I am using this great encrypt/decrypt package.
It encrypts data before prePersist and decrypts is automatically postPersist.
At one part of my project I need the plain (encrypted) value from the database, is that in any way possible?
I identified this (processFields) as the right function to change I believe, but what do I have to do?
I changed Line 277 to $entity->$setter($getInformation); but 1. that means NONE of the values are decrypted, and 2. it does not seem to have any effect though.
How do you retrieve the data to be decrypted? IF you use standard DQL, when hidratate the object you have the plain data. Otherwise you need to do by yourself thru the exposed service, something like, example in a controller:
$pain = $this->get('ambta_doctrine_encrypt.encryptor')-> decrypt($encrypted);
Hope this help
Related
In firestore, request.resource.data.size() is equivalent to the size of the document in its final form. My question is, how can I get the parameters that are being sent from the client?
Meaning, if I the client tries to update the property name, then I want to check if the client has updated name and the size of the parameters he sent is just one parameter. I would've used hasExact() if it existed, but the problem is that I'm not sure if there's an object the specifies the requested parameters.
With the current request.resource.data.size(), I'm not sure how can do the following operations:
Deny writing updatedAt property (which is being updated as the server timestamp on each update) without an additional property.
Deny updating a property that is already equivalent to the requested value.
It's difficult to tell from your question exactly what you want to do. It doesn't sound like the size of the update is the only thing you need to be looking at. Without a more concrete example, I am just going to guess what you need
But you should know that request.resource.data is a Map type object. Click through to the linked API documentation to find out what you can do with a Map. That map will contain all the fields of a document that's being updated by the client. If you want the value of one of those fields, you can say request.resource.data.f where f is the name of the field. This should help you express your logic.
If you want the value of an existing field of a document, before it's written, use the map resource.data, which works the same way.
Is there a standard way to create unique web page address in ASP.NET? I'm sending surveys to customers and will be including a link to the web page. For example:
http://www.mysurveypages.foo/survey/UniqueID
I would then customize the survey based on who I sent it to. I know it can be done by passing in a unique parameter to a page but I curious about doing it this way.
You can use Routing to map your url structure onto a particular page and parameter collection. Essentially, it allows you to convert parts of the url into url parameters for your page. This works in standard WebForms and is the basis upon which MVC chooses the appropriate controller/action signature to invoke.
Yup like dcp said GUID is a reasonable solution http://mywebsite.com/survey.aspx?ID=GUID
Suppose you are going to sent the survey to a list of users.
List<User> users = GetSurveyUsers();
foreach(User u in users)
{
Guid guid = Guid.NewGuid();
//Then store the user-guid pair into DB or XML...
}
The simplest solution would seem to be making UniqueID an incrementing field that can be used to get the appropriate user information out of the database. You could use numbers, or a Guid, or some alpha-numeric value, it really doesn't matter.
If you go with ASP.Net MVC then it is quite easy to map the Url (like the one you specified) to a controller action which gets the ID passed in as a parameter. Otherwise you will probably want to look into some sort of Url rewriting to make sure the Url can be nice and pretty.
A GUID approach is safest, if you're able to store it somewhere. If not you could use some existing unique data (e.g. customer id or email address) either directly (but be careful about leaking sensitive data) or hashed (but need to consider collisions).
I have a document based on a xml structure that I have stored in a CouchDB database.
Some of the keys contains namespaces and are on the form "namespace:key":
{"mykey": {"nested:key": "nested value"}}
In the map function, I want to emit the nested value as a key, but the colon inside the name makes it hard...
emit(doc.mykey.nested:key, doc) <-- will not work.
Does anyone know how this can be solved?
A hint that its all just JSON and JavaScript got me some new ideas for searching.
It may be that colon in json keys ain't valid, but I found a way. By looking at the doc object as an hash, I can access my value in the following manner:
Doc.mykey['nested:key']
It works - for now...
That's because Couch is a JSON based document DB, and doc.mykey.nested:key is not a valid JSON identifier. JSON identifiers must match JavaScripts identifiers, and : is not a valid identifier character.
So, the simple answer is: "No, this won't and can't work". You need to change your identifiers.
Actually, I should qualify that.
Couch can use pretty much ANYTHING for it's views et al, and, in theory, works with any payload. But out of the box, it's just JavaScript and JSON.
I am building a site in which we are making moderate use of email templates. As in, HTML templates which we pass tokens into like {UserName}, {Email}, {NameFirst}, etc.
I am struggling with where to store these, as far as best practice goes. I'll first show the approach I took, and I'd be really excited to hear some expert perspective as a far as alternate approaches.
I created HTML templates in a folder called /Templates/.
I call a static method in my service layer, which takes in the following arguments:
UserName
UserID
Email
TemplatePath ("~/Templates")
Email Subject
Within the service layer I have my static method SendUserEmail() which makes use of a Template class - which takes a path, loads it as a string, and has a AddToken() Method.
Within my static SendUserEmail(), I build the token list off of the method signature, and send the email.
This makes for a quite long method call in my actual usage, especially since I am calling from the web.config the "TemplatePath", and "Email Subject". I could create a utility that has a shorter method call than the ConfigurationManager.AppSettings, but my concern is more that I don't usually see method signatures this long and I feel like it's because I'm doing something wrong.
This technique works great for the emails I have now, which at the most are using the first 3 tokens. However in the future I will have more tokens to pass in, and I'm just wondering what approach to take.
Do I create methods specific to the email needing to be sent? ie. SendNewUserRegistration(), SendMarketingMaterial(), and each has a different signature for the parameters?
I am using ASP.NET Membership, which contains probably the extend of all the fields I'll ever need. There are three main objects, aspnet_User, aspnet_Mebership and aspnet_profile. If it was all contained in one object, I would have just passed that in. Is there performance concerns with passing in all 3, to get all the fields I need? That is versus just passing in aspnet_User.UserID, aspnet_User.Email, etc?
I could see passing in a dictionary with the token entries, but I'm just wondering if that is too much to ask the calling page?
Is there a way to stick these in a config file of it's own called Templates.config, which has tags like -
<Templates>
<EmailTemplate Name="New User Registration">
<Tokens>
<UserName>
<UserID>
<Email>
</Tokens>
<Message Subject="Hi welcome...">
Hi {UserName}...
</Message>
</EmailTemplate>
</Templates>
I guess the main reason I'm asking, is because I'm having a hard time determining where the responsibility should be as far as determining what template to use, and how to pass in parameters. Is it OK if the calling page has to build the dictionary of TokenName, TokenValue? Or should the method take each in as a defined parameter? This looks out of place in the web.config, because I have 2 entries for and , and it feels like it should look more nested.
Thank you. Any techniques or suggestions of an objective approach I can use to ask whether my approach is OK.
First of all I would like to suggest you to use NVelocity as a template engine. As for main problem I think you can create an abstract class MailMessage and derive each one for every needed message (with unique template). So you will use this like following:
MailMessage message = new UserRegistrationMessage(tokens);
//some code that sends this message
Going this way you force each concrete XXXMessage class to be responsible for storing a template and filling it with the given tokens. How to deal with tokens? The simpliest way is to create a dictionary before passing it to the message, so each concrete message class will know how to deal with passed dictionary and what tokens it should contain, but you also need to remember what tokens it should contain. Another way (I like it more) is to create a general abstract type TokenSet and a derived one for every needed unique set of tokens. For example you can create a UserMessageTokenSet : TokenSet and several properties in it:
UserNameToken
SomeUserProfileDataToken
etc. So using this way you will always know, what data you should set for each token set and
UserRegistrationMessage will know what to take from this tokenSet.
There are a lot of ways to go. If you will describe you task better I think I will try suggest you something more concrete. But general idea is listed above. Hope it helps =)
We heard a lot about the vulnerabilities of using QueryStrings and the possible attacks.
Aside from that, yesterday, an error irritated me so much that i just decide to stop using QueryStrings, i was passing something like:
Dim url As String = "pageName.aspx?type=3&st=34&am=87&m=9"
I tried to
Response.Write(url)
in the redirecting page, it printed the "type" as 3, then i tried it in the target page, it printed 3,0....i know this can be easily dealt with, but why? i mean why should i pass 3 and have to check for 3.0 in the next page's load to take my action accordingly???
So what should we use? what is the safest way to pass variables, parameters...etc to the next page?
You could use Cross-Page Postbacks.
Check also this article:
How to: Pass Values Between ASP.NET Web Pages
There are many options you can use, most of them requires you to build a strategy to pass variables between pages.
In most projects I use this strategy, I create a formVariables class to hold currently active items. it has properties which you will need to pass by querystring. and I store this class at session. and in my base page I read it from session. so in every page I get values over this object. the only negative thing about this method is to clean up items when you finished your work on it..
hope this helps.
I would sugest you avoid using Session to pass variables between pages as this breaks the stateless model of the web.
if you have just stored some values in session that relate to a certain page then the user uses their browsers back button to go back to the same page whcih should have a different state then you are not going to know about it.
It leads to the possibility of reading session values that are not relevant to the page the user is currently viewing - Which is potentially very confusing for the end user.
You will also run into issues with session expiration if you rely on it too much.
I personally try to avoid using session where possible in preference of hidden form values + query strings that can be read on postback + navigation.
The best / most secure way to pass info between pages is to use the session.
// On page 1:
this.Session["type"] = 3;
// On Page 2:
int type = (int)this.Session["type"];
You can store any kind of object in the session and it is stored on the server side, so the user can't manipulate it like a query string, viewstate, or hidden field
You said:
it printed 3,0....i know this can be easily dealt with, but why? i mean why should i pass 3 and have to check for 3.0
There's a difference between "3,0" (three comma oh) and "3.0" (three point oh). You also said that you were "passing something like".
In a query string, if you pass multiple values in the same key, they will be seperated with commas.
As all values are passed as strings there's no way that an int "3" is going to magically become decimal "3.0" unless you parse it as such when you request it.
I'd go back and double check what you are passing into your URL, if it ends up as something like:
pageName.aspx?type=3&st=34&am=87&m=9&type=0
Then when you read back
Request.QueryString["type"]
You'll get "3,0" back as the comma seperated list of values in that key.
First, in asp .net you can use several strategys to pass values between pages. You have viewstate too, however the viewstate store the value and the use is in different scenarios , you can use it too. Sessions instead, and of course by post in a form.
If your problem is the security, I recommended you to create 2 users for accesing the data. One user with read only access, this for accessing the pages ( Sql Inyection prevent ) and validate the data throw the querystring. And One with write access for your private zone.
Sorry, for my unreadeable English.
I like to use query string as I like users to be able to bookmark things like common searches and the like. E.g. if a page can work stand-alone then I like to it to be able to work stand-alone.
Using session/cross-page postbacks is cool if you needed to come from another page for the page you're on to make sense, but otherwise I generally find querystrings to be the better solution.
Just remember that query strings are unvalidated input and treat them with the caution you would treat any unvalidated input.
If you do proper security checks on each page load then the querystring is fine and most flexible IMHO.
They provide the most flexibility as the entry poitn to a page is not dependant on the sender as in some other options. You can call a page from any point within your own app or externally if needed via querystrings. They can also be bookmarked and manually modified for testing or direct manipulation.
Again the key is adding proper security and validation to the querystring, and not processing it blindly. Keep in mind that the seucirty goes beyond having edit or read access, depending on the data and user, they may not have access to the data with thos paranters at all, in cases where data is owned and private to specific users.
We have tried various methods, in an attempt to hide the querystring but in the end have gone back to it, as it is easier to do, debug, and manage.