Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The RFC specifies this code should be returned by teapots requested to brew coffee. [18] This HTTP status is used as an Easter egg in some websites, such as Google.com's "I'm a teapot" easter egg. [19] [20] [21] Sometimes, this status code is also used as a response to a blocked request, instead of the more appropriate 403 Forbidden. [22] [23]
The correct number of sections for a fence is n − 1 if the fence is a free-standing line segment bounded by a post at each of its ends (e.g., a fence between two passageway gaps), n if the fence forms one complete, free-standing loop (e.g., enclosure accessible by surmounting, such as a boxing ring), or n + 1 if posts do not occur at the ends ...
Fencing is the isolation of a failed node so that it does not cause disruption to a computer cluster. As its name suggests, STONITH fences failed nodes by resetting or powering down the failed node. Multi-node error-prone contention in a cluster can have catastrophic results, such as if both nodes try writing to a shared storage resource.
A directory traversal (or path traversal) attack exploits insufficient security validation or sanitization of user-supplied file names, such that characters representing "traverse to parent directory" are passed through to the operating system's file system API. An affected application can be exploited to gain unauthorized access to the file ...
The special directory names (from ASP.NET 2.0 on) are: [16] App_Code This is the "raw code" directory. The ASP.NET server automatically compiles files (and subdirectories) in this folder into an assembly accessible in the code of every page of the site. App_Code is typically used for data access abstraction code, model code and business code.
A file inclusion vulnerability is a type of web vulnerability that is most commonly found to affect web applications that rely on a scripting run time.This issue is caused when an application builds a path to executable code using an attacker-controlled variable in a way that allows the attacker to control which file is executed at run time.
The safety added by bounds checking necessarily costs CPU time if the checking is performed in software; however, if the checks could be performed by hardware, then the safety can be provided "for free" with no runtime cost. An early system with hardware bounds checking was the ICL 2900 Series mainframe announced in 1974. [3]
The entity–control–boundary approach finds its origin in Ivar Jacobson's use-case–driven object-oriented software engineering (OOSE) method published in 1992. [1] [2] It was originally called entity–interface–control (EIC) but very quickly the term "boundary" replaced "interface" in order to avoid the potential confusion with object-oriented programming language terminology.