I am using tinymce editor as rich text editor for blog management system and codeigniter for saving data in the database.
I am trying to save the following text in the database. I am unable to save the content. I tried to debug the issue and figured out that the issue is with the word "from". If I remove "from" I am able to save it in the database.
Here is the text:
Negotiating a mortgage is more complicated than negotiating just a rate. Unfortunately, clients too often lose thousands of dollars because they were poorly advised. Here are 7 questions that your banker should be able to answer:
What is the penalty if I want to break my mortgage and how is it calculated?
Is my mortgage transferable to another property? If yes, under what conditions?
Can I convert my mortgage to a fixed rate?
Is my mortgage subsidiary (blanket) or traditional?
What are my pre-payment options?
What factors influence the fluctuation of fixed rates?
What factors influence the fluctuation of variable rates?
If your banker is unable to answer all the questions above, or if you don’t understand all the implications of the answers, then maybe it’s time to consult a mortgage broker. Mortgage brokers represent several lenders and can explain the terms and conditions of the different lenders and their impact. Brokers are paid by the lenders, and the remuneration is similar from one lender to another so, unlike bankers who offer just their employer’s products, brokers have a vested interest in explaining the particulars of the various products. Sign up for our newsletter "Plani-Info" in order to not miss out on anything in our blog! Feel free to share this article with your friends, colleagues and family who might need it.
The content of this website is protected by copyright which is the exclusive property of Mortgage Planners – Mortgage Agency.
I am not getting the above content in codeigniter method.
I tried debugging the post parameters
print_r($this->input->post('content'));
The result of above is empty string. Where "content" is the name of tinymce textarea input field.
Any idea why? Thanks for you help
This issue is a server configuration issue. The information is submitted through the form is triggering an SQL Injection error in the ModSecurity software on the server. In order to whitelist or avoid this trigger, the specific page needs to be added to the conf file.
Log in to the server through SSH as admin To add rules to whitelist vi /etc/apache2/conf.d/modsec2/whitelist.conf
Example:
<LocationMatch "/page_url_where_you_added_tiinymce_editor/*">
SecRuleRemoveById 300016 300014
</LocationMatch>
Restart Apache after changes made
in my script i have a scenario like the page contains multiple check boxes for example 10, as per the user need user selects check boxes for example one user selects 4 check boxes and other user clicks 5 check boxes, so per each it will vary.
so how to correlate those values,
thanking you.
From the website: "Please don’t share your solutions, ask for help, or help others. This is meant to be a challenge."
So you appear to be violating one of the primary rules in this website. I have looked at this challenge and it's really good to gauge someone's knowledge.
However, to address technology generally - in reading your question I get the sense you may be missing certain fundamental knowledge for this kind of thing. Here's some fundamental knowledge. Hopefully my answer will help increase your knowledge. And hopefully you can use this increased general knowledge to address this specific question.
Definitions:
Correlation - you're taking data the SERVER sends to the browser, capturing it and sending it back. Information present on web pages would fit into this category.
Parameterization - you've got a set of values you'd like to put into web forms. This is usually values like names, addresses, etc
Also understand exactly what is happening when you conduct certain actions on your browser. When you "click" a checkbox does that actually send a message to a server? That usually doesn't (though not always) happen. So when you use phrases like 'click a checkbox' that tells me you may not appreciate the fact that performance testing is server focused, not browser focused.
Performance testing isn't intuitive so you need to understand these concepts. If you dedicate time to understanding the concepts I've outlined above you'll have the knowledge to complete the challenge.
Good luck.
What is driving the variation on check boxes being checked? Is it the result of something that comes back from the server, from a previous request? Or is it somewhat random based on whatever the user wants to do at runtime?
I'm working on an app that gives traffic alerts in real time and is based on crowd-sourced information. In other words, people use the app and report traffic problems and at the same time they are informed about traffic problems in their area.
A difficult task is how to distinguish real alert reports from fake ones so that the app behaves properly and is useful.
Do you know of any documentation regarding this issue or any programmer stories, insights into this problem? How should this problem be tackled?
What I've come up until now is:
each person using the app is uniquely identified
each alert report has a reliability value in an interval 1 .. x
the reliability of a report is calculated based on the number of users that reported it or confirmed it and the reputation of those people. But how exactly?
each person has a reputation value which is calculated somehow. But how?
I'm not sure how to handle the reputation/reliability stuff so I'd love some input on this. There must be some documentation on how to create a crowd-sourcing product that works.
Panos Ipeirotis has a fabulous talk on this subject. Yes, you want to incentivize good behavior. If Waze is too complicated this talk will be too, but it will give you a good idea of what is possible if you throw the kitchen sink at it.
i'm kind of confused with the relationship among ACTCHL, MAXCHL, MAXCHANNELS and MAXACTIVECHANNELS. Is property ACTCHL same with MAXACTIVECHANNELS, and MAXCHL with MAXCHANNELS? In addition, what's the default value for them? i can see either 100 or 200, not sure which one is correct.
Thanks
i just find ACTCL and MAXCHL are for z/OS, but MAXCHANNELS and MAXACTIVECHANNELS are for open system. It's clear. However, please help answer the default value question.
Oddly enough, the best reference for these is in the WMQ Explorer manual rather than the WMQ manual. The tables in the Queue Manager Properties topic list the settings, their default values and in some cases the relationship between them. When you get there use your browser search for the specific attributes (i.e. MAXACTIVECHANNELS) because the tales are organized based on tabs in WMQ Explorer rather than strict alphabetical sequence.
First of all, I searched as best I could and read all SO questions that seem relevant, but nothing specifically answered this. This is not a duplicate, afaik.
Obviously if anonymous voting on a website is allowed, there is no fool proof way to prevent someone voting more than once.
However, I am wondering if someone with experience can aide me in coming up with a reasonably reliable way of tracking absolutely unique visitors and recording votes against those credentials.
Currently I am ensuring that only one vote per item/session combo is allowed, however this is easily circumvented by restarting browser, changing browsers/computers, or clearing your session data.
Recording against IP seems the next reasonable solution but I wonder if this will get false positives too often (multiple people on same LAN behind a NAT will have same external IP, etc).
Is there a middle ground to be had here or some other method/combination I am overlooking?
I'd collect as much data about the session as possible without asking any questions directly (browser, OS, installed plugins, all with versions numbers, IP address etc) and hash it.
Record the hash and increment a counter if you want multiple votes to be allowed. Include a timestamp (daily, hourly etc) in the salt to make votes time sensitive, say 5 votes per day.
The simplest answer is to use a cookie. Obviously it's vulnerable to people clearing their cookies, but anonymous voting is inherently approximate anyway.
In practice, unless the topic being voted on is in some way controversial or inflammatory, people aren't going to have a motive behind rigging the vote anyway.
IP is more 'reliable' but will produce an unacceptably high level of collisions due to NATs.
How about a more unique identifier composed of IP + user-agent (maybe a hash)? That effectively means for each IP, each exact OS/browser version pair gets 1 vote, which is a lot closer to 1 vote per person. Most browsers provide detailed version information in the user-agent -- I'm not sure, but my gut feel is that this would prevent the majority of collisions caused by NATs.
The only place that would still produce lots of collisions is a corporate environment with a standardised network, where everyone is using an identical machine.
The Chinese have to share one IPv4 address with hundreds of others; Hp/Compaq/DEC has almost 50 million addresses. IPv6 doesn't help as everyone get addresses by the billion. A person just is not the same as an IP address, and that notion is becoming ever more false.
There are just no proper ways to do this on the Internet. Persons are simply a concept unknown on the Internet, and any idea to introduce the concept is unlikely to succeed. (Too many governments would not want this to happen, for instance.)
Of course, you can relate the amount of votes per IP to the amounf of repeat page visits from that IP, especially in combination with cookie tracking. This works best if you estimate that number before you start the voting period. If the top 5% popular articles are typically read 10 times from a single IP, it's likely 10 people share that IP and they should get 10 votes. Cookies can be used to prevent them from stealing each others vote, but on the whole they can't skew your poll. (Note: this fails in small communities where a large group of voters come from a small number of IPs, in particular this happens around universities).
If you're not looking at authenticating voters, then you're going to be getting some duplicate votes no matter what you use. I'd use a cookie, and have done with it for the anonymous users.
UserVoice allows both anonymous voting and voting when logged in, but then allows the admin to filter out anonymous votes - a nice solution to this problem.
Anything based on IP addresses isn't an option - the case of NAT has been mentioned, but this seems to only be in the case of home users. There are many larger installations that use NAT - some corporations can have thousands of users pooled behind a single IP address. There are also ISP's that use proxy servers for their users - another case where you can have many thousands of users appear to your application as a single address. Adding unique UA combinations to this won't help, as there isn't enough variation.
A persistent cookie is going to be your best bet - and you'll have to live with the fact that it is easy to game. At least when the cookie is persistent (as opposed to session based) you'll catch the majority of users who run a single browser.
If you really want to rely on the results, you are going to have to add some form of identification in the process (like e-mail validation, which is still gameable).
At the end of the day any internet survey is going to have flaws (like: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894028,00.html), and you'll have to live with this.
Use a persistent cookie to allow only one vote per item
and record the IP, if there are more than 100 (1,000? 10,000?) requests in less than X mins then "soft block" the IP
The "soft block": dont show a page saying "your IP has been blocked" but show your "thank you for your vote" page and DONT record the vote in your DB. You even can increase the counter for that IP only. You want to prevent them to know that you are blocking their IP.
Two ideas not mentioned yet are:
Asking for the user's email address and emailing them a verification link
Using a captcha
Obviously the former can be circumvented with disposable email addresses and so on, but gives you an audit trail, and provides a significant hurdle to casual/bot vote-stuffing. A good captcha likewise severely limits vote-stuffing, but with all the usual caveats surrounding their use.
I have the same problem, and here's what I am planning on doing...
Set a persistent cookie. Check the cookie to decide whether a particular vote could be cast.
Additionally store some data about the vote request in the form of a combination of IP address + User Agent. And then use this value to limit the no. of votes to, say, 10 per day.
What is the best way of going about creating this hash (IP + UA String)?