Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: drhayden1 on August 02, 2007, 12:16:59 AM
-
http://www.members.shaw.ca/grandmafaiths2/boogie.htm
I know you will enjoy this page as much as I did.
turn volume up....and scroll down ;)
(http://i15.tinypic.com/4z3fehj.jpg)
-
I went to this site using Firefox and couldn't hear the music, so I opened it up in IE tab. Then I could hear the music. Why I wonder?
Ro Ro
-
I went to this site using Firefox and couldn't hear the music, so I opened it up in IE tab. Then I could hear the music. Why I wonder?
Ro Ro
Crappily written web page:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.members.shaw.ca%2Fgrandmafaiths2%2Fboogie.htm&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.members.shaw.ca%2Fgrandmafaiths2%2Fboogie.htm&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0)
-
Crappily written web page
might of been FWF my friend-but the presentation was nice 8)
i just started this thread something to enjoy if anyone found something we would or must ::) ??? of us would enjoy put it in this thread like the interesting thread but different of sorts.
I went to this site using Firefox and couldn't hear the music
and RoRo didn't have any trouble with my firefox-that's what i was using when i saw the site and listened to the music.
-
Crappily written web page
might of been FWF my friend-but the presentation was nice 8)
i just started this thread something to enjoy if anyone found something we would or must ::) ??? of us would enjoy put it in this thread like the interesting thread but different of sorts.
I was referring to the coding. The presentation of the page is fine, but the coding has major errors.
The page is silent for me in Firefox, but boogies in Opera.
The fox is a fussy beast and turns his nose up at a dog's breakfast of code. IE happily tucks in, and Opera chugs down the mess, but it is really an unappetising meal.
-
I was referring to the coding. The presentation of the page is fine, but the coding has major errors.
ok-at least it worked ;)
(http://i9.tinypic.com/4r14o5t.gif)(http://i13.tinypic.com/66j2lns.gif)(http://i14.tinypic.com/4mx0lr9.gif) doing the boogie (http://i10.tinypic.com/6fqgilc.gif)
-
The main body of the page is doubly obfuscated in two layers of JavaScript.
Unravelling this code into HTML reveals (along with a whole load more validation errors) the real problem:
<BGSOUND balance=0 src="boogie/boogie.mid"
volume=0><bgsound balance="0" src="boogie/boogie.mid" volume="0" loop=infinite>
BGSOUND is supported by IE but not Netscape.
Now, assuming you've thought through the consequences of your actions, let's talk about how to put a background sound on your page. Unfortunately the browser industry and standards committees have not settled on a standard way of accomplishing this. Netscape allows background sounds through use of the <EMBED ...> tag. MSIE, Mosaic, and several other browsers use the <BGSOUND ...> tag. You might at this point ask why you can't just use both and let each interpret its preferred tag. The problem is that MSIE sometimes interprets the <EMBED ...> tag in addition to <BGSOUND ...> (depending on the particular installation) resulting in conflict and ugly error messages. This is the sort of thing that happens when there isn't a standard to follow.
With this lack-of-standards problem, the best to hope for is a situation that plays the sound in most situations, and in the other situations doesn't play the sound and doesn't give error messages. This can be accomplished using scripting, as in this example.
<SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript">
<!--
var filename="hazy_shade_of_winter.mid";
if (navigator.appName == "Microsoft Internet Explorer")
document.writeln ('<BGSOUND SRC="' + filename + '">');
else if (navigator.appName == "Netscape")
document.writeln ('<EMBED SRC="' + filename + '" AUTOSTART=TRUE WIDTH=144 HEIGHT=60><P>');
// -->
</SCRIPT>
<NOSCRIPT>
<BGSOUND SRC="hazy_shade_of_winter.mid">
</NOSCRIPT>
The code says this:
1. If the current browser is MSIE then write out a <BGSOUND ...> tag.
2. Else, if the current browser is Netscape then write out an <EMBED ...> tag.
3. Then in the <NOSCRIPT> section, browsers that don't understand scripting will see the <BGSOUND ...> tag. Several browsers that don't understand scripting do understand <BGSOUND ...>. Also, browsers that have scripting turned off but do understand <BGSOUND ...> will also see this tag. Of course, browsers that have scripting turned off but don't understand <BGSOUND ...> will have no sound at all. Again, that's the price being paid for lack of standards. At least they won't fail with an ugly error message.
That's kind of complicated, isn't it? Well, that's the problem with this sort of kludge: you have to try to anticipate all the situations and avoid the nasty ones. Hopefully in the foreseeable future the browser makers will correct this problem.
http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/sounds/sounds_famsupp_18.html (http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/sounds/sounds_famsupp_18.html)
Generally the coding does not make any effort to be cross-browser compatible or standards-compliant.
-
thanks for the in-depth analysis of the link and etc. FWF ;)
what have i started now posting this thread ;D
where's the super malware fighter polonus on this one ??? ::)
(http://i10.tinypic.com/6higods.gif)
-
Leave it to the avast! team to dissect a website. Thanks for the chuckle, guys. :D :D
-
Leave it to the avast! team to dissect a website. Thanks for the chuckle, guys. :D :D
No avast (Alwil) team members in this topic, just avast users like yourself looking out for other avast users.
The main body of the page is doubly obfuscated in two layers of JavaScript.
Unravelling this code into HTML reveals (along with a whole load more validation errors) the real problem:
<BGSOUND balance=0 src="boogie/boogie.mid"
volume=0><bgsound balance="0" src="boogie/boogie.mid" volume="0" loop=infinite>
BGSOUND is supported by IE but not Netscape.
Interesting that, when the favicon is a Netscape one ;D really clever.
-
My only issue over the new update of FF v. 2.0.0.6 is that when you mouse over an emoticon, you no longer have the explanation text like IE 7.0 or the previous version. I use the latest "NoScript" extension, but I don't think that's the problem. ???
-
Leave it to the avast! team to dissect a website. Thanks for the chuckle, guys. :D :D
No avast (Alwil) team members in this topic, just avast users like yourself looking out for other avast users.
Ahhh..I sit corrected then. :)
-
No avast (Alwil) team members in this topic, just avast users like yourself looking out for other avast users
how true davidr my friend ;)
Ahhh..I sit corrected then.
no problem 8)
let's get back to the meaning of this thread i started....anybody have anything us Avast! Users have to enjoy ??? ;D
(http://i12.tinypic.com/4powfgz.gif)
-
Hello FwF and drhayden1,
Cross browser compatible code is abound on the Internet, and it should be. But it also needs be secure. Sometimes browser coders freeze certain applications because of persistent bugs.
But code like this should be coded with the major browsers in mind.
polonus
-
let's get back to the meaning of this thread i started
i know after i pm'ed you-you would reply to this off-topic on my thread (http://i11.tinypic.com/4kjicf8.gif) ;D 8)
(http://i10.tinypic.com/6bbw0on.gif)
-
TWEETY AND SYLVESTER
Watch this until Sylvester catches Tweety.
(wait for it. It's worth it)...
After Tweety is caught, scroll down...
(http://i10.tinypic.com/6f6oydh.gif)
This was an idiot test. How long did you watch? (http://i16.tinypic.com/4tgfsrm.gif)
0-2 seconds - there's hope for you
2-5 seconds - having a bad day?
5-10 seconds - are you maybe just a slow reader?
10-20 seconds - remedial classes are nothing to be ashamed of
20-30 seconds - it is recommended that you don't breed.
30 sec-1 min - you probably can't read this anyway. So why bother?
1-2 min - the equivalent of the average house plant
2-5 min - Good afternoon Jessica Simpson
5 min -1 hr - Dead people score in this range
1hr plus - Congratulations. You have a negative IQ. To find out what your prize is, watch bugs until he finishes his carrot ::) ;D
HEY, DON'T BLAME ME...YOU KNOW SYLVESTER NEVER CATCHES TWEETY
-
Well drhayden1,
This isn't that off-topic really, well as it started out. But because of your choice of hopeless coded material, it became very interesting security wise. This page was not coded it was "knitted" together.
I really cannot see what good browser code could do here. But you have to see the security side of every posting to come up with this. This page certainly not going into the hall of fame code-wise.
polonus
-
let's get back to the meaning of this thread i started
i know after i pm'ed you-you would reply to this off-topic on my thread ;D 8)
I don't think it was completely off-topic either as the topic title 'Something To Enjoy,' for me was impossible to enjoy as it doesn't work in firefox for the reasons given and I wouldn't use IE for general browsing.
-
This isn't that off-topic really, well as it started out. But because of your choice of hopeless coded material, it became very interesting security wise.
This page was not coded it was "knitted" together
i understand your point damain and davidr ;)
I wouldn't use IE for general browsing
me neither....
(http://i19.tinypic.com/4mckgnb.gif)
-
***
It works fine in Opera ... and I watched it too ******* long! :o ::) ;D
***
-
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e397/smileyplace/sheesh.gif)
About as enjoyable as a heart attack ;D ;D
-
http://www.ratemylife.net/
Rate My Life
According to surveys about how people want to spend their life, most people want to exercise regularly, eat well, be in good shape, speak different languages, quit gambling, smoking, doing drugs or drinking, fall in love, contribute to society, make a lot of money, stop procrastinating and have more sex!
Using these factors and your honest answers to some questions, 'Rate My Life' tells you exactly how you're doing at life. Here are my results:
(http://i14.tinypic.com/5zqifdg.jpg) for tednelly my friend (http://i14.tinypic.com/4znqlx4.gif) ;D ;)(http://i16.tinypic.com/61xvbcp.gif)
-
(http://i14.tinypic.com/4znqlx4.gif) Surely not watching Sylvester trying to catch Tweety even you should have known the cat never catches da Bird ;) 8) :o
Better start taking up the Slack buddy time's running Out ;) ;) ;D
(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/3523/danam2.jpg)
-
(http://i15.tinypic.com/4ku8miq.jpg)
thanks for the pm peter my friend ;D
-
For crying out loud Dan this is a Security Forum Remember ;) ;)
-
For crying out loud Dan this is a Security Forum Remember
duh! really-i didn't know that-it thought this was insults.com/forum ??? ;D (http://i13.tinypic.com/66lmbtf.gif)
something to enjoy thread-i'm enjoying this ;)
-
It works fine in Opera ...
As I understand the <bgsound> tag, it's a proprietary MS addition to HTML which Opera have decided also to implement, but as it seems to work by calling the WMP dll, it may be platform specific, i.e. Opera probably won't play the sound unless it's running on Windows.
Crappily written web page
might of been FWF my friend-but the presentation was nice 8)
i just started this thread something to enjoy if anyone found something we would or must ::) ??? of us would enjoy put it in this thread like the interesting thread but different of sorts.
I went to this site using Firefox and couldn't hear the music
and RoRo didn't have any trouble with my firefox-that's what i was using when i saw the site and listened to the music.
Just to show that presentation and coding are entirely separate, I hacked the page about a bit so it is standards compliant and cross-browser compatible. Not too difficult ever for a bodger like me. You can see the result here (http://donaldbroatch.users.btopenworld.com/boogie.htm).
My modified page uses a JavaScript to add either a <bgsound> or a <embed> tag according to the browser.
As Firefox is a web browser and not a media player, and not tied in to the OS, it requires a plug-in to play embedded music files. It won't use WMP. A discussion of the issue here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92110 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92110)
An alternative version of the page which lanches the default media player if no plug-in is installed is here (http://donaldbroatch.users.btopenworld.com/boogie2.htm).
Strictly speaking, neither <bgsound> nor <embed> is standards compliant. The tag <object> is part of the W3C standards, and both Firefox and Opera handle it OK. Needless to say, IE can't. An example here (http://donaldbroatch.users.btopenworld.com/boogie3.htm).
-
Frank you have far too much time on your hands ;D ;D
-
Frank you have far too much time on your hands
looks like FWF needs something else to enjoy ;D ;)
-
Girlfriend 6.0 vs. Wife 1.0
A Comparative Trial
Last year a friend of mine upgraded from GirlFriend 6.0 to Wife 1.0 and found that it's a memory hog leaving very little system resources available for other applications. He is now noticing that Wife 1.0 is also spawning Child Processes which are further consuming valuable resources. No mention of this particular phenomena was included in the product brochure or the documentation, though other users have informed him that this is to be expected due to the nature of the application.
Not only that, Wife 1.0 installs itself such that it is always launched at system initialization, where it can monitor all other system activity. He's finding that some applications such as PokerNight 10.3, BeerBash 2.5, and PubNight 7.0 are no longer able to run in the system at all, crashing the system when selected (even though they always worked fine before). During installation, Wife 1.0 provides no option as to the installation of undesired Plug-Ins such as MotherInLaw 55.8 and BrotherInLaw Beta release. Also, system performance seems to diminish with each passing day.
Some features he'd like to see in the upcoming wife 2.0:
a "Don't remind me again" button
a "Minimize" button
an install shield feature that allows Wife 2.0 be installed with the option to uninstall at any time without the loss of cache and other system resources
an option to run the network driver in promiscuous mode which would allow the system's hardware probe feature to be much more useful.
I myself decided to avoid the headaches associated with Wife 1.0 by sticking with Girlfriend 7.0. Even here, however, I found many problems. Apparently you cannot install Girlfriend 7.0 on top of Girlfriend 6.0. You must uninstall Girlfriend 6.0 first. Other users say this is a long standing bug that I should have known about. Apparently the versions of Girlfriend have conflicts over shared use of the I/O port. You think they would have fixed such a stupid bug by now. To make matters worse, The uninstall program for Girlfriend 6.0 doesn't work very well leaving undesirable traces of the application in the system. Another thing -- all versions of Girlfriend continually popup little annoying messages about the advantages of upgrading to Wife 1.0.
Bug Warning
Wife 1.0 has an undocumented bug. If you try to install Mistress 1.1 before uninstalling Wife 1.0, Wife 1.0 will delete MSMoney files before doing the uninstall itself. Then Mistress 1.1 will refuse to install, claiming insufficient resources.
Bug work-arounds: To avoid this bug, try installing Mistress 1.1 on a different system and never run any file transfer applications such as Laplink 6.0. Also, beware of similar shareware applications that have been known to carry viruses that may affect Wife 1.0. Another solution would be to run Mistress 1.1 via a UseNet provider under an anonymous name. Here again, beware of the viruses which can accidentally be downloaded from the UseNet.
Tech Support Suggestions
These are very common problem that is complained about, but is mostly due to a primary misconception. Many people upgrade from Girlfriend 6.0 to Wife 1.0 with the idea that Wife 1.0 is merely a Utilities & Entertainment program. Wife 1.0 is indeed an operating system and designed by its creator to run everything.
It is unlikely you would be able to purge Wife 1.0 and still convert back to Girlfriend 6.0. Hidden operating files within your system would cause Girlfriend 6.0 to emulate Wife 1.0 so nothing is gained. It is impossible to uninstall, delete, or purge the program files from the system once installed. You cannot go back to Girlfriend 6.0 because Wife 1.0 is not designed to do this.
Some have tried to install Girlfriend 7.0 or Wife 2.0 but end up with more problems than the original system. Look in your manual under "Warnings - Alimony/Child support". I recommend you keep Wife 1.0 and deal with the situation.
I suggest installing background application program C:\YES DEAR to alleviate software augmentation. Having installed Wife 1.0 myself, I might also suggest you read the entire section regarding General Partnership Faults (GPFs). You must assume all responsibility for faults and problems that might occur, regardless of their cause. The best course of action will be to enter the command C:\APOLOGIZE. In any case avoid excessive use of C:\YES DEAR because ultimately you may have to give the APOLOGIZE command before the operating system will return to normal. The system will run smoothly as long as you take the blame for all the GPFs.
Wife 1.0 is a great program, but very high-maintenance. Consider buying additional software to improve the performance of Wife 1.0. I recommend Flowers 3.1 and Diamonds 2K. Do not, under any circumstances, install Secretary with Short Skirt 3.3. This is not a supported application for Wife 1.0 and is likely to cause irreversible damage to the operating system.
Best of Luck,
Tech Support
-
Try to photograph Superman
Warning this can be addictive!
If this doesn't drive you crazy -- nothing will :o ;D Have Fun!!!
http://hk.promo.yahoo.com/movie/superman/Stop_Press_Game/
(http://i15.tinypic.com/5zbmarl.jpg)
look at rdmaloyjr post on previous page bottom-long but funny :D
-
Dan,
I got "Girlfriend 6.0 vs. Wife 1.0 A Comparative Trial" from another forum. I posted it here to get your thread on-topic about computer software & security. ;)
Have you tried Wife 1.0 on your computer? If so, did it run smoothly?
If it crashed your computer or other serious problems, I heard of a good software than can clean all traces of Wife 1.0 off your system. It's from a Mexican company called SouthoftheborderSoftware. The newest version is Divorce 10.5. The price is very reasonable & the software is fast. ;D
-
(http://i12.tinypic.com/6gdm2js.jpg)
Have you tried Wife 1.0 on your computer?
no-i haven't :)
If it crashed your computer or other serious problems
not gonna try now-computer is running as smooth as silk at present 8)
-
Hi drhayden1
the penguin that you post is very funny .
but the website has virus .... ???
-
what penquin...please show me my post ???
-
I think he is referring to the initial post 'link' to boogie.htm something is detecting it 'what, he didn't say' but I believe xiaochugang needs to investigate this as a false positive detection by what ever it was that detected it.
No detection by Dr Web link checker.
-
:)This FP thing sure weakens the malware fight, we never know for sure wheter its a malware or a FP until we got a chance to investigate it thoroughly, which can or cannot be instantaneous... 8)
-
You need to be at least 50 for this to make sense. ;D
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/bob3160/ShellFTP/th_Pickles.png) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/bob3160/ShellFTP/Pickles.png)
Click image to enlarge
-
You need to be at least 50 for this to make sense
no comment on my age bob-but i know you are over the hill a-little more than me ;D
(http://i11.tinypic.com/6894lz4.jpg)
-
An animated tribute to the internet people of the world, wherever you may be.
http://www.channelfrederator.com/methminute39/episode/TMM_20070906
WOT and phishtank safe....
-
http://www.letleonardin.com/
someone(bob,davidr,polonus,tednelly,etc.)please feed the goldfish ;D