Search Results

Search found 1036 results on 42 pages for 'the anti 9'.

Page 12/42 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Execute binary from memory in C# .net with binary protected from a 3rd party software

    - by NoobTom
    i've the following scenario: i've a C# application.exe i pack application.exe inside TheMida, a software anti-piracy/reverse engineering. i encrypt application.exe with aes256. (i wrote my own aes encryption/decryption and it is working) Now, when i want to execute my application i do the following: decrypt application.exe in memory execute the application.exe with the following code: BinaryReader br = new BinaryReader(decOutput); byte[] bin = br.ReadBytes(Convert.ToInt32(decOutput.Length)); decOutput.Close(); br.Close(); // load the bytes into Assembly Assembly a = Assembly.Load(bin); // search for the Entry Point MethodInfo method = a.EntryPoint; if (method != null) { // create an istance of the Startup form Main method object o = a.CreateInstance(method.Name); // invoke the application starting point method.Invoke(o, null); the application does not execute correctly. Now, the problem i think, is that this method is only to execute .NET executable. Since i packed my application.exe inside TheMida this does not work. Is there a workaround to this situation? Any suggestion? Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Initialization of components with interdependencies - possible antipattern?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm writing a game that has many components. Many of these are dependent upon one another. When creating them, I often get into catch-22 situations like "WorldState's constructor requires a PathPlanner, but PathPlanner's constructor requires WorldState." Originally, this was less of a problem, because references to everything needed were kept around in GameEngine, and GameEngine was passed around to everything. But I didn't like the feel of that, because it felt like we were giving too much access to different components, making it harder to enforce boundaries. Here is the problematic code: /// <summary> /// Constructor to create a new instance of our game. /// </summary> public GameEngine() { graphics = new GraphicsDeviceManager(this); Components.Add(new GamerServicesComponent(this)); //Sets dimensions of the game window graphics.PreferredBackBufferWidth = 800; graphics.PreferredBackBufferHeight = 600; graphics.ApplyChanges(); IsMouseVisible = true; screenManager = new ScreenManager(this); //Adds ScreenManager as a component, making all of its calls done automatically Components.Add(screenManager); // Tell the program to load all files relative to the "Content" directory. Assets = new CachedContentLoader(this, "Content"); inputReader = new UserInputReader(Constants.DEFAULT_KEY_MAPPING); collisionRecorder = new CollisionRecorder(); WorldState = new WorldState(new ReadWriteXML(), Constants.CONFIG_URI, this, contactReporter); worldQueryUtils = new WorldQueryUtils(worldQuery, WorldState.PhysicsWorld); ContactReporter contactReporter = new ContactReporter(collisionRecorder, worldQuery, worldQueryUtils); gameObjectManager = new GameObjectManager(WorldState, assets, inputReader, pathPlanner); worldQuery = new DefaultWorldQueryEngine(collisionRecorder, gameObjectManager.Controllers); gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine = worldQuery; pathPlanner = new PathPlanner(this, worldQueryUtils, WorldQuery); gameObjectManager.PathPlanner = pathPlanner; combatEngine = new CombatEngine(worldQuery, new Random()); } Here is an excerpt of the above that's problematic: gameObjectManager = new GameObjectManager(WorldState, assets, inputReader, pathPlanner); worldQuery = new DefaultWorldQueryEngine(collisionRecorder, gameObjectManager.Controllers); gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine = worldQuery; I hope that no one ever forgets that setting of gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine, or else it will fail. Here is the problem: gameObjectManager needs a WorldQuery, and WorldQuery needs a property of gameObjectManager. What can I do about this? Have I found an anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to get anti-alias for Font in Rebol Graphics VID ?

    - by Rebol Tutorial
    Anti-alias works for Draw but I can't see how to get anti-alias for font : is it possible anywhow (including hacking rebol vid ...) because font in the picture generated below is not nice: view layout [ box 278x185 effect [ ; default box face size is 100x100 draw [ anti-alias on ; information for the next draw element (not required) line-width 2.5 ; number of pixels in width of the border pen black ; color of the edge of the next draw element fill-pen radial 100x50 5 55 5 10 10 71.0.6 30.10.10 71.0.6 ; the draw element box ; another box drawn as an effect 15 ; size of rounding in pixels 0x0 ; upper left corner 278x170 ; lower right corner ] ] pad 30x-150 Text "Experiment" font [name: "Impact" size: 24 color: white] image http://www.rebol.com/graphics/reb-logo.gif ]

    Read the article

  • How to anti-alias the fonts in visual studio in windows forms application?

    - by user1781077
    i want my font to be anti aliased like this so that it looks more professionalenter link description heredoes any one know the code to anti alias the fonts so that the project looks more professional.tell me the code and where to insert it in the project.As of now the fonts looks jaggy the programming language is visual C# 4.0 .net and IDE is VS 2010 for example this is a label1 what do I need to insert to anti alias this.label1.AutoSize = true; this.label1.Font = new System.Drawing.Font("Segoe UI", 8.25F, System.Drawing.FontStyle.Regular, System.Drawing.GraphicsUnit.Point, ((byte)(0))); this.label1.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(189, 187); this.label1.Name = "label1"; this.label1.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(31, 13); this.label1.TabIndex = 0; this.label1.Text = "from";

    Read the article

  • C#: How to resolve this circular dependency?

    - by Rosarch
    I have a circular dependency in my code, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. I am developing a game. A NPC has three components, responsible for thinking, sensing, and acting. These components need access to the NPC controller to get access to its model, but the controller needs these components to do anything. Thus, both take each other as arguments in their constructors. ISenseNPC sense = new DefaultSenseNPC(controller, worldQueryEngine); IThinkNPC think = new DefaultThinkNPC(sense); IActNPC act = new DefaultActNPC(combatEngine, sense, controller); controller = new ControllerNPC(act, think); (The above example has the parameter simplified a bit.) Without act and think, controller can't do anything, so I don't want to allow it to be initialized without them. The reverse is basically true as well. What should I do? ControllerNPC using think and act to update its state in the world: public class ControllerNPC { // ... public override void Update(long tick) { // ... act.UpdateFromBehavior(CurrentBehavior, tick); CurrentBehavior = think.TransitionState(CurrentBehavior, tick); } // ... } DefaultSenseNPC using controller to determine if it's colliding with anything: public class DefaultSenseNPC { // ... public bool IsCollidingWithTarget() { return worldQuery.IsColliding(controller, model.Target); } // ... }

    Read the article

  • Can the Diamond Problem be really solved?

    - by Mecki
    A typical problem in OO programming is the diamond problem. I have parent class A with two sub-classes B and C. A has an abstract method, B and C implement it. Now I have a sub-class D, that inherits of B and C. The diamond problem is now, what implementation shall D use, the one of B or the one of C? People claim Java knows no diamond problem. I can only have multiple inheritance with interfaces and since they have no implementation, I have no diamond problem. Is this really true? I don't think so. See below: [removed vehicle example] Is a diamond problem always the cause of bad class design and something neither programmer nor compiler needs to solve, because it shouldn't exist in the first place? Update: Maybe my example was poorly chosen. See this image Of course you can make Person virtual in C++ and thus you will only have one instance of person in memory, but the real problem persists IMHO. How would you implement getDepartment() for GradTeachingFellow? Consider, he might be student in one department and teach in another one. So you can either return one department or the other one; there is no perfect solution to the problem and the fact that no implementation might be inherited (e.g. Student and Teacher could both be interfaces) doesn't seem to solve the problem to me.

    Read the article

  • Block users using auto-clickers

    - by James Simpson
    I'm having some problems with users cheating my online game by using macros to automatically click certain spots on the screen in a certain order to automate various tasks without having to actually be playing the game. Are there any methods that can be used to block this kind of activity without having to plaster CAPTCHAs all over the site and ruin the experience for the honest users?

    Read the article

  • "select * from table" vs "select colA,colB,etc from table" interesting behaviour in SqlServer2005

    - by kristof
    Apology for a lengthy post but I needed to post some code to illustrate the problem. Inspired by the question What is the reason not to use select * ? posted a few minutes ago, I decided to point out some observations of the select * behaviour that I noticed some time ago. So let's the code speak for itself: IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sys.objects WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID(N'[dbo].[starTest]') AND type in (N'U')) DROP TABLE [dbo].[starTest] CREATE TABLE [dbo].[starTest]( [id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [A] [varchar](50) NULL, [B] [varchar](50) NULL, [C] [varchar](50) NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] GO insert into dbo.starTest(a,b,c) select 'a1','b1','c1' union all select 'a2','b2','c2' union all select 'a3','b3','c3' go IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sys.views WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID(N'[dbo].[vStartest]')) DROP VIEW [dbo].[vStartest] go create view dbo.vStartest as select * from dbo.starTest go go IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sys.views WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID(N'[dbo].[vExplicittest]')) DROP VIEW [dbo].[vExplicittest] go create view dbo.[vExplicittest] as select a,b,c from dbo.starTest go select a,b,c from dbo.vStartest select a,b,c from dbo.vExplicitTest IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sys.objects WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID(N'[dbo].[starTest]') AND type in (N'U')) DROP TABLE [dbo].[starTest] CREATE TABLE [dbo].[starTest]( [id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [A] [varchar](50) NULL, [B] [varchar](50) NULL, [D] [varchar](50) NULL, [C] [varchar](50) NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] GO insert into dbo.starTest(a,b,d,c) select 'a1','b1','d1','c1' union all select 'a2','b2','d2','c2' union all select 'a3','b3','d3','c3' select a,b,c from dbo.vExplicittest select a,b,c from dbo.vStartest If you execute the following query and look at the results of last 2 select statements, the results that you will see will be as follows: select a,b,c from dbo.vExplicittest a1 b1 c1 a2 b2 c2 a3 b3 c3 select a,b,c from dbo.vStartest a1 b1 d1 a2 b2 d2 a3 b3 d3 As you can see in the results of select a,b,c from dbo.vStartest the data of column c has been replaced with the data from colum d. I believe that is related to the way the views are compiled, my understanding is that the columns are mapped by column indexes (1,2,3,4) as apposed to names. I though I would post it as a warning for people using select * in their sql and experiencing unexpected behaviour. Note: If you rebuild the view that uses select * each time after you modify the table it will work as expected

    Read the article

  • What are some topics you'd like to see covered in an 'Introduction to Network Security' book?

    - by seth.vargo
    I'm trying to put together a list of topics in Network Security and prioritize them accordingly. A little background on the book - we are trying to gear the text towards college students, as an introduction to security, and toward IT professionals who have recently been tasked with securing a network. The idea is to create a book that covers the most vital and important parts of securing a network with no assumptions. So, if you were a novice student interested in network security OR an IT professional who needed a crash course on network security, what topics do you feel would be of the upmost importance in such a text?

    Read the article

  • What is the most stupid coded solution you have read/improved/witnessed?

    - by Rigo Vides
    And for stupid I mean Illogical, non-effective, complex(the bad way), ugly code style. I will start: We had a requirement there when we needed to hide certain objects given the press of a button. So this framework we were using at the time provided a way to tag objects and retrieve all the objects with a certain tag in a complete iterable collection. So I presented the most logically solution given these conditions to my partner: Me: you know, tag all the objects we needed to hide with the same tag, then call the function to get them all, iterate trough them and make them hidden. Partner: I don't know, that is hardcoding for me... Me: So what do you suggest? 20 mins later... Partner: I don't know... let's put a tag to all the objects to be hidden like this, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (and so for each object to be hidden), Then we make a for from 1 to n (where n was the number of objects to hide) and we hide them all there!

    Read the article

  • What's the most unsound program you've had to maintain?

    - by Robert Rossney
    I periodically am called upon to do maintenance work on a system that was built by a real rocket surgeon. There's so much wrong with it that it's hard to know where to start. No, wait, I'll start at the beginning: in the early days of the project, the designer was told that the system would need to scale, and he'd read that a source of scalability problems was traffic between the application and database servers, so he made sure to minimize this traffic. How? By putting all of the application logic in SQL Server stored procedures. Seriously. The great bulk of the application functions by the HTML front end formulating XML messages. When the middle tier receives an XML message, it uses the document element's tag name as the name of the stored procedure it should call, and calls the SP, passing it the entire XML message as a parameter. It takes the XML message that the SP returns and returns it directly back to the front end. There is no other logic in the application tier. (There was some code in the middle tier to validate the incoming XML messages against a library of schemas. But I removed it, after ascertaining that 1) only a small handful of messages had corresponding schemas, 2) the messages didn't actually conform to these schemas, and 3) after validating the messages, if any errors were encountered, the method discarded them. "This fuse box is a real time-saver - it comes from the factory with pennies pre-installed!") I've seen software that does the wrong thing before. Lots of it. I've written quite a bit. But I've never seen anything like the steely-eyed determination to do the wrong thing, at every possible turn, that's embodied in the design and programming of this system. Well, at least he went with what he knew, right? Um. Apparently, what he knew was Access. And he didn't really understand Access. Or databases. Here's a common pattern in this code: SELECT @TestCodeID FROM TestCode WHERE TestCode = @TestCode SELECT @CountryID FROM Country WHERE CountryAbbr = @CountryAbbr SELECT Invoice.*, TestCode.*, Country.* FROM Invoice JOIN TestCode ON Invoice.TestCodeID = TestCode.ID JOIN Country ON Invoice.CountryID = Country.ID WHERE Invoice.TestCodeID = @TestCodeID AND Invoice.CountryID = @CountryID Okay, fine. You don't trust the query optimizer either. But how about this? (Originally, I was going to post this in What's the best comment in source code you have ever encountered? but I realized that there was so much more to write about than just this one comment, and things just got out of hand.) At the end of many of the utility stored procedures, you'll see code that looks like the following: -- Fix NULLs SET @TargetValue = ISNULL(@TargetValue, -9999) Yes, that code is doing exactly what you can't allow yourself to believe it's doing lest you be driven mad. If the variable contains a NULL, he's alerting the caller by changing its value to -9999. Here's how this number is commonly used: -- Get target value EXEC ap_GetTargetValue @Param1, @Param2, OUTPUT @TargetValue -- Check target value for NULL value IF @TargetValue = -9999 ... Really. For another dimension of this system, see the article on thedailywtf.com entitled I Think I'll Call Them "Transactions". I'm not making any of this up. I swear. I'm often reminded, when I work on this system, of Wolfgang Pauli's famous response to a student: "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong." This can't really be the very worst program ever. It's definitely the worst one I've worked

    Read the article

  • Design patterns to avoid

    - by Brian Rasmussen
    A lot of people seem to agree, that the Singleton pattern has a number of drawbacks and some even suggest to avoid the pattern all together. There's an excellent discussion here. Please direct any comments about the Singleton pattern to that question. Are there other design patterns, that should be avoided or used with great care?

    Read the article

  • What is the most EVIL code you have ever seen in a production enterprise environment?

    - by Registered User
    What is the most evil or dangerous code fragment you have ever seen in a production environment at a company? I've never encountered production code that I would consider to be deliberately malicious and evil, so I'm quite curious to see what others have found. The most dangerous code I have ever seen was a stored procedure two linked-servers away from our core production database server. The stored procedure accepted any NVARCHAR(8000) parameter and executed the parameter on the target production server via an double-jump sp_executeSQL command. That is to say, the sp_executeSQL command executed another sp_executeSQL command in order to jump two linked servers. Oh, and the linked server account had sysadmin rights on the target production server.

    Read the article

  • Detecting an online poker cheat

    - by Tom Gullen
    It recently emerged on a large poker site that some players were possibly able to see all opponents cards as they played through exploiting a security vulnerability that was discovered. A naïve cheater would win at an incredibly fast rate, and these cheats are caught very quickly usually, and if not caught quickly they are easy to detect through a quick scan through their hand histories. The more difficult problem occurs when the cheater exhibits intelligence, bluffing in spots they are bound to be called in, calling river bets with the worst hands, the basic premise is that they lose pots on purpose to disguise their ability to see other players cards, and they win at a reasonably realistic rate. Given: A data set of millions of verified and complete information hand histories Theoretical unlimited computer power Assume the game No Limit Hold'em, although suggestions on Omaha or limit poker may be beneficial How could we reasonably accurately classify these cheaters? The original 2+2 thread appeals for ideas, and I thought that the SO community might have some useful suggestions. It's an interesting problem also because it is current, and has real application in bettering the world if someone finds a creative solution, as there is a good chance genuine players will have funds refunded to them when identified cheaters are discovered.

    Read the article

  • Problem with poor font rendering with CSS3 transitions, jQuery, & Google Fonts

    - by Justin
    In Firefox, there is no problem. Here's an image: http://cl.ly/3R0L1q3P1r11040e3T1i In Safari, the text is rendering poorly: http://cl.ly/0a1101341r2E1D2d1W46 In IE7 & IE8, it's much worse, but I don't have a picture. Sorry :( I'm using Isotope jQuery plugin, and the CSS3 transitions seem to cause the poor font-rendering. I'm also using Google Font API. Here's what the CSS transitions for Isotope are written as: /**** Isotope CSS3 transitions ****/ .isotope, .isotope .isotope-item { -webkit-transition-duration: 0.8s; -moz-transition-duration: 0.8s; transition-duration: 0.8s; } .isotope { -webkit-transition-property: height, width; -moz-transition-property: height, width; transition-property: height, width; } .isotope .isotope-item { -webkit-transition-property: -webkit-transform, opacity; -moz-transition-property: -moz-transform, opacity; transition-property: transform, opacity; } I appreciate any help with this. Looks great in Firefox! Thanks!

    Read the article

  • When are global variables acceptable?

    - by dsimcha
    Everyone here seems to hate global variables, but I see at least one very reasonable use for them: They are great for holding program parameters that are determined at program initialization and not modified afterwords. Do you agree that this is an exception to the "globals are evil" rule? Is there any other exception that you can think of, besides in quick and dirty throwaway code where basically anything goes? If not, why are globals so fundamentally evil that you do not believe that there are any exceptons?

    Read the article

  • Refactoring one large list of C# properties/fields

    - by dotnetdev
    If you take a look at http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/dhananjaycoder/activedirectoryoperations11132009113015AM/activedirectoryoperations.aspx, there is a huge list of properties for AD in one class. What is a good way to refactor such a large list of (Related) fields? Would making seperate classes be adequate or is there a better way to make this more manageable? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Guilty of unsound programming

    - by TelJanini
    I was reading Robert Rossney's entry on "What's the most unsound program you've had to maintain?" found at: (What's the most unsound program you've had to maintain?) when I realized that I had inadvertently developed a near-identical application! The app consists of an HTTPListener object that grabs incoming POST requests. Based on the information in the header, I pass the body of the request to SQL Server to perform the appropriate transaction. The requests look like: <InvoiceCreate Control="389> <Invoice> <CustomerNumber>5555</CustomerNumber> <Total>300.00</Total> <RushOrder>1</RushOrder> </Invoice> </InvoiceCreate> Once it's received by the HTTPListener object, I perform the required INSERT to the Invoice table using SQL Server's built-in XML handling functionality via a stored procedure: INSERT INTO Invoice (InvoiceNumber, CustomerNumber, Total, RushOrder) SELECT @NEW_INVOICE_NUMBER, @XML.value('(InvoiceCreate/Invoice/CustomerNumber)[1]', 'varchar(10)'), @XML.value('(InvoiceCreate/Invoice/Total)[1]', 'varchar(10)'), @XML.value('(InvoiceCreate/Invoice/Total)[1]', 'varchar(10)') I then use another SELECT statement in the same stored procedure to return the value of the new Invoice Number that was inserted into the Invoices table: SELECT @NEW_INVOICE_NUMBER FOR XML PATH 'InvoiceCreateAck' I then read the generated XML using a SQL data reader object in C# and use it as the response of the HTTPListener object. My issue is, I'm noticing that Robert is indeed correct. All of my application logic exists inside the stored procedure, so I find myself having to do a lot of error-checking (i.e. validating the customer number and invoicenumber values) inside the stored procedure. I'm still a midlevel developer, and as such, am looking to improve. Given the original post, and my current architecture, what could I have done differently to improve the application? Are there any patterns or best practices that I could refer to? What approach would you have taken? I'm open to any and all criticism, as I'd like to do my part to reduce the amount of "unsound programming" in the world.

    Read the article

  • Is there a case for parameterising using Abstract classes rather than Interfaces?

    - by Chris
    I'm currently developing a component based API that is heavily stateful. The top level components implement around a dozen interfaces each. The stock top-level components therefore sit ontop of a stack of Abstract implementations which in turn contain multiple mixin implementations and implement multiple mixin interfaces. So far, so good (I hope). The problem is that the base functionality is extremely complex to implement (1,000s of lines in 5 layers of base classes) and therefore I do not wish for component writers to implement the interfaces themselves but rather to extend my base classes (where all the boiler plate code is already written). If the API therefore accepts interfaces rather than references to the Abstract implementation that I wish for component writers to extends, then I have a risk that the implementer will not perform the validation that is both required and assumed by other areas of code. Therefore, my question is, is it sometimes valid to paramerise API methods using an abstract implementation reference rather than a reference to the interface(s) that it implements? Do you have an example of a well-designed API that uses this technique or am I trying to talk myself into bad-practice?

    Read the article

  • Hijack.StartMenu Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is a false positive?

    - by Senseful
    I just ran the Malwarebytes Anti-Malware quick scan for the first time and it found: Registry Data Items Infected: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced\Start_ShowSearch (Hijack.StartMenu) - Bad: (0) Good: (1) - No action taken. I just wanted to double check (and provide a top Google result for people in the future that might have the same issue) that this was a false positive and can be safely right-click ignored.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >