If whoever wrote this wants to add an authentic (and somewhat period correct) terminal front-end, I wrote a VT420 hardware emulator that works in the browser and we can wire them together!<p><a href="https://mmastrac.github.io/blaze/" rel="nofollow">https://mmastrac.github.io/blaze/</a><p>(the API is undocumented but stupidly simple: an async js_read() function and a sync js_write() function)
Reading the source unearths interesting things:
<a href="https://sigma-star.at/blog/2025/12/unix-v4-buffer-overflow/" rel="nofollow">https://sigma-star.at/blog/2025/12/unix-v4-buffer-overflow/</a>
> the knowledge that a buffer overflow could be exploited for arbitrary code execution had not yet come of age.<p>Meaning, people hadn't figured that out, or it wasn't a commonplace technique? They must have seen buffer overflows crash running software; it doesn't take much imagination to think about the next steps.
This is Unix V4 from 1973. The total number of installations world wide was around 20, all inside Bell Labs. There was no networking support at all, so security was mostly physical, i.e., office building security (though you could dial in with a modem). Multi-user support was a bunch of serial-line terminals. Pretty much everyone knew everyone else who was on the system.
I'm not an expert, but a quick look at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_overflow#History" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_overflow#History</a> suggests that some people, at least, had figured it out by 1972 <a href="https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0772806" rel="nofollow">https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0772806</a> :<p>> By supplying addresses outside of the space allocated to the users program, it is often possible to get the monitor to obtain unauthorized data for that user, or at the very least, generate a set of conditions in the monitor that causes a system crash.<p>> In one contemporary operating system, one of the functions provided is to move limited amounts of information between system and user space. The code performing this function does not check the source and destination addresses properly, permitting portions of the monitor to be overlaid by the user. This can be used to inject code into the monitor that will permit the user to seize control of the machine.<p>(Volume 1 is at <a href="https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0758206" rel="nofollow">https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0758206</a> .) However general awareness of the security implications seems to have been very limited before the Morris worm, and then even for several years after that. Even in late 1996 an article which in its own words "attempt[ed] to explain what buffer overflows are, and how their exploits work" could still be published <i>in</i> Phrack <i>magazine</i>, and in fact even be quite a milestone <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_overflow#History" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_overflow#History</a> . Some people had definitely been thinking about hardware bounds checking for a long time by then <a href="https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~levy/capabook/" rel="nofollow">https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~levy/capabook/</a> but I don't know how much they'd specifically considered just this kind of security threat.
Most computers did not exist in an adversarial environment at the time.<p>Perhaps the most "adversarial" context would be: undergraduate timeshare use. So the mainframes of the day, which would be the typical platform for undergrad programming (if timeshare was even offered to undergrads in 1973) might be expected to be somewhat hardened to attacks of various kinds since undergrads trying to hack their grade higher, get more CPU time, etc, was a known thing.<p>But Unix machines, and minicomputers in general, were not used for undergrad purposes. They were only available to be used by PhD candidates and other higher order beings. Those dudes had the root password anyway, so no need to harden the machine against their potential attacks. There was no networking to speak of, so no malicious traffic to worry about. The first worm didn't appear until the late 1980s.<p>So if you had talked to a Unix sysadmin in 1973 (all...1 of them) they probably would understand the general concept of someone running a program that crapped onto kernel memory with the result they could have root privileges, but there would have been no plausible adversary around with any reason to mount that attack. Plus every cycle and every byte counted, so there would have been many more fish to fry before worrying about buffer overflow problems.
> since undergrads trying to hack their grade higher<p>Would student records even be stored on an unix system at the time? I am under the impression that Unix was very much a research operating system in the 1970's (either the subject of or a tool for). Administrative functions were more likely to be conducted with an IBM mainframe. (At least that is how it was when I arrived at university a couple of decades later, which I always took to be a legacy thing.)
My Educated guess, both.<p>Malicious attempts at exploiting would require physical access.<p>This was 1970's running on a PDP hardware. These were not normally connected to the internet so the attack vector of attacking would be have literal.<p>Any bugs would probably been of been fixed prior to and isn't this the first alpha of unix? So probably patched later in versions.
I kept expecting an exploit :) Something to poke at on a slow evening, I guess, though with the buffer in static memory it might be difficult.
Hey! I’m so I'm actually the builder of unixv4.dev (via my company Squiz Software Pty Ltd).<p>I went to bed last night with a couple of people poking around… woke up to a whole lot more. Appreciate the load test!!<p>I’ve fixed the rate-limit issues people were hitting. There’s still a global cap of 100 concurrent sessions + per-user limits to keep things stable during spikes.<p>I’ve also added an “Attributions & Acknowledgements” section.<p>The backstory is wild: UNIX v4 being recovered from a ~1973 tape at the University of Utah after being effectively “lost” for decades. Reading about the recovery and then poking around in it under SIMH on my PC is what pushed me to wrap it up as a public, browser-based terminal that other people could take a look at - and hopefully get as much out of it as I did.<p>Have fun exploring it all (especially all the primitive bits — remember: use "chdir" instead of "cd", and "#" is backspace).<p>- Daniel
I wonder how hard is it to do the entire thing in browser/js. It seems hugged to death right now due to backend connections.
<p><pre><code> Session Error
Rate limit exceeded: 10 per 1 minute</code></pre>
The fi ligatures in the Help & Info section are killing me.
I'm amused at how circular this is. Unix v4 is first OS written in C, now running on top of an unbelievable amount of C (and C++). Classic circular computer science delight.
I am glad it already has `ed`, the standard text editor.<p>But it's lacking some features available in newer versions of ed, such as using 'n' to print line numbers.
Glad to have played with it a bit before it got Slashdotted. ;)
Rate limited! a new record!
Almost slashdotted.
Getting a rate limit error, but I haven't used the program.
death by hn..
Just a heads up:<p>> By using this service, you acknowledge that terminal sessions may be logged for educational and debugging purposes. No personal data is collected beyond your IP address.<p>Is this all open source and is the code available? So that we know where the data is truly going?<p>Hard to trust it if it isn't fully OSS.<p>This is a cool demo though.
> <i>Hard to trust it</i><p>Clarification requested: How is ‘trust’ applicable to this site?
It would be an excellent phishing attack if your target is senior IT. You filter out every non-geek, of course, and certainly your responses would lean heavily toward an older crowd. They's all see 'Unix v4', be too excited to consider the risks, and being a 1973 OS assume it is innocent and safe (not thinking about the platform delivering it).<p>Maybe you'd get too many retirees ...<p>Now you just need
Even if it was open source how do you know its not a fork?
> Hard to trust it if it isn't fully OSS<p>It's an emulated PDP-11, could you elaborate on the threat model here?<p>I get that companies are being gross about logging everything online, but come on. It's okay to have fun.<p>Who in their right mind is using this for anything other than curiosity's sake?
Yeah it’s unlikely that this site will collect any meaningful data and it’s unlikely that you lose any meaningful data by playing with a virtual unix from the 70ies.<p>You aren’t getting downvoted enough.
Did they get a license from Novell for this or is this as illegal as many of the other emulator sites with copyrighted software on them? Considering the page doesn't mention it, I'm leaning towards it being copyright infringement.
In 2002, Caldera licensed Research Unix <= 7th edition and 32-bit 32V Unix under a BSD-style license.<p>Gotta stick the "This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc." notice on it though.
Personal financial stake in this, or do you regularly police the use of ancient software?
>Personal financial stake in this<p>In the sense that the company I work for would be financially harmed if copyright infringement of software was freely allowed. I benefit from the ability of people being able to sell rights to use software.<p>It's one thing to digitize and archive ancient software, it's another thing to allow people to freely use it without acquiring the proper license for it.
The people who preserve vintage software typically respect boundaries in order to avoid cases where the copyright holder would be financially harmed. It is not a perfect guarantee, but it is a reasonable one.<p>Hardline stances usually cause more harm than good anyhow. I remember collecting Apple II gear in the late 1990's and early 2000's. The people saying that any form of copyright infringement was bad were either ignored or flamed since a lot of people just looked at their collection of software from the late 1970's and early 1980's and said, "we're at risk of losing this if we don't make it available, and the copyright holders won't lose anything if we do make it available." Which wasn't strictly true since there were some software developers who created software in the early 1990's who were still selling it. Unfortunately their absolutist attitude did not earn them many allies, so it became a lost cause.
I’m normally one defending copyright on this forum. But dude, this software is half a century old. Nobody is buying or selling this software. Nobody’s business or livelihood is threatened by this.
I mean if you are assigning points I’d actually say the former is worse than the latter.
What do you think about GOG?