Search Results

Search found 483 results on 20 pages for 'dangerous'.

Page 15/20 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • Getting PAM/user info into php - something like Net_Finger instead of a db?

    - by digitaltoast
    I've got a very small user group who just need to login, upload, check and then move specific files to a different area when ready. Right now, I use the nginx PAM auth module to log them in against their unix accounts. As their login is their home directory, I've already got the info to send the uploads to the right area - one line of php and no database needed. But I'm maintaining a separate DB just so PHP can welcome them, grab their email and send them an email when processed. Yes, sure I could use nosql or sqlite instead so as to not need a whole mysql install. But it occurred to me that as I've got all these blank user fields for phone numbers I could populate with any data, that I could use something like php's Net_Finger. Which failed for me with: sudo pear install Net_Finger Starting to download Net_Finger-1.0.1.tgz (1,618 bytes) ....done: 1,618 bytes could not extract the package.xml file from "/build/buildd/php5-5.5.9+dfsg/pear-build-download/Net_Finger-1.0.1.tgz" Download of "pear/Net_Finger" succeeded, but it is not a valid package archive Error: cannot download "pear/Net_Finger" At which point I thought I'd stop, and take a ServerFault reality check - is this a really bad/dangerous/stupid idea just to stop me having to maintain details in two places rather than one? It there a better way? Googling shows that it's not an oft-asked thing, so perhaps with good reason?

    Read the article

  • buagent process has been consuming 100% cpu for two days

    - by Maysam
    The buagent process has been using 100% of cpu since two days ago. I want to terminate this process but I don't know if it's something dangerous or not (I am not much advanced in working with linux, indeed I am very beginner). The only thing that I know is that this process is probably restoring some files. But I think it is not normal for that to take more than two days. Now, do you think it would be OK if I kill this process? What command could I use to do that? I appreciate any help :) p.s. We are hosting a few web sites there. This server is also our Name Server and Mail Server as well. A couple of months a go we had a problem with the server which made us to take a full-backup of all files and then reinstall linux. Yesterday, I selected one of the directories on the backup server and restored that directory to a tmp directory on our linux server. After that, I couldn't restore any other directory because every time I want to do that, it says that there is another restore job running and I have to wait for that. When I use the "top" command I can see that the buagent process is consuming 100% of cpu. So I guess that is the problem. I don't know why it has been taking too long to execute.

    Read the article

  • Understanding Request Validation in ASP.NET MVC 3

    - by imran_ku07
         Introduction:             A fact that you must always remember "never ever trust user inputs". An application that trusts user inputs may be easily vulnerable to XSS, XSRF, SQL Injection, etc attacks. XSS and XSRF are very dangerous attacks. So to mitigate these attacks ASP.NET introduced request validation in ASP.NET 1.1. During request validation, ASP.NET will throw HttpRequestValidationException: 'A potentially dangerous XXX value was detected from the client', if he found, < followed by an exclamation(like <!) or < followed by the letters a through z(like <s) or & followed by a pound sign(like &#123) as a part of query string, posted form and cookie collection. In ASP.NET 4.0, request validation becomes extensible. This means that you can extend request validation. Also in ASP.NET 4.0, by default request validation is enabled before the BeginRequest phase of an HTTP request. ASP.NET MVC 3 moves one step further by making request validation granular. This allows you to disable request validation for some properties of a model while maintaining request validation for all other cases. In this article I will show you the use of request validation in ASP.NET MVC 3. Then I will briefly explain the internal working of granular request validation.       Description:             First of all create a new ASP.NET MVC 3 application. Then create a simple model class called MyModel,     public class MyModel { public string Prop1 { get; set; } public string Prop2 { get; set; } }             Then just update the index action method as follows,   public ActionResult Index(MyModel p) { return View(); }             Now just run this application. You will find that everything works just fine. Now just append this query string ?Prop1=<s to the url of this application, you will get the HttpRequestValidationException exception.           Now just decorate the Index action method with [ValidateInputAttribute(false)],   [ValidateInput(false)] public ActionResult Index(MyModel p) { return View(); }             Run this application again with same query string. You will find that your application run without any unhandled exception.           Up to now, there is nothing new in ASP.NET MVC 3 because ValidateInputAttribute was present in the previous versions of ASP.NET MVC. Any problem with this approach? Yes there is a problem with this approach. The problem is that now users can send html for both Prop1 and Prop2 properties and a lot of developers are not aware of it. This means that now everyone can send html with both parameters(e.g, ?Prop1=<s&Prop2=<s). So ValidateInput attribute does not gives you the guarantee that your application is safe to XSS or XSRF. This is the reason why ASP.NET MVC team introduced granular request validation in ASP.NET MVC 3. Let's see this feature.           Remove [ValidateInputAttribute(false)] on Index action and update MyModel class as follows,   public class MyModel { [AllowHtml] public string Prop1 { get; set; } public string Prop2 { get; set; } }             Note that AllowHtml attribute is only decorated on Prop1 property. Run this application again with ?Prop1=<s query string. You will find that your application run just fine. Run this application again with ?Prop1=<s&Prop2=<s query string, you will get HttpRequestValidationException exception. This shows that the granular request validation in ASP.NET MVC 3 only allows users to send html for properties decorated with AllowHtml attribute.            Sometimes you may need to access Request.QueryString or Request.Form directly. You may change your code as follows,   [ValidateInput(false)] public ActionResult Index() { var prop1 = Request.QueryString["Prop1"]; return View(); }             Run this application again, you will get the HttpRequestValidationException exception again even you have [ValidateInput(false)] on your Index action. The reason is that Request flags are still not set to unvalidate. I will explain this later. For making this work you need to use Unvalidated extension method,     public ActionResult Index() { var q = Request.Unvalidated().QueryString; var prop1 = q["Prop1"]; return View(); }             Unvalidated extension method is defined in System.Web.Helpers namespace . So you need to add using System.Web.Helpers; in this class file. Run this application again, your application run just fine.             There you have it. If you are not curious to know the internal working of granular request validation then you can skip next paragraphs completely. If you are interested then carry on reading.             Create a new ASP.NET MVC 2 application, then open global.asax.cs file and the following lines,     protected void Application_BeginRequest() { var q = Request.QueryString; }             Then make the Index action method as,    [ValidateInput(false)] public ActionResult Index(string id) { return View(); }             Please note that the Index action method contains a parameter and this action method is decorated with [ValidateInput(false)]. Run this application again, but now with ?id=<s query string, you will get HttpRequestValidationException exception at Application_BeginRequest method. Now just add the following entry in web.config,   <httpRuntime requestValidationMode="2.0"/>             Now run this application again. This time your application will run just fine. Now just see the following quote from ASP.NET 4 Breaking Changes,   In ASP.NET 4, by default, request validation is enabled for all requests, because it is enabled before the BeginRequest phase of an HTTP request. As a result, request validation applies to requests for all ASP.NET resources, not just .aspx page requests. This includes requests such as Web service calls and custom HTTP handlers. Request validation is also active when custom HTTP modules are reading the contents of an HTTP request.             This clearly state that request validation is enabled before the BeginRequest phase of an HTTP request. For understanding what does enabled means here, we need to see HttpRequest.ValidateInput, HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form methods/properties in System.Web assembly. Here is the implementation of HttpRequest.ValidateInput, HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form methods/properties in System.Web assembly,     public NameValueCollection Form { get { if (this._form == null) { this._form = new HttpValueCollection(); if (this._wr != null) { this.FillInFormCollection(); } this._form.MakeReadOnly(); } if (this._flags[2]) { this._flags.Clear(2); this.ValidateNameValueCollection(this._form, RequestValidationSource.Form); } return this._form; } } public NameValueCollection QueryString { get { if (this._queryString == null) { this._queryString = new HttpValueCollection(); if (this._wr != null) { this.FillInQueryStringCollection(); } this._queryString.MakeReadOnly(); } if (this._flags[1]) { this._flags.Clear(1); this.ValidateNameValueCollection(this._queryString, RequestValidationSource.QueryString); } return this._queryString; } } public void ValidateInput() { if (!this._flags[0x8000]) { this._flags.Set(0x8000); this._flags.Set(1); this._flags.Set(2); this._flags.Set(4); this._flags.Set(0x40); this._flags.Set(0x80); this._flags.Set(0x100); this._flags.Set(0x200); this._flags.Set(8); } }             The above code indicates that HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form will only validate the querystring and form collection if certain flags are set. These flags are automatically set if you call HttpRequest.ValidateInput method. Now run the above application again(don't forget to append ?id=<s query string in the url) with the same settings(i.e, requestValidationMode="2.0" setting in web.config and Application_BeginRequest method in global.asax.cs), your application will run just fine. Now just update the Application_BeginRequest method as,   protected void Application_BeginRequest() { Request.ValidateInput(); var q = Request.QueryString; }             Note that I am calling Request.ValidateInput method prior to use Request.QueryString property. ValidateInput method will internally set certain flags(discussed above). These flags will then tells the Request.QueryString (and Request.Form) property that validate the query string(or form) when user call Request.QueryString(or Request.Form) property. So running this application again with ?id=<s query string will throw HttpRequestValidationException exception. Now I hope it is clear to you that what does requestValidationMode do. It just tells the ASP.NET that not invoke the Request.ValidateInput method internally before the BeginRequest phase of an HTTP request if requestValidationMode is set to a value less than 4.0 in web.config. Here is the implementation of HttpRequest.ValidateInputIfRequiredByConfig method which will prove this statement(Don't be confused with HttpRequest and Request. Request is the property of HttpRequest class),    internal void ValidateInputIfRequiredByConfig() { ............................................................... ............................................................... ............................................................... ............................................................... if (httpRuntime.RequestValidationMode >= VersionUtil.Framework40) { this.ValidateInput(); } }              Hopefully the above discussion will clear you how requestValidationMode works in ASP.NET 4. It is also interesting to note that both HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form only throws the exception when you access them first time. Any subsequent access to HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form will not throw any exception. Continuing with the above example, just update Application_BeginRequest method in global.asax.cs file as,   protected void Application_BeginRequest() { try { var q = Request.QueryString; var f = Request.Form; } catch//swallow this exception { } var q1 = Request.QueryString; var f1 = Request.Form; }             Without setting requestValidationMode to 2.0 and without decorating ValidateInput attribute on Index action, your application will work just fine because both HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form will clear their flags after reading HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form for the first time(see the implementation of HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form above).           Now let's see ASP.NET MVC 3 granular request validation internal working. First of all we need to see type of HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form properties. Both HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form properties are of type NameValueCollection which is inherited from the NameObjectCollectionBase class. NameObjectCollectionBase class contains _entriesArray, _entriesTable, NameObjectEntry.Key and NameObjectEntry.Value fields which granular request validation uses internally. In addition granular request validation also uses _queryString, _form and _flags fields, ValidateString method and the Indexer of HttpRequest class. Let's see when and how granular request validation uses these fields.           Create a new ASP.NET MVC 3 application. Then put a breakpoint at Application_BeginRequest method and another breakpoint at HomeController.Index method. Now just run this application. When the break point inside Application_BeginRequest method hits then add the following expression in quick watch window, System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request.QueryString. You will see the following screen,                                              Now Press F5 so that the second breakpoint inside HomeController.Index method hits. When the second breakpoint hits then add the following expression in quick watch window again, System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request.QueryString. You will see the following screen,                            First screen shows that _entriesTable field is of type System.Collections.Hashtable and _entriesArray field is of type System.Collections.ArrayList during the BeginRequest phase of the HTTP request. While the second screen shows that _entriesTable type is changed to Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicValidationHelper.LazilyValidatingHashtable and _entriesArray type is changed to Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicValidationHelper.LazilyValidatingArrayList during executing the Index action method. In addition to these members, ASP.NET MVC 3 also perform some operation on _flags, _form, _queryString and other members of HttpRuntime class internally. This shows that ASP.NET MVC 3 performing some operation on the members of HttpRequest class for making granular request validation possible.           Both LazilyValidatingArrayList and LazilyValidatingHashtable classes are defined in the Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly. You may wonder why their name starts with Lazily. The fact is that now with ASP.NET MVC 3, request validation will be performed lazily. In simple words, Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly is now taking the responsibility for request validation from System.Web assembly. See the below screens. The first screen depicting HttpRequestValidationException exception in ASP.NET MVC 2 application while the second screen showing HttpRequestValidationException exception in ASP.NET MVC 3 application.   In MVC 2:                 In MVC 3:                          The stack trace of the second screenshot shows that Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly (instead of System.Web assembly) is now performing request validation in ASP.NET MVC 3. Now you may ask: where Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly is performing some operation on the members of HttpRequest class. There are at least two places where the Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly performing some operation , Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicValidationHelper.GranularValidationReflectionUtil.GetInstance method and Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicValidationHelper.ValidationUtility.CollectionReplacer.ReplaceCollection method, Here is the implementation of these methods,   private static GranularValidationReflectionUtil GetInstance() { try { if (DynamicValidationShimReflectionUtil.Instance != null) { return null; } GranularValidationReflectionUtil util = new GranularValidationReflectionUtil(); Type containingType = typeof(NameObjectCollectionBase); string fieldName = "_entriesArray"; bool isStatic = false; Type fieldType = typeof(ArrayList); FieldInfo fieldInfo = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(containingType, fieldName, isStatic, fieldType); util._del_get_NameObjectCollectionBase_entriesArray = MakeFieldGetterFunc<NameObjectCollectionBase, ArrayList>(fieldInfo); util._del_set_NameObjectCollectionBase_entriesArray = MakeFieldSetterFunc<NameObjectCollectionBase, ArrayList>(fieldInfo); Type type6 = typeof(NameObjectCollectionBase); string str2 = "_entriesTable"; bool flag2 = false; Type type7 = typeof(Hashtable); FieldInfo info2 = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type6, str2, flag2, type7); util._del_get_NameObjectCollectionBase_entriesTable = MakeFieldGetterFunc<NameObjectCollectionBase, Hashtable>(info2); util._del_set_NameObjectCollectionBase_entriesTable = MakeFieldSetterFunc<NameObjectCollectionBase, Hashtable>(info2); Type targetType = CommonAssemblies.System.GetType("System.Collections.Specialized.NameObjectCollectionBase+NameObjectEntry"); Type type8 = targetType; string str3 = "Key"; bool flag3 = false; Type type9 = typeof(string); FieldInfo info3 = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type8, str3, flag3, type9); util._del_get_NameObjectEntry_Key = MakeFieldGetterFunc<string>(targetType, info3); Type type10 = targetType; string str4 = "Value"; bool flag4 = false; Type type11 = typeof(object); FieldInfo info4 = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type10, str4, flag4, type11); util._del_get_NameObjectEntry_Value = MakeFieldGetterFunc<object>(targetType, info4); util._del_set_NameObjectEntry_Value = MakeFieldSetterFunc(targetType, info4); Type type12 = typeof(HttpRequest); string methodName = "ValidateString"; bool flag5 = false; Type[] argumentTypes = new Type[] { typeof(string), typeof(string), typeof(RequestValidationSource) }; Type returnType = typeof(void); MethodInfo methodInfo = CommonReflectionUtil.FindMethod(type12, methodName, flag5, argumentTypes, returnType); util._del_validateStringCallback = CommonReflectionUtil.MakeFastCreateDelegate<HttpRequest, ValidateStringCallback>(methodInfo); Type type = CommonAssemblies.SystemWeb.GetType("System.Web.HttpValueCollection"); util._del_HttpValueCollection_ctor = CommonReflectionUtil.MakeFastNewObject<Func<NameValueCollection>>(type); Type type14 = typeof(HttpRequest); string str6 = "_form"; bool flag6 = false; Type type15 = type; FieldInfo info6 = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type14, str6, flag6, type15); util._del_get_HttpRequest_form = MakeFieldGetterFunc<HttpRequest, NameValueCollection>(info6); util._del_set_HttpRequest_form = MakeFieldSetterFunc(typeof(HttpRequest), info6); Type type16 = typeof(HttpRequest); string str7 = "_queryString"; bool flag7 = false; Type type17 = type; FieldInfo info7 = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type16, str7, flag7, type17); util._del_get_HttpRequest_queryString = MakeFieldGetterFunc<HttpRequest, NameValueCollection>(info7); util._del_set_HttpRequest_queryString = MakeFieldSetterFunc(typeof(HttpRequest), info7); Type type3 = CommonAssemblies.SystemWeb.GetType("System.Web.Util.SimpleBitVector32"); Type type18 = typeof(HttpRequest); string str8 = "_flags"; bool flag8 = false; Type type19 = type3; FieldInfo flagsFieldInfo = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type18, str8, flag8, type19); Type type20 = type3; string str9 = "get_Item"; bool flag9 = false; Type[] typeArray4 = new Type[] { typeof(int) }; Type type21 = typeof(bool); MethodInfo itemGetter = CommonReflectionUtil.FindMethod(type20, str9, flag9, typeArray4, type21); Type type22 = type3; string str10 = "set_Item"; bool flag10 = false; Type[] typeArray6 = new Type[] { typeof(int), typeof(bool) }; Type type23 = typeof(void); MethodInfo itemSetter = CommonReflectionUtil.FindMethod(type22, str10, flag10, typeArray6, type23); MakeRequestValidationFlagsAccessors(flagsFieldInfo, itemGetter, itemSetter, out util._del_BitVector32_get_Item, out util._del_BitVector32_set_Item); return util; } catch { return null; } } private static void ReplaceCollection(HttpContext context, FieldAccessor<NameValueCollection> fieldAccessor, Func<NameValueCollection> propertyAccessor, Action<NameValueCollection> storeInUnvalidatedCollection, RequestValidationSource validationSource, ValidationSourceFlag validationSourceFlag) { NameValueCollection originalBackingCollection; ValidateStringCallback validateString; SimpleValidateStringCallback simpleValidateString; Func<NameValueCollection> getActualCollection; Action<NameValueCollection> makeCollectionLazy; HttpRequest request = context.Request; Func<bool> getValidationFlag = delegate { return _reflectionUtil.GetRequestValidationFlag(request, validationSourceFlag); }; Func<bool> func = delegate { return !getValidationFlag(); }; Action<bool> setValidationFlag = delegate (bool value) { _reflectionUtil.SetRequestValidationFlag(request, validationSourceFlag, value); }; if ((fieldAccessor.Value != null) && func()) { storeInUnvalidatedCollection(fieldAccessor.Value); } else { originalBackingCollection = fieldAccessor.Value; validateString = _reflectionUtil.MakeValidateStringCallback(context.Request); simpleValidateString = delegate (string value, string key) { if (((key == null) || !key.StartsWith("__", StringComparison.Ordinal)) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(value)) { validateString(value, key, validationSource); } }; getActualCollection = delegate { fieldAccessor.Value = originalBackingCollection; bool flag = getValidationFlag(); setValidationFlag(false); NameValueCollection col = propertyAccessor(); setValidationFlag(flag); storeInUnvalidatedCollection(new NameValueCollection(col)); return col; }; makeCollectionLazy = delegate (NameValueCollection col) { simpleValidateString(col[null], null); LazilyValidatingArrayList array = new LazilyValidatingArrayList(_reflectionUtil.GetNameObjectCollectionEntriesArray(col), simpleValidateString); _reflectionUtil.SetNameObjectCollectionEntriesArray(col, array); LazilyValidatingHashtable table = new LazilyValidatingHashtable(_reflectionUtil.GetNameObjectCollectionEntriesTable(col), simpleValidateString); _reflectionUtil.SetNameObjectCollectionEntriesTable(col, table); }; Func<bool> hasValidationFired = func; Action disableValidation = delegate { setValidationFlag(false); }; Func<int> fillInActualFormContents = delegate { NameValueCollection values = getActualCollection(); makeCollectionLazy(values); return values.Count; }; DeferredCountArrayList list = new DeferredCountArrayList(hasValidationFired, disableValidation, fillInActualFormContents); NameValueCollection target = _reflectionUtil.NewHttpValueCollection(); _reflectionUtil.SetNameObjectCollectionEntriesArray(target, list); fieldAccessor.Value = target; } }             Hopefully the above code will help you to understand the internal working of granular request validation. It is also important to note that Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly invokes HttpRequest.ValidateInput method internally. For further understanding please see Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly code. Finally you may ask: at which stage ASP NET MVC 3 will invoke these methods. You will find this answer by looking at the following method source,   Unvalidated extension method for HttpRequest class defined in System.Web.Helpers.Validation class. System.Web.Mvc.MvcHandler.ProcessRequestInit method. System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.ValidateRequest method. System.Web.WebPages.WebPageHttpHandler.ProcessRequestInternal method.       Summary:             ASP.NET helps in preventing XSS attack using a feature called request validation. In this article, I showed you how you can use granular request validation in ASP.NET MVC 3. I explain you the internal working of  granular request validation. Hope you will enjoy this article too.   SyntaxHighlighter.all()

    Read the article

  • Why is ValidateInput(False) not working?

    - by xenosyde
    I am converting an application I created using webforms to the asp.net mvc framework using vb.net. I have a problem with one of my views. I get the yellow screen of death saying "A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client" when I submit my form. I am using tinymce as my RTE. I have set on the view itself ValidateRequest="false" I know that in MVC it doesn't respect it on the view from what I've read so far. So I put it on the controller action as well. I have tried different setups: <ValidateInput(False), AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)> _ ...and... <AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post), ValidateInput(False)> _ ...and like this as well... <ValidateInput(False)> _ <AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)> _ Just to see if it made a difference, yet I still get the yellow screen of death. I only want to set it for this view and the specific action in my controller that my post pertains to. Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Handle URI hacking gracefully in ASP.NET

    - by asbjornu
    I've written an application that handles most exceptions gracefully, with the page's design intact and a pretty error message. My application catches them all in the Page_Error event and there adds the exception to HttpContext.Curent.Context.Items and then does a Server.Transfer to an Error.aspx page. I find this to be the only viable solution in ASP.NET as there seems to be no other way to do it in a centralized and generic manner. I also handle the Application_Error and there I do some inspection on the exception that occurred to find out if I can handle it gracefully or not. Exceptions I've found I can handle gracefully are such that are thrown after someone hacking the URI to contain characters the .NET framework considers dangerous or basically just illegal at the file system level. Such URIs can look like e.g.: http://exmample.com/"illegal" http://example.com/illegal"/ http://example.com/illegal / (notice the space before the slash at the end of the last URI). I'd like these URIs to respond with a "404 Not Found" and a friendly message as well as not causing any error report to be sent to avoid DDOS attack vectors and such. I have, however, not found an elegant way to catch these types of errors. What I do now is inspect the exception.TargetSite.Name property, and if it's equal to CheckInvalidPathChars, ValidatePath or CheckSuspiciousPhysicalPath, I consider it a "path validation exception" and respond with a 404. This seems like a hack, though. First, the list of method names is probably not complete in any way and second, there's the possibility that these method names gets replaced or renamed down the line which will cause my code to break. Does anyone have an idea how I can handle this less hard-coded and much more future-proof way? PS: I'm using System.Web.Routing in my application to have clean and sensible URIs, if that is of any importance to any given solution.

    Read the article

  • Does anyone use Fortify 360 with Classic ASP? a Header Manipulation vulnerability story

    - by j_green71
    Good morning, everyone. I'm on a short-term contracting gig, trying to patch some vulnerabilities in their legacy code. The application I'm working on is a combination of Classic ASP(VBScript) and .Net 2.0 (C#). One of the tools they have purchased is Fortify 360. Let's say that this is a current classic ASP page in the application: <%@ Language=VBScript %> <% Dim var var = Request.QueryString("var") ' do stuff Response.Redirect "nextpage.asp?var=" & var %> I know, I know, short and very dangerous. So we wrote some (en/de)coders and validation/verification routines: <%@ Language=VBScript %> <% Dim var var = Decode(Request.QueryString("var")) ' do stuff if isValid(var) then Response.Redirect "nextpage.asp?var=" & Encode(var) else 'throw error page end if %> And still Fortify flags this as vulnerable to Header Manipulation. How or what exactly is Fortify looking for? The reason I suspect that Fortify is looking for specific key words is that on the .Net side of things, I can include the Microsoft AntiXss assembly and call functions such as GetSafeHtmlFragment and UrlEncode and Fortify is happy. Any advice?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid XCode framework weak-linking problems?

    - by Frank R.
    Hi, I'm building an application that takes advantage of Mac OS X 10.6-only technologies, but without giving up backwards compatibility to 10.5 Leopard. The way I do this is by setting the 10.6 SDK as the base SDK, weak-linking all frameworks and setting the deployment target to 10.5 as described in: http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/DOCUMENTATION/MacOSX/Conceptual/BPFrameworks/Concepts/WeakLinking.html This works fine; before making a call that is Snow Leopard-only I need to check that the selector or indeed the class actually exist. Or I can just check the OS version before making the call. The problem is that this is incredibly fragile. If I make a single call that is 10.6 only I blow Leopard-compatibility. So using even the normal code code completion feature can be dangerous. My question: is there any way of checking which calls are not defined on 10.5 before doing a release build? Some kind of static analysis, or even just a trick (a target set the other SDK?) would do. I obviously should test on a Leopard machine before releasing anything, but even so I can't possibly go through all paths of the program before every release. Any advice would be appreciated. Best regards, Frank

    Read the article

  • KeepAlive packets over a Soap request

    - by Nycto
    I've been debugging some Soap requests we are making between two servers on the same VLAN. The app on one server is written in PHP, the app on the other is written in Java. I can control and make changes to the PHP code, but I can't affect the Java server. The PHP app forms the XML using the DOMDocument objects, then sends the request using the cURL extension. When the soap request took longer than 5 minutes to complete, it would always wait until the max timeout limit and exit with a message like this: Operation timed out after 900000 milliseconds with 0 bytes received After sniffing the packets that were being sent, it turns out that the problem was caused by a 5 minute timeout in the network that was closing what it thought was a stale connection. There were two ways to fix it: bump up the timeout in iptables, or start sending KeepAlive packets over the request. To be thorough, I would like to implement both solutions. Bumping up the timeout was easy for ops to do, but sending KeepAlive packets is turning out to be difficult. The cURL library itself supports this (see the --keepalive-time flag for the CLI app), but it doesn't appear that this has been implemented in the PHP cURL library. I even checked the source to make sure it wasn't an undocumented feature. So my question is this: How the heck can I get these packets sent? I see a few clear options, but I don't like any of them: Write a wrapper that will kick off the request by shell_execing the CLI app. This is a hack that I just don't like Update the cURL extension to support this. This is a non-option according to Ops. Open the socket myself. I know just enough to be dangerous. I also haven't seen a way to do this with fsockopen, but I could be missing something. Switch to another library. What exists that supports this? Thanks for any help you can offer.

    Read the article

  • Pylons error "No object (name: request) has been registered for this thread" with debug = false

    - by Evgeny
    I'm unable to access the request object in my Pylons 0.9.7 controller when I set debug = false in the .ini file. I have the following code: def run_something(self): print('!!! request = %r' % request) print('!!! request.params = %r' % request.params) yield 'Stuff' With debugging enabled this works fine and prints out: !!! request = <Request at 0x9571190 POST http://my_url> !!! request.params = UnicodeMultiDict([... lots of stuff ...]) If I set debug = false I get the following: !!! request = <paste.registry.StackedObjectProxy object at 0x4093790> Error - <type 'exceptions.TypeError'>: No object (name: request) has been registered for this thread The stack trace confirms that the error is on the print('!!! request.params = %r' % request.params) line. I'm running it using the Paste server and these two lines are the very first lines in my controller method. This only occurs if I have yield statements in the method (even though the statements aren't reached). I'm guessing Pylons sees that it's a generator method and runs it on some other thread. My questions are: How do I make it work with debug = false ? Why does it work with debug = true ? Obviously this is quite a dangerous bug, since I normally develop with debug = true, so it can go unnoticed during development.

    Read the article

  • Using Java Executor on AppEngine causes AccessControlException

    - by Drew
    How do you get java.util.concurrent.Executor or CompletionService to work on Google AppEngine? The classes are all officially white-listed, but I get a runtime security error when trying to submit asynchronous tasks. Code: // uses the async API but this factory makes it so that tasks really // happen sequentially Executor executor = java.util.concurrent.Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(); // wrap Executor in CompletionService CompletionService<String> completionService = new ExecutorCompletionService<String>(executor); final SomeTask someTask = new SomeTask(); // this line throws exception completionService.submit(new Callable<String>(){ public String call() { return someTask.doNothing("blah"); } }); // alternately, send Runnable task directly to Executor, // which also throws an exception executor.execute(new Runnable(){ public void run() { someTask.doNothing("blah"); } }); } private class SomeTask{ public String doNothing(String message){ return message; } } Exception: java.security.AccessControlException: access denied (java.lang.RuntimePermission modifyThreadGroup) at java.security.AccessControlContext.checkPermission(AccessControlContext.java:323) at java.security.AccessController.checkPermission(AccessController.java:546) at java.lang.SecurityManager.checkPermission(SecurityManager.java:532) at com.google.appengine.tools.development.DevAppServerFactory$CustomSecurityManager.checkPermission(DevAppServerFactory.java:166) at com.google.appengine.tools.development.DevAppServerFactory$CustomSecurityManager.checkAccess(DevAppServerFactory.java:191) at java.lang.ThreadGroup.checkAccess(ThreadGroup.java:288) at java.lang.Thread.init(Thread.java:332) at java.lang.Thread.(Thread.java:565) at java.util.concurrent.Executors$DefaultThreadFactory.newThread(Executors.java:542) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.addThread(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:672) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.addIfUnderCorePoolSize(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:697) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.execute(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:652) at java.util.concurrent.Executors$DelegatedExecutorService.execute(Executors.java:590) at java.util.concurrent.ExecutorCompletionService.submit(ExecutorCompletionService.java:152) This code works fine when run on Tomcat or via command-line JVM. However, it chokes in the AppEngine SDK Jetty container (tried with Eclipse plugin and the maven-gae-plugin). AppEngine is likely designed to not allow potentially dangerous programs to run, so I could see them completely disabling thread creation. However, why would Google allow you to create a class, but not allow you to call methods on it? White-listing java.util.concurrent is misleading. Is there some other way to do parallel/simultaneous/concurrent tasks on GAE?

    Read the article

  • So can unique_ptr be used safely in stl collections?

    - by DanDan
    I am confused with unique_ptr and rvalue move philosophy. Let's say we have two collections: std::vector<std::auto_ptr<int>> autoCollection; std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>> uniqueCollection; Now I would expect the following to fail, as there is no telling what the algorithm is doing internally and maybe making internal pivot copies and the like, thus ripping away ownership from the auto_ptr: std::sort(autoCollection.begin(), autoCollection.end()); I get this. And the compiler rightly disallows this happening. But then I do this: std::sort(uniqueCollection.begin(), uniqueCollection.end()); And this compiles. And I do not understand why. I did not think unique_ptrs could be copied. Does this mean a pivot value cannot be taken, so the sort is less efficient? Or is this pivot actually a move, which in fact is as dangerous as the collection of auto_ptrs, and should be disallowed by the compiler? I think I am missing some crucial piece of information, so I eagerly await someone to supply me with the aha! moment.

    Read the article

  • Isolated storage misunderstand

    - by Costa
    Hi this is a discussion between me and me to understand isolated storage issue. can you help me to convince me about isolated storage!! This is a code written in windows form app (reader) that read the isolated storage of another win form app (writer) which is signed. where is the security if the reader can read the writer's file, I thought only signed code can access the file! If all .Net applications born equal and have all permissions to access Isolated storage, where is the security then? If I can install and run Exe from isolated storage, why I don't install a virus and run it, I am trusted to access this area. but the virus or what ever will not be trusted to access the rest of file system, it only can access the memory, and this is dangerous enough. I cannot see any difference between using app data folder to save the state and using isolated storage except a long nasty path!! I want to try give low trust to Reader code and retest, but they said "Isolated storage is actually created for giving low trusted application the right to save its state". Reader code: private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { String path = @"C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\IsolatedStorage\efv5cmbz.ewt\2ehuny0c.qvv\StrongName.5v3airc2lkv0onfrhsm2h3uiio35oarw\AssemFiles\toto12\ABC.txt"; StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(path); var test = reader.ReadLine(); reader.Close(); } Writer: private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { IsolatedStorageFile isolatedFile = IsolatedStorageFile.GetMachineStoreForAssembly(); isolatedFile.CreateDirectory("toto12"); IsolatedStorageFileStream isolatedStorage = new IsolatedStorageFileStream(@"toto12\ABC.txt", System.IO.FileMode.Create, isolatedFile); StreamWriter writer = new StreamWriter(isolatedStorage); writer.WriteLine("Ana 2akol we ashrab kai a3eesh wa akbora"); writer.Close(); writer.Dispose(); }

    Read the article

  • Error building Visual Studio 2010 Silverlight 4 projects on Windows 7 with XP Mode

    - by Kevin Dente
    I installed Visual Studio 2010 Beta 2 in an XP Mode VM on Windows 7. Then I created a trivial Silverlight 4 (beta) project and tried to build it. I get the following error: Error 1 The "ValidateXaml" task failed unexpectedly. System.IO.FileLoadException: Could not load file or assembly 'file://\tsclient\d\Users\me\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\SilverlightApplication2\SilverlightApplication2\obj\Debug\SilverlightApplication2.dll' or one of its dependencies. Operation is not supported. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131515) File name: 'file://\tsclient\d\Users\me\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\SilverlightApplication2\SilverlightApplication2\obj\Debug\SilverlightApplication2.dll' --- System.NotSupportedException: An attempt was made to load an assembly from a network location which would have caused the assembly to be sandboxed in previous versions of the .NET Framework. This release of the .NET Framework does not enable CAS policy by default, so this load may be dangerous. If this load is not intended to sandbox the assembly, please enable the loadFromRemoteSources switch. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=155569 for more information. at System.Reflection.RuntimeAssembly._nLoad(AssemblyName fileName, String codeBase, Evidence assemblySecurity, RuntimeAssembly locationHint, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean throwOnFileNotFound, Boolean forIntrospection, Boolean suppressSecurityChecks) at System.Reflection.RuntimeAssembly.nLoad(AssemblyName fileName, String codeBase, Evidence assemblySecurity, RuntimeAssembly locationHint, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean throwOnFileNotFound, Boolean forIntrospection, Boolean suppressSecurityChecks) at System.Reflection.RuntimeAssembly.InternalLoadAssemblyName(AssemblyName assemblyRef, Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean forIntrospection, Boolean suppressSecurityChecks) at System.Reflection.RuntimeAssembly.InternalLoadFrom(String assemblyFile, Evidence securityEvidence, Byte[] hashValue, AssemblyHashAlgorithm hashAlgorithm, Boolean forIntrospection, Boolean suppressSecurityChecks, StackCrawlMark& stackMark) at System.Reflection.Assembly.LoadFrom(String assemblyFile) at Microsoft.Silverlight.Build.Tasks.ValidateXaml.XamlValidator.Execute(ITask task) at Microsoft.Silverlight.Build.Tasks.ValidateXaml.XamlValidator.Execute(ITask task) at Microsoft.Silverlight.Build.Tasks.ValidateXaml.Execute() at Microsoft.Build.BackEnd.TaskExecutionHost.Microsoft.Build.BackEnd.ITaskExecutionHost.Execute() at Microsoft.Build.BackEnd.TaskBuilder.ExecuteInstantiatedTask(ITaskExecutionHost taskExecutionHost, TaskLoggingContext taskLoggingContext, TaskHost taskHost, ItemBucket bucket, TaskExecutionMode howToExecuteTask, Boolean& taskResult) I believe this is related to the fact that XP Mode redirects the My Documents folder to the host, turning it into a network share location, and some sort of CAS / security policy is being triggered. Anyone know how to fix it?

    Read the article

  • Java - Class type from inside static initialization block

    - by DutrowLLC
    Is it possible to get the class type from inside the static initialization block? This is a simplified version of what I currently have:: class Person extends SuperClass { String firstName; static{ // This function is on the "SuperClass": // I'd for this function to be able to get "Person.class" without me // having to explicitly type it in but "this.class" does not work in // a static context. doSomeReflectionStuff(Person.class); // IN "SuperClass" } } This is closer to what I am doing, which is to initialize a data structure that holds information about the object and its annotations, etc... Perhaps I am using the wrong pattern? public abstract SuperClass{ static void doSomeReflectionStuff( Class<?> classType, List<FieldData> fieldDataList ){ Field[] fields = classType.getDeclaredFields(); for( Field field : fields ){ // Initialize fieldDataList } } } public abstract class Person { @SomeAnnotation String firstName; // Holds information on each of the fields, I used a Map<String, FieldData> // in my actual implementation to map strings to the field information, but that // seemed a little wordy for this example static List<FieldData> fieldDataList = new List<FieldData>(); static{ // Again, it seems dangerous to have to type in the "Person.class" // (or Address.class, PhoneNumber.class, etc...) every time. // Ideally, I'd liken to eliminate all this code from the Sub class // since now I have to copy and paste it into each Sub class. doSomeReflectionStuff(Person.class, fieldDataList); } }

    Read the article

  • .Net Finalizer Order / Semantics in Esent and Ravendb

    - by mattcodes
    Help me understand. I've read that "The time and order of execution of finalizers cannot be predicted or pre-determined" Correct? However looking at RavenDB source code TransactionStorage.cs I see this ~TransactionalStorage() { try { Trace.WriteLine( "Disposing esent resources from finalizer! You should call TransactionalStorage.Dispose() instead!"); Api.JetTerm2(instance, TermGrbit.Abrupt); } catch (Exception exception) { try { Trace.WriteLine("Failed to dispose esent instance from finalizer because: " + exception); } catch { } } } The API class (which belongs to Managed Esent) which presumable takes handles on native resources presumably using a SafeHandle? So if I understand correctly the native handles SafeHandle can be finalized before TransactionStorage which could have undesired effects, perhaps why Ayende has added an catch all clause around this? Actually diving into Esent code, it does not use SafeHandles. According to CLR via C# this is dangerous? internal static class SomeType { [DllImport("Kernel32", CharSet=CharSet.Unicode, EntryPoint="CreateEvent")] // This prototype is not robust private static extern IntPtr CreateEventBad( IntPtr pSecurityAttributes, Boolean manualReset, Boolean initialState, String name); // This prototype is robust [DllImport("Kernel32", CharSet=CharSet.Unicode, EntryPoint="CreateEvent")] private static extern SafeWaitHandle CreateEventGood( IntPtr pSecurityAttributes, Boolean manualReset, Boolean initialState, String name) public static void SomeMethod() { IntPtr handle = CreateEventBad(IntPtr.Zero, false, false, null); SafeWaitHandle swh = CreateEventGood(IntPtr.Zero, false, false, null); } } Managed Esent (NativeMEthods.cs) looks like this (using Ints vs IntPtrs?): [DllImport(EsentDll, CharSet = EsentCharSet, ExactSpelling = true)] public static extern int JetCreateDatabase(IntPtr sesid, string szFilename, string szConnect, out uint dbid, uint grbit); Is Managed Esent handling finalization/dispoal the correct way, and second is RavenDB handling finalizer the corret way or compensating for Managed Esent?

    Read the article

  • Use of var keyword in C#

    - by kronoz
    After discussion with colleagues regarding the use of the 'var' keyword in C# 3 I wondered what people's opinions were on the appropriate uses of type inference via var? For example I rather lazily used var in questionable circumstances, e.g.:- foreach(var item in someList) { // ... } // Type of 'item' not clear. var something = someObject.SomeProperty; // Type of 'something' not clear. var something = someMethod(); // Type of 'something' not clear. More legitimate uses of var are as follows:- var l = new List<string>(); // Obvious what l will be. var s = new SomeClass(); // Obvious what s will be. Interestingly LINQ seems to be a bit of a grey area, e.g.:- var results = from r in dataContext.SomeTable select r; // Not *entirely clear* what results will be here. It's clear what results will be in that it will be a type which implements IEnumerable, however it isn't entirely obvious in the same way a var declaring a new object is. It's even worse when it comes to LINQ to objects, e.g.:- var results = from item in someList where item != 3 select item; This is no better than the equivilent foreach(var item in someList) { // ... } equivilent. There is a real concern about type safety here - for example if we were to place the results of that query into an overloaded method that accepted IEnumerable<int> and IEnumerable<double> the caller might inadvertently pass in the wrong type. Edit - var does maintain strong typing but the question is really whether it's dangerous for the type to not be immediately apparent on definition, something which is magnified when overloads mean compiler errors might not be issued when you unintentionally pass the wrong type to a method. Related Question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/633474/c-do-you-use-var

    Read the article

  • Java: Is clone() really ever used? What about defensive copying in getters/setters?

    - by GreenieMeanie
    Do people practically ever use defensive getters/setters? To me, 99% of the time you intend for the object you set in another object to be a copy of the same object reference, and you intend for changes you make to it to also be made in the object it was set in. If you setDate(Date dt) and modify dt later, who cares? Unless I want some basic immutable data bean that just has primitives and maybe something simple like a Date, I never use it. As far as clone, there are issues as to how deep or shallow the copy is, so it seems kind of "dangerous" to know what is going to come out when you clone an Object. I think I have only used clone() once or twice, and that was to copy the current state of the object because another thread (ie another HTTP request accessing the same object in Session) could be modifying it. Edit - A comment I made below is more the question: But then again, you DID change the Date, so it's kind of your own fault, hence whole discussion of term "defensive". If it is all application code under your own control among a small to medium group of developers, will just documenting your classes suffice as an alternative to making object copies? Or is this not necessary, since you should always assume something ISN'T copied when calling a setter/getter?

    Read the article

  • How to catch HttpRequestValidationException in production

    - by bruno
    Hello all, I have this piece of code to handle the HttpRequestValidationException in my global.asax.cs file. protected void Application_Error(object sender, EventArgs e) { var context = HttpContext.Current; var exception = context.Server.GetLastError(); if (exception is HttpRequestValidationException) { Response.Clear(); Response.StatusCode = 200; Response.Write(@"<html><head></head><body>hello</body></html>"); Response.End(); return; } } If I debug my webapplication, it works perfect. But when i put it on our production-server, the server ignores it and generate the "a potentially dangerous request.form value was detected from the client" - error page. I don't know what happens exactly... If anybody knows what the problem is, or what i do wrong..? Also I don't want to set the validaterequest on false in the web.config. The server uses IIS7.5, And I'm using asp.net 3.5. Thanks, Bruno

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to deserialize generics written with a different version of a signed assembly?

    - by Rick Minerich
    In other cases it has been suggested that you simply add a SerializationBinder which removes the version from the assembly type. However, when using generic collections of a type found in a signed assembly, that type is strictly versioned based on its assembly. Here is what I've found works. internal class WeaklyNamedAssemblyBinder : SerializationBinder { public override Type BindToType(string assemblyName, string typeName) { ResolveEventHandler handler = new ResolveEventHandler(CurrentDomain_AssemblyResolve); AppDomain.CurrentDomain.AssemblyResolve += handler; Type returnedType; try { AssemblyName asmName = new AssemblyName(assemblyName); var assembly = Assembly.Load(asmName); returnedType = assembly.GetType(typeName); } catch { returnedType = null; } finally { AppDomain.CurrentDomain.AssemblyResolve -= handler; } return returnedType; } Assembly CurrentDomain_AssemblyResolve(object sender, ResolveEventArgs args) { string truncatedAssemblyName = args.Name.Split(',')[0]; Assembly assembly = Assembly.Load(truncatedAssemblyName); return assembly; } } However, causing the binding process to change globally seems rather dangerous to me. Strange things could happen if serialization was happening in multiple threads. Perhaps a better solution is to do some regex manipulation of the typeName? What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Safe way to set computed environment variables

    - by sfink
    I have a bash script that I am modifying to accept key=value pairs from stdin. (It is spawned by xinetd.) How can I safely convert those key=value pairs into environment variables for subprocesses? I plan to only allow keys that begin with a predefined prefix "CMK_", to avoid IFS or any other "dangerous" variable getting set. But the simplistic approach function import () { local IFS="=" while read key val; do case "$key" in CMK_*) eval "$key=$val";; esac done } is horribly insecure because $val could contain all sorts of nasty stuff. This seems like it would work: shopt -s extglob function import () { NORMAL_IFS="$IFS" local IFS="=" while read key val; do case "$key" in CMK_*([a-zA-Z_]) ) IFS="$NORMAL_IFS" eval $key='$val' IFS="=" ;; esac done } but (1) it uses the funky extglob thing that I've never used before, and (2) it's complicated enough that I can't be comfortable that it's secure. My goal, to be specific, is to allow key=value settings to pass through the bash script into the environment of called processes. It is up to the subprocesses to deal with potentially hostile values getting set. I am modifying someone else's script, so I don't want to just convert it to Perl and be done with it. I would also rather not change it around to invoke the subprocesses differently, something like #!/bin/sh ...start of script... perl -nle '($k,$v)=split(/=/,$_,2); $ENV{$k}=$v if $k =~ /^CMK_/; END { exec("subprocess") }' ...end of script...

    Read the article

  • Python multiprocessing doesn't play nicely with uuid.uuid4().

    - by yig
    I'm trying to generate a uuid for a filename, and I'm also using the multiprocessing module. Unpleasantly, all of my uuids end up exactly the same. Here is a small example: import multiprocessing import uuid def get_uuid( a ): ## Doesn't help to cycle through a bunch. #for i in xrange(10): uuid.uuid4() ## Doesn't help to reload the module. #reload( uuid ) ## Doesn't help to load it at the last minute. ## (I simultaneously comment out the module-level import). #import uuid ## uuid1() does work, but it differs only in the first 8 characters and includes identifying information about the computer. #return uuid.uuid1() return uuid.uuid4() def main(): pool = multiprocessing.Pool( 20 ) uuids = pool.map( get_uuid, range( 20 ) ) for id in uuids: print id if __name__ == '__main__': main() I peeked into uuid.py's code, and it seems to depending-on-the-platform use some OS-level routines for randomness, so I'm stumped as to a python-level solution (to do something like reload the uuid module or choose a new random seed). I could use uuid.uuid1(), but only 8 digits differ and I think there are derived exclusively from the time, which seems dangerous especially given that I'm multiprocessing (so the code could be executing at exactly the same time). Is there some Wisdom out there about this issue?

    Read the article

  • Optional Member Objects

    - by David Relihan
    Okay, so you have a load of methods sprinkled around your systems main class. So you do the right thing and refactor by creating a new class and perform move method(s) into a new class. The new class has a single responsibility and all is right with the world again: class Feature { public: Feature(){}; void doSomething(); void doSomething1(); void doSomething2(); }; So now your original class has a member variable of type object: Feature _feature; Which you will call in the main class. Now if you do this many times, you will have many member-objects in your main class. Now these features may or not be required based on configuration so in a way it's costly having all these objects that may or not be needed. Can anyone suggest a way of improving this? At the moment I plan to test in the newly created class if the feature is enabled - so the when a call is made to method I will return if it is not enabled. I could have a pointer to the object and then only call new if feature is enabled - but this means I will have to test before I call a method on it which would be potentially dangerous and not very readable. Would having an auto_ptr to the object improve things: auto_ptr<Feature> feature; Or am I still paying the cost of object invokation even though the object may\or may not be required. BTW - I don't think this is premeature optimisation - I just want to consider the possibilites.

    Read the article

  • GCC/X86, Problems with relative jumps

    - by Ian Kelly
    I'm trying to do a relative jump in x86 assembly, however I can not get it to work. It seems that for some reason my jump keeps getting rewritten as an absolute jump or something. A simple example program for what I'm trying to do is this: .global main main: jmp 0x4 ret Since the jmp instruction is 4 bytes long and a relative jump is offset from the address of the jump + 1, this should be a fancy no-op. However, compiling and running this code will cause a segmentation fault. The real puzzler for me is that compiling it to the object level and then disassembling the object file shows that it looks like the assembler is correctly doing a relative jump, but after the file gets compiled the linker is changing it into another type of jump. For example if the above code was in a file called asmtest.s: $gcc -c asmtest.s $objdump -D asmtest.o ... Some info from objdump 00000000 <main>: 0: e9 00 00 00 00 jmp 5 <main+0x5> 5: c3 ret This looks like the assembler correctly made a relative jump, although it's suspicious that the jmp instruction is filled with 0s. I then used gcc to link it then disassembled it and got this: $gcc -o asmtest asmtest.o $objdump -d asmtest ...Extra info and other disassembled functions 08048394 <main>: 8048394: e9 6b 7c fb f7 jmp 4 <_init-0x8048274> 8048399: c3 ret This to me looks like the linker rewrote the jmp statement, or substituted the 5 in for another address. So my question comes down to, what am I doing wrong? Am I specifying the offset incorrectly? Am I misunderstanding how relative jumps work? Is gcc trying to make sure I don't do dangerous things in my code?

    Read the article

  • E-Commerce Security: Only Credit Card Fields Encrypted?!

    - by bizarreunprofessionalanddangerous
    I'd like your opinions on how a major bricks-and-mortar company is running the security for its shopping Web site. After a recent update, when you are logged into your shopping account, the session is now not secured. No 'https', no browser 'lock'. All the personal contact info, shopping history -- and if I'm not mistaken submit and change password -- are being sent unencrypted. There is a small frame around the credit card fields that is https. There's a little notice: "Our website is secure. Our website uses frames and because of this the secure icon will not appear in your browser" On top of this the most prominent login fields for the site are broken, and haven't gotten fixed for a week or longer (giving the distinct impression they have no clue what's going on and can't be trusted with anything). Now is it just me -- or is this simply incomprehensible for a billion dollar company, significant shopping site, in the year 2010. No lock. "We use frames" (maybe they forget "Best viewed in IE4"). Customers complaining, as you can see from their FAQ "explaining" why you aren't seeing https. I'm getting nowhere trying to convince customer service that they REALLY need to do something about this, and am about to head for the CEO. But I just want to make sure this is as BIZARRE and unprofessional and dangerous a situation as I think it is. (I'm trying to visualize what their Web technical team consists of. I'm getting A) some customer service reps who were given a 3 hour training course on Web site maintenance, B) a 14 year old boy in his bedroom masquerading as a major technical services company, C) a guy in a hut in a jungle with an e-commerce book from 1996.)

    Read the article

  • Can a C# method chain be "too long"?

    - by ccornet
    Not in terms of readability, naturally, since you can always arrange the separate methods into separate lines. Rather, is it dangerous, for any reason, to chain an excessively large number of methods together? I use method chaining primarily to save space on declaring individual one-use variables, and traditionally using return methods instead of methods that modify the caller. Except for string methods, those I kinda chain mercilessly. In any case, I worry sometimes about the impact of using exceptionally long method chains all in one line. Let's say I need to update the value of one item based on someone's username. Unfortunately, the shortest method to retrieve the correct user looks something like the following. SPWeb web = GetWorkflowWeb(); SPList list2 = web.Lists["Wars"]; SPListItem item2 = list2.GetItemById(3); SPListItem item3 = item2.GetItemFromLookup("Armies", "Allied Army"); SPUser user2 = item2.GetSPUser("Commander"); SPUser user3 = user2.GetAssociate("Spouse"); string username2 = user3.Name; item1["Contact"] = username2; Everything with a 2 or 3 lasts for only one call, so I might condense it as the following (which also lets me get rid of a would-be-superfluous 1): SPWeb web = GetWorkflowWeb(); item["Contact"] = web.Lists["Armies"] .GetItemById(3) .GetItemFromLookup("Armies", "Allied Army") .GetSPUser("Commander") .GetAssociate("Spouse") .Name; Admittedly, it looks a lot longer when it is all in one line and when you have int.Parse(ddlArmy.SelectedValue.CutBefore(";#", false)) instead of 3. Nevertheless, this is one of the average lengths of these chains, and I can easily foresee some of exceptionally longer counts. Excluding readability, is there anything I should be worried about for these 10+ method chains? Or is there no harm in using really really long method chains?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >