Search Results

Search found 15453 results on 619 pages for 'dangerous request'.

Page 7/619 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • How do I handle a POST request in Perl and FastCGI?

    - by Peterim
    Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Perl, so asking here. Actually I'm using FCGI with Perl. I need to 1. accept a POST request - 2. send it via POST to another url - 3. get results - 4. return results to the first POST request (4 steps). To accept a POST request (step 1) I use the following code (found it somewhere in the Internet): $ENV{'REQUEST_METHOD'} =~ tr/a-z/A-Z/; if ($ENV{'REQUEST_METHOD'} eq "POST") { read(STDIN, $buffer, $ENV{'CONTENT_LENGTH'}); } else { print ("some error"); } @pairs = split(/&/, $buffer); foreach $pair (@pairs) { ($name, $value) = split(/=/, $pair); $value =~ tr/+/ /; $value =~ s/%(..)/pack("C", hex($1))/eg; $FORM{$name} = $value; } The content of $name (it's a string) is the result of the first step. Now I need to send $name via POST request to some_url (step 2) which returns me another result (step 3), which I have to return as a result to the very first POST request (step 4). Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • What is actually happening to this cancelled HTTP request?

    - by Brian Schroth
    When a user takes a particular action on a page, an AJAX call is made to save their data. Unfortunately, this call is synchronous as they need to wait to see if the data is valid before being allowed to continue. Obviously, this eliminates a lot of the benefit of using Asynchronous Javascript And XML, but that's a subject for another post. That's the design I'm working with. The request is made using the dojo.xhrPost function, with a 60s timeout parameter, and the error handler redirects to an error page. What I am finding in testing is that in Firefox, if I initiate the ajax request and then press ESC, the page hangs waiting for a response, and then eventually after exactly 90s (not 60s, the function's timeout), the error handler will kick in and redirect to the error page. I expected this to happen, but either immediately as soon as the request was cancelled, or after 60s due to the timeout value being 60s. What I don't understand is why is it 90s? What is actually happening under the hood when the user cancels their request in Firefox, and how does it differ from IE, where everything works fine exactly the same as if the request had not been cancelled? Is the 90s related to any user-configurable browser settings?

    Read the article

  • Rails: how can I access the request object outside a helper or controller?

    - by rlandster
    In my application_helper.rb file I have a function like this: def internal_request? server_name = request.env['SERVER_NAME'] [plus more code...] end This function is needed in controllers, model, and views. So, I put this code in a utility function file in the lib/ directory. However, this did not work: I got complaints about request not being defined. How can I access the request object in a file in the lib/ directory?

    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 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

  • 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

  • Splitting big request in multiple small ajax requests

    - by Ionut
    I am unsure regarding the scalability of the following model. I have no experience at all with large systems, big number of requests and so on but I'm trying to build some features considering scalability first. In my scenario there is a user page which contains data for: User's details (name, location, workplace ...) User's activity (blog posts, comments...) User statistics (rating, number of friends...) In order to show all this on the same page, for a request there will be at least 3 different database queries on the back-end. In some cases, I imagine that those queries will be running quite a wile, therefore the user experience may suffer while waiting between requests. This is why I decided to run only step 1 (User's details) as a normal request. After the response is received, two ajax requests are sent for steps 2 and 3. When those responses are received, I only place the data in the destined wrappers. For me at least this makes more sense. However there are 3 requests instead of one for every user page view. Will this affect the system on the long term? I'm assuming that this kind of approach requires more resources but is this trade of UX for resources a good dial or should I stick to one plain big request?

    Read the article

  • 401 Unauthorized returned on GET request (https) with correct credentials

    - by Johnny Grass
    I am trying to login to my web app using HttpWebRequest but I keep getting the following error: System.Net.WebException: The remote server returned an error: (401) Unauthorized. Fiddler has the following output: Result Protocol Host URL 200 HTTP CONNECT mysite.com:443 302 HTTPS mysite.com /auth 401 HTTP mysite.com /auth This is what I'm doing: // to ignore SSL certificate errors public bool AcceptAllCertifications(object sender, System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates.X509Certificate certification, System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates.X509Chain chain, System.Net.Security.SslPolicyErrors sslPolicyErrors) { return true; } try { // request Uri uri = new Uri("https://mysite.com/auth"); HttpWebRequest request = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create(uri) as HttpWebRequest; request.Accept = "application/xml"; // authentication string user = "user"; string pwd = "secret"; string auth = "Basic " + Convert.ToBase64String(System.Text.Encoding.Default.GetBytes(user + ":" + pwd)); request.Headers.Add("Authorization", auth); ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback = new System.Net.Security.RemoteCertificateValidationCallback(AcceptAllCertifications); // response. HttpWebResponse response = (HttpWebResponse)request.GetResponse(); // Display Stream dataStream = response.GetResponseStream(); StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(dataStream); string responseFromServer = reader.ReadToEnd(); Console.WriteLine(responseFromServer); // Cleanup reader.Close(); dataStream.Close(); response.Close(); } catch (WebException webEx) { Console.Write(webEx.ToString()); } I am able to log in to the same site with no problem using ASIHTTPRequest in a Mac app like this: NSURL *login_url = [NSURL URLWithString:@"https://mysite.com/auth"]; ASIHTTPRequest *request = [ASIHTTPRequest requestWithURL:login_url]; [request setDelegate:self]; [request setUsername:name]; [request setPassword:pwd]; [request setRequestMethod:@"GET"]; [request addRequestHeader:@"Accept" value:@"application/xml"]; [request startAsynchronous];

    Read the article

  • A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected: Dealing with these errors proactively, or a

    - by Albert
    I'm noticing this error more and more in my error logs. I've read through the questions here talking about this error, but they don't address what I would like to do (see below). I'm considering three options, in the order of preference: 1) When submitting a form (I use formviews almost exclusively, if that helps), if potentially dangerous characters are detected, automatically strip them out and submit. 2) When submitting a form, if potentially dangerous characters are detected, alert the user and let them fix it before trying again. 3) After the exception is generated, deal with it and alert the user. I'm hoping one of the first two options might be able to do somewhat globally...I know for the 3rd I'd have to alter a TON of Try-Catch blocks I already have in place. Doable, but labor intensive. I'd rather be proactive about it if at all possible and avoid the exception all together. Perhaps one approach to #1 would be to write a block of code that could loop through all text entry fields in a formview, during the insert/update event, and strip the characters out. I'm ok with that, but I'd rather not have to heavily alter all my Insert/Update events to accomplish this. Or maybe I just create a different class to do the text checking/deleting, and only insert 1 line of code in each Insert/Update event. If anyone can come up with some example code of any of these approaches that would be a help. Thanks for any ideas or information. I'm definitely open to other solutions too; these are only the 3 that came to mind. I can say that I don't want to turn request validation off though.

    Read the article

  • Request Removal of naked domain from Google Index

    - by Pedr
    I have a site which was temporarily available at both example.com and www.example.com. All traffic to example.com is now redirected to www.example.com, however during the brief period that the site was available at the naked domain, Google indexed it. So Google now has two versions of every page indexed: www.example.com www.example.com/about_us www.example.com/products/something ... and example.com example.com/about_us example.com/products/something ... For obvious reasons, this is a bad situation, so how can I best resolve it? Should I request removal of these pages from the index? There is still content at these URLs, but they now redirect to the www subdomain equivalent. The site has many hundreds of pages, but the only way I can see to request removal is via the Remove outdated content screen in Webmaster Tools, one URL at a time. How can I request removal of an entire domain (ie. the naked domain) without it effecting the true site located at the www subdomain? Is this the correct strategy given that all the naked domains now redirect to their www equivalent?

    Read the article

  • How dangerous can javascript be?

    - by CrazyJugglerDrummer
    I have recently started using noscript (in addition to ABP). It took a little while to get used to it and can occasionally require some clicking when visiting a new site to investigate why the site's not working and where I need to allow javascript from. Is the extra security worth it? Some of the controversy is discussed here. I suppose it boils down to a matter of whether javascript is a genuine threat to your computer or not. Any thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • Set process priority to High: Dangerous?

    - by eek142
    I have read that setting something to realtime is a big no-no, so I am not going to do that. But I do have an application that I need to make sure always has the highest priority on my system as it is critical for the rest of the applications I am running. Is there any danger in setting the priority to high, which is one level below realtime? Also, how would I be able to do this by changing the shortcut target? What is the command?

    Read the article

  • Forward spam is dangerous for my domain repute?

    - by Memiux
    I have Postfix with spamassassin and forward the emails (including spam) to gmail.com, my problem is that when I send "legitimate" emails to gmail.com it is marked as spam, I've done everything that the guidelines said like signing with DKIM, setup a SPF for my domains, require authentication for outbound mails, etc. Now I wonder what I'm doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Change HttpContext.Request.InputStream

    - by user320478
    I am getting lot of errors for HttpRequestValidationException in my event log. Is it possible to HTMLEncode all the inputs from override of ProcessRequest on web page. I have tried this but it gives context.Request.InputStream.CanWrite == false always. Is there any way to HTMLEncode all the feilds when request is made? public override void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { if (context.Request.InputStream.CanRead) { IEnumerator en = HttpContext.Current.Request.Form.GetEnumerator(); while (en.MoveNext()) { //Response.Write(Server.HtmlEncode(en.Current + " = " + //HttpContext.Current.Request.Form[(string)en.Current])); } long nLen = context.Request.InputStream.Length; if (nLen > 0) { string strInputStream = string.Empty; context.Request.InputStream.Position = 0; byte[] bytes = new byte[nLen]; context.Request.InputStream.Read(bytes, 0, Convert.ToInt32(nLen)); strInputStream = Encoding.Default.GetString(bytes); if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(strInputStream)) { List<string> stream = strInputStream.Split('&').ToList<string>(); Dictionary<int, string> data = new Dictionary<int, string>(); if (stream != null && stream.Count > 0) { int index = 0; foreach (string str in stream) { if (str.Length > 3 && str.Substring(0, 3) == "txt") { string textBoxData = str; string temp = Server.HtmlEncode(str); //stream[index] = temp; data.Add(index, temp); index++; } } if (data.Count > 0) { List<string> streamNew = stream; foreach (KeyValuePair<int, string> kvp in data) { streamNew[kvp.Key] = kvp.Value; } string newStream = string.Join("", streamNew.ToArray()); byte[] bytesNew = Encoding.Default.GetBytes(newStream); if (context.Request.InputStream.CanWrite) { context.Request.InputStream.Flush(); context.Request.InputStream.Position = 0; context.Request.InputStream.Write(bytesNew, 0, bytesNew.Length); //Request.InputStream.Close(); //Request.InputStream.Dispose(); } } } } } } base.ProcessRequest(context); }

    Read the article

  • A potentially dangerous Request.Form value in MVC 2 & ASP.NET 4.0

    - by Veton
    When I trying to send form containing value with xml, I get HttpRequestValidationException: A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client All approaches I found: <%@ Page ValidateRequest="false" %> in .aspx-file. <pages validateRequest="false" /> in web.config. [ValidateInput(false)] on controller's action. don't help me. Hope for any advice.

    Read the article

  • Is this a dangerous locking pattern?

    - by Martin
    I have an enumerator written in C#, which looks something like this: try { ReadWriteLock.EnterReadLock(); yield foo; yield bar; yield bash; } finally { ReadWriteLock.ExitReadLock(); } I believe this may be a dangerous locking pattern, as the ReadWriteLock will only be released if the enumeration is complete, otherwise the lock is left hanging and is never released, am I correct? If so, what's the best way to combat this?

    Read the article

  • A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client

    - by Dofs
    I am using CKEditor/CKFinder as wysiwyg editor on my MVC.NET site. I have set [ValidateInput(false)] and it works when debugging it locally, but I receive the following error when I have published the site: A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client (message="<p> <em>Testing</e..."). can anyone explain why the published site is different from the locally site, especially when I have set [ValidateInput(false)]?

    Read the article

  • How to remove dangerous characters(ie script tags)?

    - by chobo2
    I am wondering is there any sort of C# class or 3rd party library that removes dangerous characters such as script tags? I know you can use regex but I also know people can write their script tags so many ways that you can fool the regex into thinking it is OK. I also heard that HTML Agility Pack is good so I am wondering is there any script removal class made for it?

    Read the article

  • Best place to request Ubuntu for a minor improvement (In Unity dash search)

    - by mac
    Which is the best place to request Ubuntu for a minor improvement? My request feature is this : In Ubuntu dash when I search for "Upd" it gives me update manager and some other files. Now when I click enter by default the first entry will be selected. Can we make this a slightly better experience by highlighting the first item in search results which will be selected by default if we press enter - Just like in Gnome shell Search for upd in unity dash Search for upd in gnome-shell If you notice, update manager is highlighted by default in gnome shell and appears more intuitive. Can we implement the same in Unity ? Sorry for posting this in askubuntu. I just wanted to know which is the best place to discuss this. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Request Validation in ASP.NET 4.0

    - by Ben Bastiaensen
    Up to ASP.NET 3.5 Request Validation is enabled by default. In order to to disable this for a page you needed to set the ValidationRequest property in the page directive to false. This is no longer the default case in ASP.NET 4.0. If you want to use this behaviour you need to add the follwing setting in web.config  <httpRuntime requestValidationMode="2.0" /> Of course you need to check all input in the page for XSS or other malicious input if you set the pages request validation to false.

    Read the article

  • An alternative way to request read reciepts

    - by lavanyadeepak
    An alternative way to request read reciepts Sometime or other we use messaging namespaces like System.Net.Mail or System.Web.Mail to send emails from our applications. When we would need to include headers to request delivery or return reciepts (often called as Message Disposition Notifications) we lock ourselves to the limitation that not all email servers/email clients can satisfy this. We can enhance this border a little now, thanks to a new innovation I discovered from Gawab. It embeds a small invisible image of 1x1 dimension and the image source reads as recieptimg.php?id=2323425324. When this image is requested by the web browser or email client, the serverside handler does a smart mapping based on the ID to indicate that the message was read. We call them as 'Web Bugs'. But wait it is not a fool proof solution since spammers misuse this technique to confirm activeness of an email address and most of the email clients suppress inline images for security reasons. I just thought anyway would share this observation for the benefit of others.

    Read the article

  • Hotel Reservation Request Booking Paypal PHP

    - by Robert
    I'm making a website for a small hotel in php. The hotel owners want a reservation system that uses paypal. They want people to see a calendar and choose a date to make a reservation. If the day has vacancy, they want the user to request booking a room. This would then require the hotel owner to accept the purchase. I have not worked on a project that has this "request to purchase" method of buying with paypal. Is this possible? Does anyone know of an open php system that handles this? THANKS :)

    Read the article

  • Silverlight 3.0 and ADO.NET data service framework(An error occurred while processing this request)

    - by ybbest
    Today , I try to write a Silverlight app that talks to SharePoint 2010 using the REST API.However after deploy the silverlight app and run the code , I got the following error.In order to fix this I need to make the target framework of your caller application to 4.0,in this case I need to use Silverlight 4.0 instead 3.0.After I have done that and redeploy the solution to the SharePoint.It works like a charm.   Exceptions details: System.Data.Services.Client.DataServiceQueryException: An error occurred while processing this request. Request version ’1.0′ is too low for the response. The lowest supported version is ’2.0′. However , if you got the error like this: Could not load type ‘System.Data.Services.Providers.IDataServiceUpdateProvider’ from assembly ‘System.Data.Services, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089′,then you need to install ADO.NET Data Services Update for .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 ,you can download here (for windowns 7 and server 2008 r2 ) or here (for windows vista of server 2008).

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >