Search Results

Search found 1483 results on 60 pages for 'constantin ff'.

Page 22/60 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >

  • C#: Hijacking a near relative call

    - by Lex
    Alright, I'm trying to write a vary basic modification to a program NOT written by me. I DO NOT have the source to it. I also do not care if this only works for a single version of the program, so hard coding offsets is feasible. Anyways, I've found the function and where it is called in the compiled program. .text:1901C88F loc_1901C88F: ; CODE XREF: ConnectionThread+1A2j .text:1901C88F ; DATA XREF: .text:off_1901CC64o .text:1901C88F 8B C8 mov ecx, eax ; jumptable 1901C862 case 11 .text:1901C891 8B C6 mov eax, esi .text:1901C893 E8 48 C5 FF FF call ChatEvent According to IDA the full function signature is: char *__usercall ChatEvent<eax>(char *Data<eax>, unsigned int Length<ecx>) I already have all I need to patch the program during runtime, and do whatever other manipulations I need. What I need, is to be able to write a function like so: bool ProcessChat(char *Data, unsigned int Length); char *__usercall HijackFunction(char *Data, unsigned int Length){ if (ProcessChat(Data, Length)) Call OriginalChatEvent(Data, Length); } Get the jist of what I am trying to do? With stdcall function it's easy just replace the 4 byte address with my own function's address. But this is a near relative call, which is.. more annoying. So, anyone have any idea?

    Read the article

  • spaces or %20 in links turn into + signs when page is sent as an email

    - by Obay
    I am creating a web app that accepts input of news items (title, article, url). It has a page news.php which creates a summary of all news items inputted for specified dates, like so: News 4/25/2010 Title 1 [URL 1] Article 1 Title 2 [URL 2] Article 2 and so on... I have two other pages, namely preview.php and send.php , both of which call news.php through a file_get_contents() call. Everything works fine except when the URL contains spaces. During Preview, the urls get opened (FF: spaces are spaces, Chrome: spaces are %20). However, during Send, when received as emails, the urls don't get opened, because the spaces are converted into + signs. For example: 1. Preview in FF: http://www.example.com/this is the link.html 2. Preview in Chrome: http://www.example.com/this%20is%20the%20link.html 3. Viewed as email in both browsers: http://www.example.com/this+is+the+link.html Only #3 doesn't work (link doesn't get opened). Why are the spaces in the urls correct (spaces or %20) when previewed, but incorrect (+) when received in the emails, when in fact, the same page is generated by the same news.php? Any help appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • Using Private Browsing keyboard shortcut with Firefox and Vimperator

    - by perlwle
    I am using Firefox 15.0 on OS X Mountain Lion alongside with vimperator. Note that I am using a Windows keyboard. CtrlP is for moving focus to left tab in vimperator. However, the latest Firefox has also CtrlP to enable private browsing. I looked for private browsing with FF "Customizable Shortcuts" addon but there is only CommandShiftP binding associated to it. How can the CtrlP private browsing binding be turned off?

    Read the article

  • Controlling the fontsize across multiple browsers

    - by Matthias
    Hello, I've got 3 browsers on my WinXPpro: Firefox 3.5.2, Opera 10 and IE 7. Alle pages are displayed fine in FF. Opera and IE seem to have a very similar issue: Both upsize fonts eventhough zoom mode in both browsers is set to 100%. I tend to believe that this might be a system-wide setting, somewhere. Does anyone know this problem? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Code signing issues.

    - by abc
    i have purchased a certificate from godaddy, i have that in .pfx format. i tried to convert it into .cer using IE and ff. using converted .cer file when i try to sign midlet. i am getting following error message "The KeyStore does not contain private key associated with this alias !!" "Cannot sign" how to get work done?

    Read the article

  • Foreign website keeps loading in a tab when I start up Firefox

    - by user31788
    Whenever I double-click on the FF icon to open Firefox, a Chinese website loads up in one of the tabs. Checking my settings for startup homepage (Tools Options) it was set to Google. Can anyone please advise how can I remove the uninvited Chinese website from loading every time I open Firefox? I am using Windows 7 64 bit with Firefox as my default web browser.

    Read the article

  • Typing filename in standard open file dialog (Windows 7) - file name suggestion

    - by bybor
    When you use standard windows open file dialog and start typing it puts files whose name starts with what you type to drop down list. But on another pc with same Windows 7 it also puts first of them into input box in which you type - like FF does with URLS, allowing you to immediately press Enter (without pressing 'Down' to select file). I don't know why this behavior is different, but I want suggested file name shown in input box. How could it be achieved? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • firefox 12 turn off Inspect Element (Q)

    - by user35563
    Go the new FF12 and I hit the "Inspect Element (Q)", i'm use to hitting "Inspect" and getting FireBug, now i get the FF inspection tool. It looks nice, but how do i turn it off? Not disable it, but stop inspecting the current page? I have to close the tab, when working on a large web application, have to sign back in and re-setup everything i was testing to get back to a normal view. Big waste of time.

    Read the article

  • block certain websites from browser

    - by phunehehe
    Hello there, A friend of mine (who is not a geek) asks me how to stop her little brother from playing web games on her computer. She is currently using Chrome and IE, and I have never done that before, even on FF. I would prefer a solution that is simple and does not require additional applications. Although it seems unlikely, is there a solution that works for all browsers (i.e. do it once and I never have to fix it for a new browser)? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Weird IIS with Windows Authentication + IE problem

    - by Paulius Maruška
    Hello. I have a website running on IIS and using Windows Authentication. All users that are configured to get access to the site are form a AD domain (not local users). In the properties of a Website, I have set to use the AD domain as the realm. Now, when using Firefox, Safari or Chrome - Everything is fine. When the user tries to open the site, he get's the login box. he enters simply "username" and "password" (let's pretend that it's an actual login and password :P) and he get's into the site. When using IE, however, things get nasty. When the user tries to open the site - he get's the login box. User enters the "username" and "password" again, but those get rejected! And when the second time login box pops up - it has the username filled in as "web-server-domain-name\username" which is wrong, because web-server-domain-name is not the domain where all users reside (it's "ad-domain"). I've spent days trying to figure out what's going on... Note, that if I manually enter "ad-domain\username" - I get accepted into the site without problems. So, my guess is that IE sends wrong username if domain is not specified. Anyway, IE is the only browser that triggers this behavior! Is it possible to do a server-side fix? Maybe it's possible to somehow auto-map the users to AD users? If it's not solvable server-side - is there a client-side fix for this? Thank you. PS: I'm more of a programmer than a sys-admin, so configuring servers isn't the strong side of mine... :P UPDATE: @Evan: Yes, "Digest authentication for Windows domain servers" is also enabled. @Eric: IIS version is 6.0. The authentication methods enabled are: Integrated and digest - all other methods are disabled. As for the security log. I looked at it, when doing "username" and "password" login in Chrome/Firefox and when doing "ad-domain\username" and "password" login from IE - the generated log messages are the same (I see no difference, anyway). When entering "username" and "password" I don't see any errors in the security (or any other) log, so can't tell what method it's trying to use. UPDATE 2: As suggested by Eric in the comments - I played around with Fiddler... While playing with it, I noticed, that when "username" and "password" is entered in FF and IE - the "Authorization" header value (encrypted) sent by IE is longer (almost two times) than one sent by FF. I tried to disable Windows Integrated authentication and only leave the Digest enabled - that fixed the problem (meaning, IE used the right realm just like other browsers), but that caused bazillion other problems with my site, because with Digest - user impersonation on the server doesn't work (that causes problems, when connecting to database etc). Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Debug JS from browser without a server/localhost

    - by sazpaz
    So something I do very frequently is writing random scripts in JS without really being part of an app. To run them I just paste them in the console of either Chrome of FF which works as a nice REPL, or if I really need more fancy debugging I just add it to my test app on localhost and browse it from the browser. Is there a way to get all the good debugging of a browser (breakpoints, locals, etc), without it being served from a server?, e.g by just copy-pasting my code into console or something?

    Read the article

  • Users getting port 8080?

    - by domainking
    I tested several times, running using different internet browser (IE, FF, Chrome, Safari and Opera), none of those getting 8080. Recently I got some complaints from my users, saying my website giving errors:[my website ip]:8080 error. What is that error? And how do I resolve it?

    Read the article

  • With CentOS 6 and LXC, "ifconfig" is unable to see network interface (but busybox "ifconfig" works fine)

    - by larsks
    I've just started working with LXC under CentOS 6 (via the libvirt adapter). If I create an LXC container, I'm unable to see any network interfaces when using the native system tools: # ifconfig -a # The behavior is very odd; specifying an interface by names yields neither the expected output nor an error message. This is true even for clearly invalid interface names, like this: # ifconfig foo # The ip command exhibits the same behavior. On the other hand, if I use "ifconfig" provided by busybox, everything works as expected: # busybox ifconfig -a eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 52:54:00:E0:12:C8 inet6 addr: fe80::5054:ff:fee0:12c8/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:268 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:17814 (17.3 KiB) TX bytes:552 (552.0 B) lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) So...what does busybox know that the native tools don't? The libvirt config for this environment is pretty standard; the network definition looks like this: <interface type='network'> <mac address='52:54:00:e0:12:c8'/> <source network='default'/> <target dev='veth0'/> </interface> The full configuration is here if you think it might help. I'm running: lxc-0.7.2-2.el6.x86_64 kernel-2.6.32-71.29.1.el6.x86_64 EDIT Weirder and weirder...it's a display issue, not a functionality issue. I can see the output of ifconfig if I pipe it into anything, so for example: # ifconfig eth0 | cat eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 52:54:00:E0:12:C8 inet addr:192.168.10.10 Bcast:192.168.10.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::5054:ff:fee0:12c8/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:573 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:37914 (37.0 KiB) TX bytes:552 (552.0 b) And in fact even when not piping the output, strace shows that ifconfig is in fact writing the output to file descriptor 1 (aka stdout), so it's not clear why no output is actually showing up. This could be either an LXC or a virsh issue, I guess.

    Read the article

  • Good maintained privacy Add-On/settings set that takes usability into account?

    - by Foo Bar
    For some weeks I've been trying to find a good set of Firefox Addons that give me a good portion of privacy/security without losing to much of usability. But I can't seem to find a nice combination of add-ons/settings that I'm happy with. Here's what I tried, together with the pros and cons that I discovered: HTTPS Everywhere: Has only pro's: just install and be happy (no interaction needed), loads known pages SLL-encrypted, is updated fairly often NoScript - Fine, but needs a lot of fine-tuning, often maintained, mainly blocks all non-HTML/CSS Content, but the author sometimes seems to do "untrustworthy" decission RequestPolicy - seems dead (last activity 6 months ago, has some annoying bugs, official support mail address is dead), but the purpose of this is really great: gives you full control over cross-site requests: blocks by default, let's you add sites to a whitelist, once this is done it works interaction-less in the background AdBlock Edge: blocks specific cross-site requests from a pre-defined whitelist (can never be fully sure, need to trust others) Disconnect: like AdBlock Edge, just looking different, has no interaction possibilities (can never be fully sure, need to trust others, can not interact even if I wanted to) Firefox own Cookie Managment (block by default, whitelist specific sites), after building own whitelist it does it's work in the background and I have full control All These addons together basically block everything unsecure. But there are a lot of redundancies: NoScript has a mixed-content blocker, but FF has it's own for a while now. Also the Cookie blocker from NoScript is reduntant to my FF-Cookie setting. NoScript also has an XSS-blocker, which is redundant to RequestPolicy. Disconnect and AdBlock are extremly redundant, but not fully. And there are some bugs (especially RequestPolicy). And RequestPolicy seems to be dead. All in all, this list is great but has these heavy drawbacks. My favourite set would be "NoScript Light" (only script blocking, without all the additonal redundant-to-other-addons hick-hack it does) + HTTPS Everywhere + RequestPolicy-clone (maintained, less buggy), because RequestPolicy makes all other "site-blockers" obsolete (because it blocks everything by default and let's me create a whitelist). But since RequestPolicy is buggy and seems to be dead I have to fallback to AdBlock Edge and Disconnect, which don't block all and and need more maintaining (whitelist updates, trust-check). Are there addons that fulfill my wishes?

    Read the article

  • Is there a work around for the broken IE Tab in Firefox 3.6?

    - by Nathan Fellman
    My Firefox upgraded itself automatically to version 3.6, and I found that IE tab is broken there. Apparently IE tab is known to be broken in this version. Are there any known workarounds such as these? a different plugin with the same functionality a way to tell FF to behave in some legacy or compatibility mode for certain plugins a new version of IE tab In the meanwhile I'm glad that Chrome's current release supports plugins, and IE tab works there.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >