...there is one more thing. Could you
>> >>> > type
>> >>> > "make
>> >>> > clean" in the directory where vol.py exists and then re-run the
>> >>> > plugin?
>> >>> > This
>> >>> > will make sure all possibly stale .pyc (compiled python objects) are
>> >>> > removed. We basically hard-coded the vm start and end fields to be
>> >>> > unsigned,
>> >>> > so its really strange if they're still showing up negative. Also,
>> >>> > could
>> >>> > you
>> >>> > paste just the first few lines of the linux_proc_maps output,
>> >>> > something
>> >>> > else
>> >>> > may give us a clue if we see it.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Thanks again,
>> >>> > Michael
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Edwin Smulders
>> >>> > <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Finally, it's tuesday morning, I can test your solution.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Sadly, it's still giving me the same output (revision 3263).
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Is there anything else I can do to help you find a solution?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Cheers,
>> >>> >> Edwin
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On 2 April 2013 04:37, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > Hey Edwin,
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Hope you had a nice weekend! Just wanted to check and see if you
>> >>> >> > had
>> >>> >> > a
>> >>> >> > chance to determine if the linux_proc_maps plugin is printing
>> >>> >> > output
>> >>> >> > in
>> >>> >> > a
>> >>> >> > more accurate way now?
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Thanks!
>> >>> >> > Michael
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Michael Hale Ligh
>> >>> >> > <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Hi Edwin,
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Could you please svn update to revision 3220 or later and
>> >>> >> >> re-test
>> >>> >> >> the
>> >>> >> >> linux_proc_maps plugin?
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >>> >> >> Michael
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Edwin Smulders
>> >>> >> >> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> Correct URL: http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/dwarfdump
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> On 29 March 2013 16:18, Edwin Smulders
>> >>> >> >>> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> > On 29 March 2013 15:25, Michael Hale Ligh
>> >>> >> >>> > <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >> While we look into that, could you
>> >>> >> >>> >> tell me what version of dwarfdump you have installed?
>> >>> >> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> > I would love to tell you, but I had to go home early and due
>> >>> >> >>> > to
>> >>> >> >>> > easter
>> >>> >> >>> > I can tell you on tuesday morning what the exact version is.
>> >>> >> >>> > However, it was a fresh install of ubuntu 12.04 and as far as
>> >>> >> >>> > I
>> >>> >> >>> > can
>> >>> >> >>> > tell there have been no updates to the package since
>> >>> >> >>> > december, so
>> >>> >> >>> > it
>> >>> >> >>> > must be this version:
>> >>> >> >>> > http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/libdwarf-dev
>> >>> >> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Edwin Smulders
>> >>> >> >>> >> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> (Sending this a second time, first time i forgot to include
>> >>> >> >>> >>> the
>> >>> >> >>> >>> mailing-list)
>> >>> >> >>> >>> Here's the struct:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5657610/
>> >>> >> >>> >>> I did not realise the first time that I could simply dt it
>> >>> >> >>> >>> like
>> >>> >> >>> >>> that.
>> >>> >> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> I've attached the profile, if it's not too big.
>> >>> >> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> Edwin
>> >>> >> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> On 28 March 2013 18:49, Michael Hale Ligh
>> >>> >> >>> >>> <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> > Hey Edwin,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >>> > On second thought, if you could send your profile
>> >>> >> >>> >>> > (LinuxUbuntu-12_04-3_5_0-25x86.zip), that would be even
>> >>> >> >>> >>> > better.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >>> > Thanks!
>> >>> >> >>> >>> > Michael
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >>> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Michael Hale Ligh
>> >>> >> >>> >>> > <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Hey Edwin,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Sorry for the delay and thanks for the additional
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> output.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Could
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> you run
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> one more thing, please? Instead of doing dt('mm_struct',
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> address)
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> could
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> you
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> just do dt('mm_struct'). That will show the actual types
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> rather
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> than
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> the
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> values of a specific structure. For example:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> dt('mm_struct')
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 'mm_struct' (436 bytes)
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x0 : mmap ['pointer',
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> ['vm_area_struct']]
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x4 : mm_rb ['rb_root']
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x8 : mmap_cache ['pointer',
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> ['vm_area_struct']]
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0xc : get_unmapped_area ['pointer',
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> ['void']]
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x10 : get_unmapped_exec_area ['pointer',
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> ['void']]
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x14 : unmap_area ['pointer',
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> ['void']]
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x18 : mmap_base ['unsigned long']
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x1c : task_size ['unsigned long']
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> .....
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Can you paste the output of that command?
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Thanks for your patience,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Michael
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Edwin Smulders
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> Yes, also it seems that I was wrong about
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> start_brk/brk, so
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> i
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> guess
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> they just overflowed.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5634126/
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> On 21 March 2013 14:44, Michael Ligh
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > Hey Edwin,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > Can you use linux_volshell and dt() the task.mm
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > struct?
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > Do
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > start_stack
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > and arg_start show up as unsigned?
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > MHL
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > On Mar 21, 2013, at 7:29 AM, Edwin Smulders
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> I'd like to expand a bit more on this issue. I don't
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> think
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> it's
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> just a
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> formatting issue, now that I'm actually using this
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> to
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> develop
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> my
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> own
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> plugin I noticed that the values I get from the
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> task.mm.start_stack,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> task.mm.arg_start and several other values are
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> actually
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> negative
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> numbers. task.mm.start_brk/task.mm.brk seem to be
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> ok,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> not
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> sure
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> why.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> On 4 March 2013 10:02, Edwin Smulders
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Here's /proc/1264/maps
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5584610/
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1 March 2013 18:01, Edwin Smulders
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Thanks for the quick response.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Sadly, I can't access my VMs at home, so I'll send
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> the
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> /proc/<pid>/maps first thing in the morning on
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> monday.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Edwin
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 1 March 2013 17:29, Michael Hale Ligh
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Ah, this has to do with the fact that a long and
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> unsigned
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> long
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> on
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> x86 Linux
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> is actually 8 bytes (instead of 4 like on
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Windows).
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> We'll take a look at changing the formatting
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> specification
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> to
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> account for
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> this difference in sizes, and if it can't be done
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> easily
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> before
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> the
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> 2.3
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> release, then we'll revert the patch in r3090 to
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> re-incorporate
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> mask_number.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Please still send the output of /proc/<pid>/maps
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> just
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> so
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> we
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> know
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> how it
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> looks for the future.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> MHL
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Michael Hale
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Ligh
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks for reporting. We just recently removed
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> the
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> mask_number
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> function
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> (http://code.google.com/p/volatility/source/detail?r=3090)
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> because
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> vm_start
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> and vm_end are already unsigned (so you
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> shouldn't
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> see
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> negative
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> numbers in
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> output).
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> I'm guessing this may be a problem with our
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> output
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> formatting,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> but
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> we'll
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> look into it (the output of /proc/<pid>/maps
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> like
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> Andrew
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> asked
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> for
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> would be
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> useful).
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Case
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> <atcuno@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Can you send the output of /proc/<pid>/maps
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> that
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> corresponds
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> one of
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> the processes with the broken plugin output?
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Edwin Smulders
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> I've just created a profile for my Ubuntu
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> 12.04
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> (3.5.0-25)
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> I've
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> dumped the memory using virtualbox
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> guestcoredump.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> Using the linux_proc_maps plugin I get the
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> following
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> output:
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5576450/
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> I was expecting similar output to "cat
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> /proc/<pid>/maps". As
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> you
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> can
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> see, these "-0x4...000" addresses are
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> obviously
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> wrong.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> Is
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> this I
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> am
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> doing wrong myself, or is this a bug? It
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> happens
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> for
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> other
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> processes
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> as well.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> If this is a bug I'll make a new issue in the
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> tracker
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> with
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> steps
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> I've followed to produce this.
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> Edwin
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> Vol-users mailing list
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> Vol-users@volatilityfoundation.org
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> http://lists.volatilityfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/vol-users
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Vol-users mailing list
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Vol-users@volatilityfoundation.org
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> http://lists.volatilityfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/vol-users
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>
>