I'm needing to implement some form of captcha support for comments on my blog. I would really prefer a mostly passive approach, as in, no ReCaptcha. I'm thinking about doing a combination of honeypot and this. I don't exactly plan for my site to be specifically targeted by any spammers, but I want to definitely stop all the drive-by spam attacks.
So on to my question: With spam bots advancing in technology all the time, should I use something more complicated for hiding the hidden field than display: none? If so, then what would you suggest?
Unless spam is a serious problem on your blog, I'd just go for doing display: none.
You could also try the classic "What is 2 + 2" / "What color is the sky?" style questions.
for human verification:
I use a php function to generate a random number string, and echo it into a text box. Then require the user to enter it into a blank box. I use jQuery .validate to make sure the two are equal to each other.
for bot detection:
I use a hidden input and then with my jQuery .validate script I make a custom rule that if the hidden input's value isn't blank it returns an error I also have this in my server side php validation. works pretty well.
Related
I'm relatively new to Expression Engine, and as I'm learning it I am seeing some stuff missing that WordPress has had for a while. A big one for me is shortcodes, since I will use these to allow CMS users to place more complex content in place with their other content.
I'm not seeing any real equivalent to this in EE, apart from a forthcoming plugin that's in private beta.
As an initial test I'm attempting to fake shortcodes by using delimited strings (e.g. #foo#) in the content field, then using a regex to pull those out and pass them to a function that can retrieve the content out of EE's database.
This brings me to a second question, which is that in looking at EE's API docs, there doesn't appear to be a simple means of retrieving the channel entries programmatically (thinking of something akin to WP's built-in get_posts function).
So my questions are:
a) Can this be done?
b) If so, is my method of approaching it reasonable? Or is there something stupidly obvious I'm missing in my approach?
To reiterate, my main objective here is to have some means of allowing people managing content to drop a code in place in their content that will be replaced with channel content.
Thanks for any advice or help you can give me.
Here's a simple example of the functionality you're looking for.
1) Start by installing Low Replace.
2) Create two Global Variables called gv_hello and gv_goodbye with the values "Hello" and "Goodbye" respectively.
3) Put this text into the body of an entry:
[say_hello]
Nice to see you.
[say_goodbye]
4) Put this into your template, wrapping the Low Replace tag around your body field.
{exp:low_replace
find="[say_hello]|[say_goodbye]"
replace="{gv_hello}|{gv_goodbye}"
multiple="yes"
}
{body}
{/exp:low_replace}
5) It should output this into your browser:
Hello
Nice to see you.
Goodbye
Obviously, this is a really simple example. You can put full blown HTML into your global variable. For example, we've used that to render a complex, interactive graphic that isn't editable but can be easily dropped into a page by any editor.
Unfortunately, due to parse order issues, EE tags won't work inside Global Variables. If you need EE tags in your short code output, you'll need to use Low Variables addon instead of Global Variables.
Continued from the comment:
Do you have examples of the kind of shortcodes you want to support/include? Because i have doubts if controlling the page-layout from a text-field or wysiwyg-field is the way to go.
If you want editors to be able to adjust layout or show/hide extra parts on the page, giving them access to some extra fields in the channel, is (imo) much more manageable and future-proof. For instance some selectfields, a relationship (or playa) field, or a matrix, to let them choose which parts to include/exclude on a page, or which entry from another channel to pull content from.
As said in the comment: i totally understand if you want to replace some #foo# tags with images or data from another field (see other answers: nsm-transplant, low_replace). But, giving an editor access to shortcodes and picking them out, is like writing a template-engine to generate ee-template code for the ee-template-engine.
Using some custom fields to let editors pick and choose parts to embed is, i think, much more manageable.
That being said, you could make a plugin to parse the shortcodes from a textareas content, and then program a lot, to fetch data from other modules you want to support. For channel entries you could build out of the channel data library by objectiveHTML. https://github.com/objectivehtml/Channel-Data
I hear you, I too miss shortcodes from WP -- though the reason they work so easily there is the ubiquity of the_content(). With the great flexibility of EE comes fewer blanket solutions.
I'd suggest looking at NSM Transplant. It should fit the bill for you.
There is also a plugin called Shortcode, which you can find here at
Devot-ee
A quote from the page:
Shortcode aims to allow for more dynamic use of content by authors and
editors, allowing for injection of reusable bits of content or even
whole pieces of functionality into any field in EE
I want to add text to body element but I don't know how. Which method will work on the body tag?
Sorry for my english and thanks for replies.
In Watir, you can manipulate a web page (DOM) using JS, just like that:
browser.execute_script("document.getElementById('pageContent').appendChild(document.createTextNode('Great Success!'));")
I assume that the point of the question is:
All users are not just interacting by just clicking buttons and links on the web app, some of them are doing nasty things like altering http requests to make your system do something that it is not supposed to do... or to just have some fun.
To mimic this behavior, you could write a ui-test that alters forms on the web page, so that for example, one could type in anything into any field instead of a limited dropdown.
To do that, ui test has to:
manipulate DOM to set form inputs free of limitations (replace select's with input's, etc.)
ui test has to know, which values to use, in many cases it's pointless to enter random values. Your webapp has to provide some good "unwanted" options.
Why would you want to modify the webpage in Watir? It's for automated testing, not DOM manipulation.
If you want to add something to the DOM element in javascript, you can do it like that:
var txt = document.createTextNode(" This text was added to the DIV.");
document.getElementById('myDiv').appendChild(txt);
Or use some DOM manipulation library, like jQuery.
If you have not worked your way though the watir tutorial, I would suggest you do so. It deals with things like filling in text fields etc.
Learn to use the developer tools for your browser, Firebug for Firefox, or the built in tools for IE and CHrome. They will let you look at things as you interact with the site.
If the element is not a normal HTML input field of some sort, then you are dealing with a custom control. Many exist and they are varied and there is no one set solution for dealing with them. Without knowing which control you are using, and being able ourselves to interact with a sample of it, or at least see the HTML, it is very very difficult to advise you, we basically have to just guess (which is often a waste of everyone's time)
Odds are if you have a place you can enter text, then it is some form of input control, it might not start out that way, you may need to click on some other element, to make the input area appear, but without a sample of HTML all we can do is guess.
If this is a commercial control, see if you can find a demo site that shows the control in action. Try googling things like class names for the elements and often you get lucky
I have a form which has about 15 fields a user has to input..I'm looking for a way to not scare the user's off.
I wanna see if someone implemented forms with too many fields differently or if anyone has any ideas
If not all the fields are necessary because they depend on some choice, you could only display the relevant fields once the choice has been made. You could also visually distinguish non-mandatory fields so that it's clear from the outset how much work has to be done by the user and how much is optional.
If everything is mandatory, then you could either go the Windows way and show tons of small windows in sequence and annoy everyone who just wants to get it done, but you'd not scare people who get scared by seeing lots of forms - a page counter is crucial, though. However, you could start with a small wizard view, but immediately offer an "advanced" option that would allow those who want to show everything at once, while still offering a guided tour as the default.
Try to keep it in steps - maybe organize about 3 different pages filled with the forms.
Example: Contact info, they hit continue. Then they hit another page, except with the forms for ordering an item. Then the third page is for payment fields.
I wish to block ALL my content from any users using an ad-blocking browser extension (ie. Adblock Plus for Firefox, Adthwart for Chrome).
How can I acheive this? Is there a server-side solution? Client-side?
Edit 1
This question regards the detection of ad-blocking browser extensions:
Detecting AdBlocking software?
I'm concerned with post-detection action.
Edit 2
A duplicate question was asked after mine, so I thought I'd link to it here:
Prevent Adblock Users from Accessing Website?
To detect if the user is blocking ads, all you have to do is find a function in the ad javascript and try testing for it. It doesn't matter what method they're using to block the ad. Here's what it looks like for Google Adsense ads:
if(typeof(window.google_render_ad)=="undefined")
{
//They're blocking ads, do something else.
}
This method is outlined here: http://www.metamorphosite.com/detect-web-popup-blocker-software-adblock-spam
It's like trying to block users from reading your contents while standing rather then while sitting. It's silly, and it's likely to drive visitors off your site. The last time i saw a "you're using adblock, that hurt web developing bla bla" i jst blocked that div with the element hiding helper. It was fun i admit. Most sites are almost unreadable as now, with flashing ads and pale contents. A good quantity of ads are, also, malevolent, disguised as part of the site they're in takes the user to bad places.
That's why you should not. If you still want to, bad news, you can't. As long as i can write $('.ad').hide() in my console, nobody can stop me from adblocking something. I sometimes give up when ads divs have a very generic class, id, or they haven't any, so that it's difficult to target them with the adblock element hiding helper (of course if they are not in the lists, in that case i dont even know they exists). So the best you can do probably is give to ads a class of .content or something you use also in other parts of the site. It's not much, but it' all you can do. And just because you can, it does not mean you should. The web marketing model have to change, and it will.
That I know of this is not directly possible. Most add blockers work by locking at the URLs that are being "requested" and either blocking directly, or looking at the content/mime-type and blocking based on that.
You might be able to do something by looking for signs of the adblocker, but this will be difficult at best.
Although I love my adblocker, it's about answering questions. You could check if an url that would normally be blocked by an adblocker is reachable, and continue only if that image/bla in question is loaded. otherwise, you just don't.
How can we restrict a user from saving the page?
Please provide some tips to disable File->Save and View Source options
EDIT: Obviously it can't be done, and probably shouldn't be attempted. But possibly a more interesting variant on this question is how can we make is sufficiently hard for a user to save a page in a usable format such that it is not worth their while doing so? The question doesn't pose a value, but say we were protecting an article subscription site where the user is paying a few hundred dollars per annum for continued access to text.
Since the page has been sent to the client, there will always be a way to get that information. Trying to stop a user from doing this will only frustrate them.
The only way to have a user not be able to save a file is to not send it to them.
While the best answer is "Don't do this," there are ways to make it more difficult for them. And since the point of this site is actually answer the question even if it's bad, here is the best way:
First you'll need to have the page open in a new window where you turn off the address bar and toolbar and everything else. That will make it so the user can't easily get to the File menu at all. To do this you'll need a "splash" page that the user loads to and then when they click a link, it opens the popup that serves the main content of your page. Details on how to create popups without things like the toolbar are here:
http://blazonry.com/javascript/windows.php
Then you'll want to add some javascript to each page that prevents the user from right clicking. Here is one method:
http://javascript.about.com/library/blnoright.htm
Finally, if it's your Javascript code that you don't want to be seen, then obfuscating your code is a pretty effective way to do that. They can still see the code if they have much know-how, but the obfuscated code would be a gigantic pain to actually interpret. There are lots of obfuscators out there; here is a free web-based one:
http://www.javascriptobfuscator.com/
This is far from foolproof. It will stop all "casual" users, but any power user will probably be able to easily figure out a way around it. Still if the idea is to at least prevent a good majority of it then this should suffice.
Update for updated question:
To address your new expanded question, I would say the best way to accomplish what you're saying is to use a format that supports DRM. Adobe Acrobat would probably be the best choice because almost everyone has the reader installed. You can prevent PDF files from being saved to the computer so that they can only be loaded from the webpage by a logged in user. The user could still do a screen capture of the document itself which I don't believe is preventable (unless Adobe Reader has some security in place for this, which they might) but it should be sufficient security for most uses.
Don't do it.
Seriously, if the user can see the page in their browser they can see the source code and/or save it to their computer.
You are fighting a losing battle here.
What about the browser's cache? It can be saved from there.
What about a print screen? That could also save the page.
The only way to prevent a user from saving something is to not show it to them in the first place.
It's really a waste of time and resources to try and do this in html as any method you use can be trivially circumvented.
Instead I would use some other technology to display the data - you can never get around a screen capture. but if you're for instance displaying text and you want to make it hard for the use to save that text for use elsewhere then possible options include
PDF - which can disable save and print. There are extensions to most popular web languages that will write a pdf on the fly. Indeed you might be as well just to go down the DRM route with Adobe and embed a document
Flash - most probably via Flex which could be used to write a general-purpose app to display text and images. The advantage of Flash is that it's easier to set up links than pdf.
Or something else, a custom java applet, or even a vrml plugin and display the text in 3D!
In all cases you could display text against a disruptive background to make OCR more difficult, and images could be watermarked. However nothing is going to stop a determined and resourceful viewer, although you can possibly make it sufficiently hard that it's not worth their time.
The least you can do is... the content is generated dynamically by Javascript. In that way, they cannot simply save it. Of course, in FX, they can still view the generated code and then copy&paste. however, normally people cannot save the page.
It shouldn't be an issue, but if you really don't want a user from seeing your code (javascript, css or html) for some reason, than you could use some obfuscation tool which makes the code less readable.
Try javascript "encoding" and obfuscation.
Something like
if(document.location == 'mydomain.com') {
content = getAjax('mycontent.xml');
// content will hold something like 72, 94, 81, 99, ... - encoded ASCII codes
document.write(String.fromCharCode(content));
}
It will always be possible to save the page, but for non-technical guys it will be harder to make it work.
There are 2 protections
domain name
converting ASCII
It's only pseudocode, but I think you get the idea.
add these to code sets in script tag
document.addEventListener('contextmenu', function (e) {
e.preventDefault();
});
document.onkeydown = function (e) {
return false;
};
I'd like to add one more method which, imho, is hard to circumvent: Ctrl+S! (for me, Apple+S)
how can we make is sufficiently hard for a user to save a page in a usable format such that it is not worth their while doing so
Nothing hard: add on every page: "Personal property of John Stealer, company Zetabeta, paid with credit card 756890987654, billing address ..., subscription expires 12/20".
This is an "extended text format" that I just invented... it has an amazing property: though it looks like a regular text, user is much less willing to print it out and give to others...