I export images using Lightroom, with keywords in the IPTC metadata.
I then use exiv2 to add keywords.
I then upload my images to an online website. The website sees the keywords added by Lightroom, but not the keywords added by exiv2. I can see the keywords added by exiv2 in the windows or linux file explorer, so I know they have been properly embedded in the image.
What might be causing this website to be "blind" to the changes made to the files?
The website is reading metadata from xmp and not iptc
The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. In the case of keywords, there are two standardized locations:
Iptc.Application2.Keywords
Xmp.dc.subject
and five application-specific locations:
Exif.Image.XPKeywords
Xmp.acdsee.categories
Xmp.digiKam.TagsList
Xmp.MicrosoftPhoto.LastKeywordXMP
Xmp.MicrosoftPhoto.LastKeywordIPTC
Related
I've been tasked with creating a deployable version of a ColdFusion web app to be installed on a clients server. I'm trying to find a way to give them a compiled version of our code, and my first inclination was to use the CFCompile utility that I found here. However, after running CFCompile, most of the code in the CFM files is still readable. The only thing that appears to be obfuscated at all is the actual ColdFusion code - all of the SQL Queries are still perfectly readable. (Example in the screenshot below)
The HTML and JavaScript are also still readable in the compiled code, but that doesn't matter as those can be seen in a web browser anyways.
Is there another way to distribute my source code in a format that is completely unreadable to the user? I'm guessing that for whatever method I choose, there will be some way of decompiling the code. That's not an issue, I just need to find a way to make it more difficult than opening the file and seeing the queries.
Hostek has a pretty good write up on the subject over on their site - How to Encrypt or Compile ColdFusion Files.
Basically, from that article:
Using cfcompile.bat
The cfcompile.bat utility will compile all .cfm and .cfc files within a given directory into Java bytecode. This has the effect of making your source code unreadable, and it also prevents ColdFusion from having to compile your ColdFusion files on first use which provides a small performance enhancement.
More details about using cfcompile.bat can be found in ColdFusion's Documentation
Using cfencode.exe
The cfencode.exe utility will apply basic encryption to a specific file or directory. If used to encrypt a directory, it will apply encryption to ALL files in the directory which can break any JS, CSS, images, or other non-ColdFusion files.
They do also include this note at the bottom:
Note: Encrypting your site files with cfencode does not guarantee absolute security of your source code, but it does add a layer of obfuscation to help prevent unauthorized individuals from viewing the source.
The article goes on to give basic instructions on how to use each.
Adobe has this note on their site regarding cfencode:
Note: You can also use the cfencode utility, located in the cf_root/bin directory, to obscure ColdFusion pages that you distribute. Although this technique cannot prevent persistent hackers from determining the contents of your pages, it does prevent inspection of the pages. The cfencode utility is not available on OS X.
I would also add that it will be trivial for anyone familiar with ColdFusion to decode anything encoded with this utility because they also provide the decoder.
I am pretty new to Rmarkdown presentations. I liked ioslides but it was quite a fixed theme, and Xarignan seemed more easily configurable (the visual aspect).
With ioslides, you get an html file with ALL the content (css, images, etc.). With Xaringan, I cannot get the images to work (seems like I need them to be in a folder in the same folder as the html file). Also, I am not sure if the html files uses something from the internet.
This problem has been largely resolved. For now, you may try the development version of xaringan:
remotes::install_github('yihui/xaringan')
Images in slides should be correctly embedded now if you specify the option self_contained: true under the output format xaringan::moon_reader. The help page ?xaringan::moon_reader has more information about the self-contained mode.
Using C++ MFC, how to get a list of the extensions added to browsers? And if possible, how to enable and disable those extensions.
For example, of extensions installed in Chrome:
So, can I get those names names and a control that can enable and disable them?
For Firefox, you would go to the profile directory, for instance:
"C:\Users\Muhammad Ali Greatest Boxer of All Time\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles"
Then you would pick the directory of the profile you interested in. Then you can read all the entreis in extensions folder. If you want to get a more accurate view, like if the extensions are enabled/disabled, their titles, you can read inside the profile directory the addons.json and extensions.json file. I'm not sure of the difference between the two. Please share with us what the differences are after you dig into it.
In one open source project, I saw that they were including GeoIP.h header file and calling their functions to know the country code of an IP. I wonder where is the database used by GeoIP.h
I went through the source code of GeoIP.h at
http://www9.biostr.washington.edu/webalizer/src/stonesteps.ca/webalizer_src_3_4_4_1/GeoIP.h
It uses a variable FILE *GeoIPDatabase; Please suggest. I need the whole database.
===EDIT===
The source code I am visiting is this. It doesn't mention any database to be used!
https://github.com/lampeh/libvmod-geoip/blob/master/src/vmod_geoip.c.
It's available for download on the Maxmind web site. A basic free version is available at:
http://dev.maxmind.com/geoip/legacy/geolite/
More detailed databases are also available for purchase.
Are you looking for this? (see downloads section)
http://dev.maxmind.com/geoip/legacy/geolite/
You can download either CSV or binary data files.
I thought i had a simple question, but somehow i cant find a source for the answer....which document formats can be indexed by the Lucene version that is packaged with Railo 4.0?
Somehow .doc and .pdf seem to go well, but docx and rtf just don't seem to get indexed....Is there a list available somewhere? And for all formats that arent supported, what would be the best way to get that info indexed aswell by cfindex?
<cfindex
collection = "#collection#"
action = "update"
type = "file"
key ="#ABSfilepath#"
title="#ABSfilepath#"
>
thanks!
Question also posted to Railo mailing list: web link.
Railo 4 uses Lucene 2.4.1 - how do you tell? Same way you tell the version for all third-party software that Railo uses: locate the JAR file (in the lib/ext directory), open that archive (using 7-zip or equivalent), and look at META-INF/MANIFEST.MF where you find content like this:
Specification-Title: Lucene Search Engine: core
Specification-Version: 2.4.1
Specification-Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation
Implementation-Title: org.apache.lucene
Implementation-Version: 2.4.1 750176 - 2009-03-04 21:56:52
Implementation-Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation
This seems to be a pretty old version and doesn't look like it has any docs on the Apache Lucene website. (It might be possible to upgrade Lucene by replacing the relevant JARs, but this might also cause dependency issues; do at own risk.)
Since the Lucene website doesn't help, a search for "lucene 2.4.1 indexable documents" brings back a pertinent question about v2.3.2 which asks:
Does Lucene java supports parsing of extensions *.docx, *.pptx, *.mpp i.e.
Microsoft Windows 2007 documents?
With the response:
Lucene doesn't actually support any of the document types. What happens
is that some program is used to parse the files into an indexable stream
and that stream is indexed. That used to be POI in the old days.
Ok, so assuming that is still accurate, Lucene doesn't control the filetypes, Apache POI does.
Checking the JARs tells us Railo 4.0 uses Apache POI v3.8 and looking at the POI changelog reveals that .docx support arrived in v3.5
So, your .docx files should be supported along with the other MS Office formats. If it's definitely not being indexed, you probably need to identify if it's a POI issue or a Lucene issue or a Railo issue - creating a simple reproducable test case with both .doc and .docx documents is probably a good first step.
Beyond that, you'll need someone familiar with Lucene/POI to advise - there may or not be log files that will contain details of possible indexing/retrieval errors, or ways to interact with Lucene directly (not via Railo/cfindex) that can help identify where the issue lies.