Is the html obfuscation really an effective anti-hacking mechanism? [closed] - html

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Talking about html forms, does the html obfuscation really works?
Some post on SO says it's really a loss of time, because a talented "hacker" will always find the way to access your form fields (ex. associating Labels to inputs).
Has anybody implemented obfuscation and actually suffered an attack?
I would like to have your opinion about this subject.
Thank's in advance.

Obfuscation can't prevent any hacking, at it's best it's slowing down the process.
Especially with forms - the attacker can just take a look into his webconsole, examine your requests and then forge his own request accordingly.
The only real secure method is checking every incoming request serverside, since your server (hopefully) can't be compromised.
Thus, obfuscating HTML just proves that the author "is a noob" for trusting such a method.

You don't need to be a "talented hacker" to see the HTML source un-obfuscated. It's enough to know how to install a browser e.g. Chrome and use the code inspector. The code inspector presents a nice formatted HTML in any case – since it reads in the DOM, not some mangled raw text.
HTML obfuscation is an obstacle of which I do not see any benefits.

Related

Current usefulness of semantically correct HTML [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm working on a new website, and I'm trying to decide how I want to balance the need for semantic correctness, with other important stuff, like development time. I know that semantics are supposed to be important for SEO, and accessibility for blind people. And those are important to me, and shouldn't take too much extra time. So I'll design them in, from the beginning. Anyway, my question is, what else is semantic correctness currently useful for? If there's something else I may consider worthwhile, I'd rather spend a little extra time now to build it in, than wait until later, when it may be more difficult.
Also, I know there are a lot of future possibilities. Some good, and some not (I've seen all the Terminator movies:). But I'll wait and see what happens with those.
edit: I should have mentioned that supporting some old browsers is important for this project, so being semantically correct won't be easy. Especially since I haven't done a lot of browser programming.
I did some more research, so now I can answer my own question.
Other than making sure my site is accessible to disabled people and search engines, there isn't currently anything all that important about semantic correctness, for my project. And I think search engines and screen readers are sophisticated enough these days, to handle some incorrect semantics, as long as the content structure isn't too confusing.
I can see semantic HTML elements being useful for documentation though, as long as it doesn't complicate my code.

Is the inline image or the referenced on better In html emails? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I would like to know some pros and cons about the which solution is better in html email when we are dealing with images.
If the image is attached inline?
Or if it is referenced and stored in a public url?
Loading of images referenced from a public URI will often be blocked by the Mail User Agent (Thunderbird e.g.) to protect the user's privacy and avoid tracking.
So attaching them is the best way to have the images shown to the receipient.
In my opinion the better way is url img :
lighter
attaching picture can be blocked by antivirus/spyware
some users disable images because they have enough speed or not to waste their package. Remember that mobile is increasingly used!
When a Mail User Agent protect the user privacy, you need respect
that. You needed to interest your client with your title, your text
content so that it unlocks pictures.
I send mass mailling every week. I do not consider myself pro.
You can To analyze several newsletters. You'll see what the professionals do.
PS : sorry for my bad english =)

What value is suitable for the action attribute in a form? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I understand that the value of the action attribute is the URL for the page on the server that will receive the information in the form when it is submitted. However, what URL do I use? Do I need to program a new page using PHP (which I don't know how to use yet as I am learning HTML first) or is there a website that can do this for me? (The book I am using just writes the value as: "http://www.example.com/profile.php" - the .php at the end of this URL gave me the the PHP idea)
<form action="WHAT DO I PUT HERE?" method="post">
<p>What's your favorite genre of music?</p>
<textarea name="musician">Who's your favorite artist?</textarea>
<input type="submit" value="submit" />
If it's information that I would like to see and analyse (for example in an online survey) would the URL be different to if I wanted the user simply to upload their thoughts (like a comments box).
Apologies if this is a fairly basic question but I am new to coding websites. Also, just out of interest what is a good way to learn how to code websites? (i.e any suggestions for good books, websites or suchlike?) Thank you so much.
Here's a good resource for what you're trying to do. There's even a specific section for sending/receiving data.
A protip if you're new to web development: stay away from w3schools. Mozilla is a much better resource, cannot stress this enough.

Multilingual Website HTML best solutions [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am currently building an HTML web site and i need the make it multilingual ...
so i was asking what are the best solutions?
Should I use sub domains http://en.mysite.com, or make it simple, e.g.:
mysite.com/en/index.htm -
mysite.com/fr/index.htm
Should I translate everything for all language or are there tools to auto translate?
Finally, how can I make the website detect the users location and redirect him to his language?
Generally, I would say to have higher rank in search engines it might be better to avoid subdomains.
Since you only have HTML, the redirection solutions are not good enough to consider them. For instance if someone decide to visit English version from Paris, to avoid annoying redirections you might need to keep track of this choice by cookies.
Instead of redirection you can still suggest a language for them (according to their location). It's possible by google loader: https://developers.google.com/loader/
You could use /your/path?lang=en.
To detect the users language, see: https://stackoverflow.com/a/8199791/1500022

What's the easiest way to convert Wiki markup to HTML? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm building a website that requires very basic markup capabilities. I can't use any 3rd party plugins, so I just need a simple way to convert markup to HTML. I might have a total of 3 tags that I'll allow.
What is the best way to convert ==Heading== to <h2>Heading</h2>, or --bold-- to <b>bold</b>? Can this be done simply with Regex, or does somebody have a simple function?
I'm writing this in C#, but examples from other languages would probably work.
It's not really a simple problem, because if you're going to display things back to the user, you'll need to also sanitise the input to ensure you don't create any cross site scripting vulnerabilities.
That said, you could probably do something pretty simple as you describe most easily with a regular expression replacement.
For example
replace the pattern ==([^=]*)== with <h2>\1</h2>
This really depends on the Wiki syntax you're using as there are several different ones. Obviously the wiki software has this functionality somewhere; if you can't find a software package that does this for you, you could start looking for the relevant code in your wiki software.
Maybe this is what you need.
This page is a compilation of links, descriptions, and status reports of the various alternative MediaWiki parsers — that is, programs and projects, other than MediaWiki itself, which are able or intended to translate MediaWiki's text markup syntax into something else.