Search Results

Search found 1095 results on 44 pages for 'anti piracy'.

Page 4/44 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Why does my company's software download get blocked by anti-virus programs when downloading from the company website but not other websites?

    - by Adam Burgess
    My company distributes software via website download off of a URL that is on our company's website. The download is an .EXE. We are getting calls from multiple customers saying the download is being blocked. We can help them download by turning off the virus-scan software, but wondering what is causing the block. Here are the details: We have other downloadable .EXEs that download fine without being blocked from the same company website. Our problem download file downloads fine from other websites (i.e., Dropbox) without being blocked. In summary, this one particular download from our company website is being blocked by various anti-virus programs a high percentage of the time. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request in ASP.NET MVC and AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent by the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> which writes to token to the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__=J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, I encountered 2 problems: It is expected to add [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] to each controller, but actually I have to add it for each POST actions, which is a little crazy; After anti-forgery validation is turned on for server side, AJAX POST requests will consistently fail. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) Problem For the first problem, usually a controller contains actions for both HTTP GET and HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become always invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index page cannot work at all. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If user sends a HTTP GET request from a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each HTTP POST action in the application:public class SomeController : Controller { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one attribute for one HTTP POST action), I created a wrapper class of ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // Actions for HTTP GET requests are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all HTTP POST actions. Submit token via AJAX Problem For AJAX scenarios, when request is sent by JavaScript instead of form:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution The token must be printed to browser then submitted back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be called in the page where the AJAX POST will be sent. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the page, and post it:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated in a tiny jQuery plugin:(function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function () { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. return $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken']").val(); }; var addToken = function (data) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } data = data ? data + "&" : ""; return data + "__RequestVerificationToken=" + encodeURIComponent($.getAntiForgeryToken()); }; $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, addToken(data), callback, type); }; $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = addToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); Then in the application just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() instead of $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. This solution looks hard coded and stupid. If you have more elegant solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request Helpers for ASP.NET MVC and jQuery AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, this is a little crazy Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Submit token via AJAX The browser side problem is, if server side turns on anti-forgery validation for POST, then AJAX POST requests will fail be default. Problem For AJAX scenarios, when request is sent by jQuery instead of form:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution The tokens are printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token. Here $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is provided:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request Recipes For ASP.NET MVC And AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, the work would be a little crazy. Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Specify Non-constant salt in runtime By default, the salt should be a compile time constant, so it can be used for the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] or [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute. Problem One Web product might be sold to many clients. If a constant salt is evaluated in compile time, after the product is built and deployed to many clients, they all have the same salt. Of course, clients do not like this. Even some clients might want to specify a custom salt in configuration. In these scenarios, salt is required to be a runtime value. Solution In the above [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] and [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute, the salt is passed through constructor. So one solution is to remove this parameter:public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = AntiForgeryToken.Value }; } // Other members. } But here the injected dependency becomes a hard dependency. So the other solution is moving validation code into controller to work around the limitation of attributes:public abstract class AntiForgeryControllerBase : Controller { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; protected AntiForgeryControllerBase(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } protected override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { base.OnAuthorization(filterContext); string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } Then make controller classes inheriting from this AntiForgeryControllerBase class. Now the salt is no long required to be a compile time constant. Submit token via AJAX For browser side, once server side turns on anti-forgery validation for HTTP POST, all AJAX POST requests will fail by default. Problem In AJAX scenarios, the HTTP POST request is not sent by form. Take jQuery as an example:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution Basically, the tokens must be printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() need to be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in both HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token, where $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is useful:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by an iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here, token's container window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Violation of the DRY Principle

    - by Onorio Catenacci
    I am sure there's a name for this anti-pattern somewhere; however I am not familiar enough with the anti-pattern literature to know it. Consider the following scenario: or0 is a member function in a class. For better or worse, it's heavily dependent on class member variables. Programmer A comes along and needs functionality like or0 but rather than calling or0, Programmer A copies and renames the entire class. I'm guessing that she doesn't call or0 because, as I say, it's heavily dependent on member variables for its functionality. Or maybe she's a junior programmer and doesn't know how to call it from other code. So now we've got or0 and c0 (c for copy). I can't completely fault Programmer A for this approach--we all get under tight deadlines and we hack code to get work done. Several programmers maintain or0 so it's now version orN. c0 is now version cN. Unfortunately most of the programmers that maintained the class containing or0 seemed to be completely unaware of c0--which is one of the strongest arguments I can think of for the wisdom of the DRY principle. And there may also have been independent maintainance of the code in c. Either way it appears that or0 and c0 were maintained independent of each other. And, joy and happiness, an error is occurring in cN that does not occur in orN. So I have a few questions: 1.) Is there a name for this anti-pattern? I've seen this happen so often I'd find it hard to believe this is not a named anti-pattern. 2.) I can see a few alternatives: a.) Fix orN to take a parameter that specifies the values of all the member variables it needs. Then modify cN to call orN with all of the needed parameters passed in. b.) Try to manually port fixes from orN to cN. (Mind you I don't want to do this but it is a realistic possibility.) c.) Recopy orN to cN--again, yuck but I list it for sake of completeness. d.) Try to figure out where cN is broken and then repair it independently of orN. Alternative a seems like the best fix in the long term but I doubt the customer will let me implement it. Never time or money to fix things right but always time and money to repair the same problem 40 or 50 times, right? Can anyone suggest other approaches I may not have considered? If you were in my place, which approach would you take? If there are other questions and answers here along these lines, please post links to them. I don't mind removing this question if it's a dupe but my searching hasn't turned up anything that addresses this question yet. EDIT: Thanks everyone for all the thoughtful responses. I asked about a name for the anti-pattern so I could research it further on my own. I'm surprised this particular bad coding practice doesn't seem to have a "canonical" name for it.

    Read the article

  • How to protect own software from copying [closed]

    - by Zzz
    Possible Duplicate: How do you prevent the piracy of your software? Is possible to protect some file from copying if you are administrator of machine? I heard some story about some behavior: one software developer sells his software in some way. He is installing it on every client's computer and this software does not work on other computers or cannot be copied physically. How to implement the first and second protection. Is it effectively protection if software costs about $100 for all copies across client's company?

    Read the article

  • How to track/sniff mp3 files posted on Zippyshare.com? [closed]

    - by Stoan
    I'm not sure if this is a right place to ask this question, We starting a indie recording label, I want to minimize piracy of our music. I want to track/sniff our songs that are posted to Zippyshare.com How can I right a tool to automate this process? we would supply our song names and it would search and notify us if our songs are posted on Zippyshare.com. I'm a junior Java developer. I'm looking for direction on how to right an app that would achieve this, any help is appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • My program is getting a false positive from a certain 3 letter Anti Virus Company.

    - by JimDel
    My program is getting a false positive from a certain 3 letter Anti Virus Company. Its just our companies branded version of Ultra VNC. Its only this one company that's identifying it as a virus and we've been using the same copy of that program for almost a year. I know its possible to tell this Anti Virus program the VNC client is safe, but I can't do that for all of our clients. I've tried to find a way to contact this company to see if they can do something to prevent this from happening, but I'm not getting anywhere. Has anyone who's experiened this issue with thier software, found a solution? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Anti-DDoS Question

    - by Andre
    Our company´s main owner (telecon group) wants us to deploy anti-DDoS mechanisms, such as Arbor Pravail, which is a great idea. Although... I have a question... If our main ISP Backbone provider have no anti-DDoS mechanism, means that there is no point we get the Arbor Pravail? An DDoS attack can make damage uniquely the destination IP or to the whole network that the DDoS packets go through? Regards,

    Read the article

  • How Scan any File or Folder Using Windows 8’s Built-in Anti-Virus

    - by Taylor Gibb
    Windows 8 includes a built-in antivirus solution that runs in the background. You might, however, be surprised that there is no obvious way to scan an item on demand. Here’s how to launch the Windows Defender GUI as well as add a scan option to the context menu. Manually Opening Windows Defender The first way to scan your files is to use the Windows Defender GUI, to do so navigate to: C:\Program Files\Windows Defender Then launch: MSASCui.exe When the GUI opens, choose to do a custom scan, then click the Scan now button. Now choose the folder you want to scan, and then click OK. That’s all there it to it. Scan Using the Context Menu If you don’t fancy opening the GUI, you could always add an option to the context menu. To do so, press the Windows + R keyboard combination to open a run box and type: shell:sendto Then press enter. Now go ahead and download this batch file we wrote, then unzip its contents into the SendTo folder. Now when you right click on a file or folder, you will be able to scan items using the “Send to” menu. Unfortunately it does use the command line scanner, nevertheless it gets the job done. That’s all there is to it. Secure Yourself by Using Two-Step Verification on These 16 Web Services How to Fix a Stuck Pixel on an LCD Monitor How to Factory Reset Your Android Phone or Tablet When It Won’t Boot

    Read the article

  • Set Up Anti-Brick Protection to Safeguard and Supercharge Your Wii

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    We’ve shown you how to hack your Wii for homebrew software, emulators, and DVD playback, now it’s time to safeguard your Wii against bricking and fix some annoyances—like that stupid “Press A” health screen. The thing about console modding and jailbreaking—save for the rare company like Amazon that doesn’t seem to care—is companies will play a game of cat and mouse to try and knock modded console out of commission, undo your awesome mods, or even brick your device. Although extreme moves like bricktacular-updates are rare once you modify your device you have to be vigilante in protecting it against updates that could hurt your sweet setup. Today we’re going to walk you through hardening your Wii and giving it the best brick protection available Latest Features How-To Geek ETC The 50 Best Registry Hacks that Make Windows Better The How-To Geek Holiday Gift Guide (Geeky Stuff We Like) LCD? LED? Plasma? The How-To Geek Guide to HDTV Technology The How-To Geek Guide to Learning Photoshop, Part 8: Filters Improve Digital Photography by Calibrating Your Monitor Our Favorite Tech: What We’re Thankful For at How-To Geek Snowy Christmas House Personas Theme for Firefox The Mystic Underground Tunnel Wallpaper Ubunchu! – The Ubuntu Manga Available in Multiple Languages Breathe New Life into Your PlayStation 2 Peripherals by Hooking Them Up to Your Computer Move the Window Control Buttons to the Left Side in Windows Fun and Colorful Firefox Theme for Windows 7

    Read the article

  • Anti-cheat Javascript for browser/HTML5 game

    - by Billy Ninja
    I'm planning on venturing on making a single player action rpg in js/html5, and I'd like to prevent cheating. I don't need 100% protection, since it's not going to be a multiplayer game, but I want some level of protection. So what strategies you suggest beyond minify and obfuscation? I wouldn't bother to make some server side simple checking, but I don't want to go the Diablo 3 path keeping all my game state changes on the server side. Since it's going to be a rpg of sorts I came up with the idea of making a stats inspector that checks abrupt changes in their values, but I'm not sure how it consistent and trusty it can be. What about variables and functions escopes? Working on smaller escopes whenever possible is safer, but it's worth the effort? Is there anyway for the javascript to self inspect it's text, like in a checksum? There are browser specific solutions? I wouldn't bother to restrain it for Chrome only in the early builds.

    Read the article

  • Free forum engine with good anti-attack mechanisms

    - by macias
    I am looking for forum engine (for discussions) with good attack countermeasures built in. Windows (preferrably) or Linux. Free (as beer). I think about registration flooding and blocking user accounts attacks. For registration, such engine should have at least: captcha blocking mulitple registrations from the same IP providing login (for logging in) and user name (for displaying the author of the posts) For logging in: no blocking on multiple tries -- instead after X try sending via mail a token, the third piece needed for next login -- without it logging in will be impossible (it would be similar to activation process) The engine should be designed with two ideas in mind: protecting engine against attacks 0 penalty for decent users Thank you in advance for your help and recommendations.

    Read the article

  • Security Essentials for Windows 8? [closed]

    - by FiveO
    Possible Duplicate: Windows 8 and Microsoft Security Essentials Windows 8 does not seem to have the "Security Essentials" Anti-Virus like Windows 7 installed. Also the Download doesn't say Win-8 compatible. And in addition, my Soluto does not recognize any Anti-Virus program installed. Is there a Anti-Virus in Windows 8 installed by default? Or can I continue using Security Essentials? (Please no discussion about the best anti-virus software)

    Read the article

  • Isn't MVC anti OOP?

    - by m3th0dman
    The main idea behind OOP is to unify data and behavior in a single entity - the object. In procedural programming there is data and separately algorithms modifying the data. In the Model-View-Controller pattern the data and the logic/algorithms are placed in distinct entities, the model and the controller respectively. In an equivalent OOP approach shouldn't the model and the controller be placed in the same logical entity?

    Read the article

  • How do I draw anti-aliased holes in a bitmap

    - by gyozo kudor
    I have an artillery game (hobby-learning project) and when the projectile hits it leaves a hole in the ground. I want this hole to have antialiased edges. I'm using System.Drawing for this. I've tried with clipping paths, and drawing with a transparent color using gfx.CompositingMode = CompositingMode.SourceCopy, but it gives me the same result. If I draw a circle with a solid color it works fine, but I need a hole, a circle with 0 alpha values. I have enabled these but they work only with solid colors: gfx.CompositingQuality = CompositingQuality.HighQuality; gfx.InterpolationMode = InterpolationMode.HighQualityBicubic; gfx.SmoothingMode = SmoothingMode.AntiAlias; In the two pictures consider black as being transparent. This is what I have (zoomed in): And what I need is something like this (made with photoshop): This will be just a visual effect, in code for collision detection I still treat everything with alpha 128 as solid. Edit: I'm usink OpenTK for this game. But for this question I think it doesn't really matter probably it is gdi+ related.

    Read the article

  • Make My Own Website - WordPress Plugin SI CAPTCHA Anti-Spam

    Computer-generated blog comments can be annoying and bothersome. Working to review these website or blog's comments and determine, which have been posted by a computer or a "bot" can be time-consuming and tedious. Here is a way how to keep your website clean, without unwanted automatic comments.

    Read the article

  • Anti aliasing problem

    - by byronyasgur
    I am auditioning fonts on google web fonts and one that I was discounting was Ubuntu because it looked a bit jagged ( screenshot below taken straight from google); however afterward I read an article where it was mentioned as a good choice, and there was a screenshot where it looked really good ( to me anyway ). I am using windows 7 and have tried looking at it in chrome and firefox. I notice the same thing with some other fonts but this one is a good example because it looks perfect in the screenshot but not so good when I look at it on their site. I know this essentially is a question about setting my computer, but I thought that this would be the best place to pose the question: Is there something wrong with the settings on my machine seeing as it's obviously not showing the font the same on my computer as it did when the article writer downloaded it and used it in an image. The screenshot from Google ... The screenshot from the article above ...

    Read the article

  • Anti Cloud Open Source License

    - by Steve
    I'm working on a browser based open source monitoring project that I want to be free to the community. What I'm worried about is someone taking the project, renaming it, deploying it in the cloud and start charging people who don't even know my project exists. I know I maybe shouldn't mind, but it just sticks in my throat a bit if someone took a free ride like that and contributed nothing back. Is there any common open source license that can prevent this. I know GPL or AGPL don't.

    Read the article

  • Korea&rsquo;s Anti Abortion / Pro Life Movement

    - by Randy Walker
    The South Korean government is in dire straits.  The national birth rate continues to decline and as the population grows older, there aren’t enough children being born to support the country long term.  The social issues of post Korean War are coming back to haunt the empowered nation.  Being torn apart by the Korean War (nicknamed the forgotten war in America) and with a nation facing starvation, South Korea allowed hundreds of thousands of their children to be adopted abroad.  This has created a problem of epidemic proportions, essentially devaluing life in Korea and child rearing. In an effort to encourage birth rates, the government encouraged their workers to go home early and procreate by turning off the lights in buildings.  Something unknown to me, was the illegalization of abortion except in special cases. According to the this article, http://joongangdaily.joins.com it’s working.  Abortions are down and women are being encouraged to give birth.  However the flip side is illegal risky abortions are on the rise, with potential back alley abortions looming.  But with a nation facing it’s potential implosion, it has to continue it’s efforts to encourage mothers to give birth. Many of the issues that America has faced is in stark contrast to South Korea.  Abortion has been a generally accepted procedure for some time.  If you’ll recall, I mentioned South Korea devalued their children.  But the nation’s problems lie so much deeper.  Being an Asian nation, saving “face” is an important aspect of life.  And being an unwed mother disgraces the family.  Living as a single mother in South Korea is a difficult life.  Most married mothers stay at home to take care of the children.  Being a shunned single mother that has a hard time getting a job (because you are a single mother) and affording child care isn’t like life in America. If we in the states suddenly faced a birthrate crisis, what would the U.S. government do?

    Read the article

  • Scuttlebutt Reconciliation from "Efficient Reconciliation and Flow Control for Anti-Entropy Protocols"

    - by Maus
    This question might be more suited to math.stackexchange.com, but here goes: Their Version Reconciliation takes two parts-- first the exchange of digests, and then an exchange of updates. I'll first paraphrase the paper's description of each step. To exchange digests, two peers send one another a set of pairs-- (peer, max_version) for each peer in the network, and then each one responds with a set of deltas. The deltas look like: (peer, key, value, version), for all tuples for which peer's state maps the key to the given value and version, and the version number is greater than the maximum version number peer has seen. This seems to require that each node remember the state of each other node, and the highest version number and ID each node has seen. Question Why must we iterate through all peers to exchange information between p and q?

    Read the article

  • while(true) and loop-breaking - anti-pattern?

    - by KeithS
    Consider the following code: public void doSomething(int input) { while(true) { TransformInSomeWay(input); if(ProcessingComplete(input)) break; DoSomethingElseTo(input); } } Assume that this process involves a finite but input-dependent number of steps; the loop is designed to terminate on its own as a result of the algorithm, and is not designed to run indefinitely (until cancelled by an outside event). Because the test to see if the loop should end is in the middle of a logical set of steps, the while loop itself currently doesn't check anything meaningful; the check is instead performed at the "proper" place within the conceptual algorithm. I was told that this is bad code, because it is more bug-prone due to the ending condition not being checked by the loop structure. It's more difficult to figure out how you'd exit the loop, and could invite bugs as the breaking condition might be bypassed or omitted accidentally given future changes. Now, the code could be structured as follows: public void doSomething(int input) { TransformInSomeWay(input); while(!ProcessingComplete(input)) { DoSomethingElseTo(input); TransformInSomeWay(input); } } However, this duplicates a call to a method in code, violating DRY; if TransformInSomeWay were later replaced with some other method, both calls would have to be found and changed (and the fact that there are two may be less obvious in a more complex piece of code). You could also write it like: public void doSomething(int input) { var complete = false; while(!complete) { TransformInSomeWay(input); complete = ProcessingComplete(input); if(!complete) { DoSomethingElseTo(input); } } } ... but you now have a variable whose only purpose is to shift the condition-checking to the loop structure, and also has to be checked multiple times to provide the same behavior as the original logic. For my part, I say that given the algorithm this code implements in the real world, the original code is the most readable. If you were going through it yourself, this is the way you'd think about it, and so it would be intuitive to people familiar with the algorithm. So, which is "better"? is it better to give the responsibility of condition checking to the while loop by structuring the logic around the loop? Or is it better to structure the logic in a "natural" way as indicated by requirements or a conceptual description of the algorithm, even though that may mean bypassing the loop's built-in capabilities?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >