• Sock Puppet 1 (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 2
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
  • Sock Puppet 3 (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 1
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
  • Sock Puppets 1 and 2 (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 3
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
  • Peter Johnson (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppets 1 and 2
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
  • (cs) in reply to Peter Johnson
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
  • pjt33 (unregistered) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    But, the concept that an end user wouldn't have the right to restart a desktop application is pretty ridiculous.
    Not necessarily. The idea that a user without execute permissions on an app should have write permissions to its config files is a stretch, but that's as far as you can go.
  • Jack Black (unregistered) in reply to Lockwood
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Hey! Put down the axe!
  • Liamm (unregistered) in reply to Lockwood

    To better represent this WTF the nested quotes above should be in one line. Preferably in the config file...

    Captcha: praesent (Definition: not quite now)

  • (cs) in reply to pjt33
    pjt33:
    Jaime:
    But, the concept that an end user wouldn't have the right to restart a desktop application is pretty ridiculous.
    Not necessarily. The idea that a user without execute permissions on an app should have write permissions to its config files is a stretch, but that's as far as you can go.
    Restart, not start. If they didn't have execute permissions, then how would they have run it the first time?
  • John Bobbit (unregistered) in reply to Lockwood
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
  • frits (unregistered) in reply to John Bobbit
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
  • fake frits #17 (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
  • (cs) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    But, the concept that an end user wouldn't have the right to restart a desktop application is pretty ridiculous. Therefore, blah blah still-missing-the-point blah...
    Yes, it would be ridiculous, but I never suggested such a concept. If it's a desktop app, then yes, they most likely have rights to change the config and most likely have rights to restart the app. That is still assuming that it is a desktop app.
    Jaime:
    Hence, your original question implies a web app or service.
    No, it does nothing more than question your assumption that it is not a web app/service.
  • (cs) in reply to fake frits #17
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
  • (cs) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    pjt33:
    Not necessarily. The idea that a user without execute permissions on an app should have write permissions to its config files is a stretch, but that's as far as you can go.
    Restart, not start. If they didn't have execute permissions, then how would they have run it the first time?
    I think he's going with the idea that multiple users may be using the same desktop environment. User A (the attacker) doesn't have access to modify the config for User B's (the victim's) desktop app.

    Not that attacks can only be between two users. It could easily be a single user modifying his own config because he himself doesn't have database access.

  • Boog Knight (unregistered)

    If I had to promote this crap to production, I'd arrange a drive-by shooting on the developer.

  • fake frits #17 (unregistered) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, hell.
  • What do you expect from a Agile company (unregistered)

    I'd have to say this is a disnormal DB. It needs to be locked up in a padded room and never spoken about again.

  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Jaime:
    But, the concept that an end user wouldn't have the right to restart a desktop application is pretty ridiculous. Therefore, blah blah still-missing-the-point blah...
    Yes, it would be ridiculous, but I never suggested such a concept. If it's a desktop app, then yes, they most likely have rights to change the config and most likely have rights to restart the app. That is still assuming that it is a desktop app.
    Jaime:
    Hence, your original question implies a web app or service.
    No, it does nothing more than question your assumption that it is not a web app/service.
    It is most likely neither a web app or a service. If it were a web app, then the article would have used the term "web.config" instead of "app.config". It's probably not a service because a service is not a very good application type for a reporting application. That leaves the most likely candidate as a desktop application.

    Also, I never made an assumption. I was responding to posters who dismissed the user modifying the config file as a legitimate attack vector. I simply said it was legitimate because this could be a desktop app. Contradicting me requires an assertion that it is a server-side application. So, do you want to agree that config file modification is a legitimate attack vector, or do you want to continue saying I'm wrong (in which case you are also saying that it is absolutely a server-side application)

  • The Corrector (unregistered) in reply to fake frits #17
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
  • Bert Glanstron (unregistered) in reply to The Corrector
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

  • Sock Puppet 1 (unregistered) in reply to Bert Glanstron
    Bert Glanstron:
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

    Don't say that, I love Remy!

  • Sock Puppet 2 (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 1
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Bert Glanstron:
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

    Don't say that, I love Remy!
    Me too! Especially his 'corns!

  • Sock Puppet 1 (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 2
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Bert Glanstron:
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

    Don't say that, I love Remy!
    Me too! Especially his 'corns!
    I heard one of his posts was nominated for a Pulitzer!

  • Sock Puppet 2 (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 1
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Bert Glanstron:
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

    Don't say that, I love Remy!
    Me too! Especially his 'corns!
    I heard one of his posts was nominated for a Pulitzer!
    We're all just darned socks!

  • dryer (unregistered)

    So this is where all the socks go when I poop.

  • (cs) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    If it were a web app, then the article would have used the term "web.config" instead of "app.config".
    I can't trust the config's filename as a strong indicator of anything. The code's author clearly doesn't follow best practices; who's to say he employed proper filename conventions? Even assuming he did, the filename could have easily been altered for the sake of posting on this site.
    Jaime:
    I simply said it was legitimate because this could be a desktop app. Contradicting me requires an assertion that it is a server-side application.
    Not once did I contradict you. Originally you didn't specify the "desktop app" condition, so you (unintentionally) made an assumption. I pointed out that the attack is only possible if the attacker has access to modify the config file, which is true (web app, desktop app, or otherwise). My original post to you was completely valid; I'm not sure what all the fuss is over.
    Jaime:
    ...do you want to continue saying I'm wrong...
    Again, I never said you were wrong (I even read through my previous posts to verify).
  • 98052 (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 2
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Bert Glanstron:
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

    Don't say that, I love Remy!
    Me too! Especially his 'corns!
    I heard one of his posts was nominated for a Pulitzer!
    We're all just darned socks!
    I haven't been darned. Perhaps I haven't been used enough to become holey.

  • Pope Pius X (unregistered) in reply to 98052
    98052:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Bert Glanstron:
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

    Don't say that, I love Remy!
    Me too! Especially his 'corns!
    I heard one of his posts was nominated for a Pulitzer!
    We're all just darned socks!
    I haven't been damned. Perhaps I haven't been used enough to become holy.
    FTFY

  • Sock Puppet 1 (unregistered) in reply to Pope Pius X
    Pope Pius X:
    98052:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Bert Glanstron:
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

    Don't say that, I love Remy!
    Me too! Especially his 'corns!
    I heard one of his posts was nominated for a Pulitzer!
    We're all just darned socks!
    I haven't been damned. Perhaps I haven't been used enough to become holy.
    FTFY
    It's all good fun until somebody gets the Pope involved.

  • Sock Puppet 2 (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 1
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Pope Pius X:
    98052:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Bert Glanstron:
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

    Don't say that, I love Remy!
    Me too! Especially his 'corns!
    I heard one of his posts was nominated for a Pulitzer!
    We're all just darned socks!
    I haven't been damned. Perhaps I haven't been used enough to become holy.
    FTFY
    It's all good fun until somebody gets the Pope involved.
    I guess there's more than one way to create a vertical sine wave that increases in amplitude...

  • Alexandre Moreira (unregistered) in reply to BC
    BC:
    I don't get what this code is supposed to do. My best guess is that it tries to delete all of human history?

    Not delete. REPLACE is the key word here. ;)

  • Sock Puppet 1 (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 2
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Pope Pius X:
    98052:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Bert Glanstron:
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

    Don't say that, I love Remy!
    Me too! Especially his 'corns!
    I heard one of his posts was nominated for a Pulitzer!
    We're all just darned socks!
    I haven't been damned. Perhaps I haven't been used enough to become holy.
    FTFY
    It's all good fun until somebody gets the Pope involved.
    I guess there's more than one way to create a vertical sine wave that increases in amplitude...
    Like what, brain?

  • TeaDrinker (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 1
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Pope Pius X:
    98052:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Bert Glanstron:
    The Corrector:
    fake frits #17:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    fake frits #17:
    frits:
    John Bobbit:
    Lockwood:
    Peter Johnson:
    Sock Puppets 1 and 2:
    Sock Puppet 3:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?
    Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".
    This is fun, can I play?
    No, I only have two hands.
    You have me.
    And my axe!
    Not this again...
    Who hasn't done something like this?
    I haven't.
    You have now!
    Oh, he'll.
    FTFY
    . Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

    Don't say that, I love Remy!
    Me too! Especially his 'corns!
    I heard one of his posts was nominated for a Pulitzer!
    We're all just darned socks!
    I haven't been damned. Perhaps I haven't been used enough to become holy.
    FTFY
    It's all good fun until somebody gets the Pope involved.
    I guess there's more than one way to create a vertical sine wave that increases in amplitude...
    Like what, brain?
    Well an unconstrained positive feedback loop would do that for you.

  • Michael Scott (unregistered) in reply to TeaDrinker

    [quote user="Sock Puppet 1"][quote user="Sock Puppet 2"][quote user="Sock Puppet 1"][quote user="Sock Puppet 2"][quote user="Sock Puppet 1"][quote user="TeaDrinker"][quote user="Sock Puppet 1"][quote user="Sock Puppet 2"][quote user="Sock Puppet 1"][quote user="Pope Pius X"][quote user="98052"][quote user="Sock Puppet 2"][quote user="Sock Puppet 1"][quote user="Sock Puppet 2"][quote user="Sock Puppet 1"][quote user="Bert Glanstron"][quote user="The Corrector"][quote user="fake frits #17"][quote user="ObiWayneKenobi"][quote user="fake frits #17"][quote user="frits"][quote user="John Bobbit"][quote user="Lockwood"][quote user="Peter Johnson"][quote user="Sock Puppets 1 and 2"][quote user="Sock Puppet 3"][quote user="Sock Puppet 1"][quote user="Sock Puppet 2"][quote user="Sock Puppet 1"][quote user="Sock Puppet 2"][quote user="Sock Puppet 1"]That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.[/quote] That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.[/quote] My point is that they haven't published an article today.[/quote] Then why do they call it the daily wtf?[/quote] Good question. They have a very liberal interpretation of "daily".[/quote] This is fun, can I play?[/quote] No, I only have two hands.[/quote] You have me.[/quote] And my axe![/quote] Not this again...[/quote] Who hasn't done something like this?[/quote] I haven't. [/quote] You have now![/quote] Oh, he'll. [/quote] FTFY[/quote]. Dear Remy,

    In case you haven't noticed, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on writing posts with sock puppets instead of posting an article clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid for unicorns.

    Go away and grow up.

    Sincerely, Bert Glanstron[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote] Don't say that, I love Remy![/quote] Me too! Especially his 'corns![/quote] I heard one of his posts was nominated for a Pulitzer![/quote] We're all just darned socks![/quote] I haven't been damned. Perhaps I haven't been used enough to become holy.[/quote] FTFY[/quote] It's all good fun until somebody gets the Pope involved.[/quote] I guess there's more than one way to create a vertical sine wave that increases in amplitude...[/quote] Like what, brain?[/quote] Well an unconstrained positive feedback loop would do that for you.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote] That's what she said.

  • PRMan (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    by:
    Views and functions can't be indexed...
    Not so. Several databases do support indexing functions/expressions, and some even support indexes on views.
    by:
    ...(at least not views that come from more than one table, which defeats the purpose of views IMO)... At least if it's a join, the query optimizer may be able to make the query a little more effecient than it is written.
    I believe that in most cases (if not all), the view becomes part of the query, so it's fair game for the optimizer as well. Views don't typically store data, just the SQL that identifies them, so the optimizer must parse the view as well as the rest of the query.

    Of course this means that views generally don't need indexes, because the underlying (multiple) tables' indexes are at the optimizer's disposal.

    Correct, sir. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Views are a performance nightmare..." to which I respond "Prove it" and they can't, because it's exactly the same as running the corresponding query.

  • junior (unregistered) in reply to Sock Puppet 2
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    Sock Puppet 2:
    Sock Puppet 1:
    That's funny, I thought I read this article yesterday.
    That's funny, I thought I read this comment earlier.
    My point is that they haven't published an article today.
    Then why do they call it the daily wtf?

    That's a WTF....

  • junior (unregistered) in reply to PRMan

    [quote user="PRManCorrect, sir. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Views are a performance nightmare..." to which I respond "Prove it" and they can't, because it's exactly the same as running the corresponding query.[/quote]

    The correct statement is "Views used to be a performance nightmare".

    15 years ago only systems designed for small dataasets with a small number of users were capable of complex optimisation -- that and the lack of declaritive referential integrity were the part of the compromise for systems designed for fast operation on a lot of data for a lot of users.

    fast-large-featured: pick any two.

  • (cs) in reply to shanghai coder
    shanghai coder:
    American Maid:
    shanghai coder:
    coyo:
    shanghai coder:
    Aha, another masterpiece of US deep wizardry. If all your code is like that, it is no wonder that being afraid of things is part of your lifestyle. At first, it was indians you were afraid of, then black ppl, then japanese, and now it is everything.

    US programmers so useless ...

    Tibet! Boogah Boogah! We're all the same.

    What is Tibet? China has most population. You kill indians and eskimos. We have big firewall to not be afraid of US script kids. Only thing better in US is that your mothers are bitches and f*ckable.

    Enjoy getting run over by tanks, if that incident hasn't been scrubbed from your cultural memory yet.

    Hahaha. That old chinese joke. You americans think that really happened? Hahaha. It is from a movie, and George Bush or some fucker has taken it for serious. I am glad we have firewall. Hahaha.

    Reminds of another story. The guy was called Adolf something but many say he never did anything bad to people he didn't like.

  • (cs) in reply to nobis_likecaptcha
    nobis_likecaptcha:
    This has to be the worst part:

    LEFT OUTER JOIN Notes Notes_CCList ON Notes_CCList.handle = Documents.CCListDBA LEFT OUTER join DTConfigurations ON DTConfigurations.ServerGUID = Documents.ServerGUID LEFT OUTER JOIN Globalization HistoryGeneric_Detail ON

    I f*ing hate inconsistency.

    But here we have consistent inconsistency. Now what do you do?

    • Walk left
    • Walk right
    • Do not find file
  • (cs) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    boog:
    Jaime:
    You missed my point... Even if the application did everything right, an attacker could simply change the config to make it vulnerable to injection.
    That's assuming an attack has access to change the config and restart the application. This is far less likely, but could be a good argument to put the SQL in a view instead of a config file, since an attacker is also unlikely to have CREATE VIEW privileges in the database.
    The phrase "restart the application" seems to imply that you think this is web app. Why? The article's wording is "app.config". That phrasing is usually used with desktop apps and services.

    Oh you kids!

    "app.config" obviously means append.config and is therefore read in the header of each page/form/report. Web app or desktop app, doesn't matter.

  • phil232 (unregistered)

    Didn't anybody notice that the number of documents is "Y" and "N"?

    CASE (Documents.Flags & 0x8) WHEN 0 THEN 'N' ELSE 'Y' END AS NBR_DOCUMENTS_DELETED,

           CASE (Documents.Flags & 0x4)
          WHEN 0 THEN 'N'
          ELSE 'Y' END AS NBR_DOCUMENTS_VIEWED,
  • T.C (unregistered)

    I'm waiting for the moron that states it should be in a stored procedure.

  • (cs) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    If you do you will have to take the responsibility when the business people notice that the results are different from what they were before. And if you tell them at that moment that YOU made this change I don't want to be in your shoes.

    Speaking from experience, it's more fun when the original report was outright wrong and performed incorrect calculations, and you're told to change the new one back to give bad results so it matches the old reports.

    That's so true, you can probably find 3 web-comics and a Dilbert with a similar joke!

    Before i started working here, someone found a bug in one of our calculations, they fixed it, but one of our biggest customers absolutely had to have the old calculation. Consistency of the measurement was more important, for their manufacturing, than a correct value; it would have taken far more work for them to re-calibrate their process, or figure out how to correct the old data, than to just use the (consistently) incorrect calculation.

  • (cs) in reply to BC
    BC:
    I don't get what this code is supposed to do. My best guess is that it tries to delete all of human history?

    Nah. It tries to replace all of human history.

  • (cs) in reply to mott555
    mott555:
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    mott555:
    Does this even work? It appears to be an SQL query but it has C-style comments inside it!

    As we say in MMOs: "wat"

    C-style comments work perfectly fine within SQL. I really hope this comment was a joke.

    I honestly didn't know C-style comments worked in SQL. Learned something new today.

    It would depend on the SQL engine, and what is preprocessing the statement, if anything.

    In IBM DB2 statements in COBOL, you can use COBOL comments (and not the --) because the preprocessor is COBOL-specific.

    You'll only know for sure if you try...

  • (cs) in reply to Abso
    Abso:
    dgvid:
    In a config file?! Good grief. This is what the Windows Registry is there for people!

    Don't be silly. Registry entries are limited to 1024 characters.

    Don't be silly. That just means you need more entries:

    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SillySoft\BigApp\Doc\History\Report\Sql\Statement\1\SqlServer\v1r3\NumParts HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SillySoft\BigApp\Doc\History\Report\Sql\Statement\1\SqlServer\v1r3\1 HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SillySoft\BigApp\Doc\History\Report\Sql\Statement\1\SqlServer\v1r3\2 HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SillySoft\BigApp\Doc\History\Report\Sql\Statement\1\SqlServer\v1r3\3

  • jr (unregistered)

    all I can say is ... that was awesome .. made my long day! :)

  • shanghai coder (unregistered) in reply to Capt. Cavemerica
    Capt. Cavemerica:
    shanghai coder:
    Only thing better is that your mothers are bitches and f*ckable.

    Isn't that what the Japanese said about China during WWII?

    So what you american troll?

  • shanghai coder (unregistered) in reply to ClaudeSuck.de
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    shanghai coder:
    Hahaha. That old chinese joke. You americans think that really happened? Hahaha. It is from a movie, and George Bush or some fucker has taken it for serious. I am glad we have firewall. Hahaha.

    Reminds of another story. The guy was called Adolf something but many say he never did anything bad to people he didn't like.

    See it like this, blindbeliever: Who makes history? You little coder? Or the media available in your limited life sphere? So? Aha.

    You know, I am from China, living nearby the place of the claimed incident, and such incident didn't happen. There were some students, and then our benevolent leader came and kindly asked them to not block the entrance. US terrorists then mixed this up with the newest video of Vader that has never been released because of that. Did you see that Vader video? No? See, this is a proof.

Leave a comment on “All In The Config”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article