[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webcontrols

A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client

Josh Sale

2/6/2004 10:25:00 PM

In the application that I'm developing, I stuff the XML data from a
client-side ActiveX spread sheet control (an Office Web Component) into a
hidden text control so that I can process it in my ASP.Net code on the
server.

However, unless I disable request validation on the page, I get the
following error message when the form is posted:

A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client


My question is, is there some other way of getting the xml from the client
to the server code that will bypass this error message? I'd rather not
disable request validation for obvious reasons.

TIA,

josh
3 Answers

Ken Cox [MS MVP]

2/7/2004 12:54:00 AM

0

Is there a way that you can use HttpServerUtility.HtmlEncode and
HttpServerUtility.HtmlDecode to escape/unescape the troublesome characters?


"Josh Sale" <jsale@tril dot cod> wrote in message
news:O0JAPAQ7DHA.3704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In the application that I'm developing, I stuff the XML data from a
> client-side ActiveX spread sheet control (an Office Web Component) into a
> hidden text control so that I can process it in my ASP.Net code on the
> server.
>
> However, unless I disable request validation on the page, I get the
> following error message when the form is posted:
>
> A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client
>
>
> My question is, is there some other way of getting the xml from the client
> to the server code that will bypass this error message? I'd rather not
> disable request validation for obvious reasons.
>
> TIA,
>
> josh
>

Josh Sale

2/9/2004 2:56:00 PM

0

I don't know?

My impression was that those two methods were for use on the server and not
the client (which is where my xml is originating).

josh



"Ken Cox [Microsoft MVP]" <BANSPAMken_cox@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:uemLpTR7DHA.2472@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is there a way that you can use HttpServerUtility.HtmlEncode and
> HttpServerUtility.HtmlDecode to escape/unescape the troublesome
characters?
>
>
> "Josh Sale" <jsale@tril dot cod> wrote in message
> news:O0JAPAQ7DHA.3704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > In the application that I'm developing, I stuff the XML data from a
> > client-side ActiveX spread sheet control (an Office Web Component) into
a
> > hidden text control so that I can process it in my ASP.Net code on the
> > server.
> >
> > However, unless I disable request validation on the page, I get the
> > following error message when the form is posted:
> >
> > A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client
> >
> >
> > My question is, is there some other way of getting the xml from the
client
> > to the server code that will bypass this error message? I'd rather not
> > disable request validation for obvious reasons.
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > josh
> >
>

Paul Carr

7/28/2009 5:45:00 PM

0


"Fred J. McCall" <fjmccall@gmail.com>
??????:e8gm655ragtriq3kooevulurf6l96nei2j@4ax.com...
> "Paul Carr" <worldpaulcarr@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fjmccall@gmail.com>
> :??????:e95i659resg9d4p9fmns29l78v89qlbqgf@4ax.com...
> :
> :<snip>
> :
> :> Note that only the Japanese Communists agree with your interpretation.
> :> > 1) Please explain, given your interpretation of Article 9, the
> current
> :> Nihon Rikujyo Jieitai strength of 11 combat divisions and 6
> :> independent combat brigades with roughly 1,000 Main Battle Tanks and
> :> 1,000 artillery pieces.
> :>
> :> 2) Please explain, given your interpretation of Article 9, the current
> :> Nihon Kaijyo Jieitai strength of 52 major surface combatant ships,
> :> including some 13 'large destroyers' (DDG and DDH), 16 submarines, 4
> :> amphibious assault ships and 170 combat aircraft.
> :>
> :> 3) Please explain, given your interpretation of Article 9, the current
> :> Nihon Koku Jieitai strength of some 360 modern multi-role fighter
> :> aircraft
> :>
> :> 4) Please explain, given your interpretation of Article 9, the current
> :> Defense expenditure level of Japan.
> :>
> :> Now, having done all that,
> :>
> :
>
> I note you were unable to do that.

For some reason you break down Japan's defense capabilities into 3 parts and
ask the same question for each. Then, you ask the same question again
regarding "the current defense expenditure of Japan". By the way, I already
gave you my explanation. All I did was gather the parts together into 1
part and answer the question with one answer. I repeat my answer. The
military capabilities you list above are for conventional weapons. There is
a difference between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons (nuclear bombs
and delivery systems). If Japan were to acquire such weapons, at any rate,
publicly announce its intention to acquire such weapons or that it has
already acquired them, then I think they will cross a line. And, I'm not
just talking here about a Japanese constitutional line but also you have to
consider the realpolitik of the situation in East Asia. Japan's neighbours
in East Asia, such as South Korea and the People's Republic of China, will
not be pleased.

First things first though. You wrote that "Japan now ranks third in the
world in defense spending". Not clear where you getting this info. My
information is different. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_ex...

the USA spends most on its military. Over 713 billion dollars. Followed by
China at over 70 billion dollars (that's the People's Republic of China in
case you're not clear there). Next, France at nearly 68 billion dollars.
In 4th place is the UK at just over 64 billion dollars and in fifth place is
Japan at nearly 49 billion dollars. Even these figures would downplay the
estimate for China for example because countrys' expenditures are compared
using market exchange rates and not purchasing power parity. I understand
that market exchange rates exaggerate the actual military expenditure of
developed countries and underestimate the actual military expenditure of
developing countries like China. I wrote about the fraud of GDP based on
market exchange rates that our mainstream media scandalously continues to
use on my blog here:

http://worldpaulcarr.spaces.live.co...!2AA66E340D37A86C!2515.entry

It has occurred to me that the Japanese government may have had its hands
(almost) on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems for some time now if
the experience of Germany is anything to go by.

____________________________________________________________________________
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_weapons_of_mass_d...


The United States provides about 60 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by
Germany under a NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement. The weapons are
stored at B?chel and Ramstein Air Bases, and in time of war would be
delivered by Luftwaffe Panavia Tornado warplanes. Many countries believe
this violates Articles I and II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), where Germany has committed:

"... not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons
or explosive devices directly, or indirectly ... or otherwise acquire
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices ...".

___________________________________________________________________________

Returning to military expenditures by individual countries, I'm sure even
you will concede that the military expenditure of China is increasing (a
lot) faster than Japan's. And, as the list of military expenditures by
individual countries shows, even now, as of 2009, China's military
expenditure is already nearly 50% greater than Japan's.

Setting aside the Japanese constitutional question of whether their
government should announce its intention to acquire nuclear weapons and
their delivery systems or that they have already acquired them, it's going
to be rather thick for the Japanese government to take such a course in the
light of its rather shaky relations with THE LEADING MILITARY POWER OF THE
REGION, China. HeHe. You've also got to take into account the failure of
the Japanese government to acknowledge the suffering that Japan inflicted on
the people of East Asia up to 1945. It has now reached a point, I
understand, where even a well-documented massacre/genocide like the Nanjing
massacre of 1937 (I've read estimates of between 200,000 and 300,000 men,
women and children murdered by Japanese troops) is being significantly
downplayed in Japanese school text books. And the Nanjing massacre was a
massacre which was documented by "the white man", that is, the Nazi John
Rabe (regarded as the Oskar Schlinder of Asia) and his 20 or so educated
friends and colleagues. So, even if "the white man" documents a
massacre/genocide of innocent men, women and children, the Japanese
government is disinclined to believe.

Of course, the Nanjing massacre was merely the tip of the iceberg. Before
1945, the Japanese government encouraged a belief amongst its people that
they were the Master Race. Attendant to that, genocide was attempted in
those parts of China that Japan occupied. Had Japan the industrial muscle
of Germany in the early 1940s they would have had more success in
exterminating whole populations.. And, of course, I have to acknowledge
that the Japanese inflicted terrible suffering on all the people of East
Asia where they were the occupying force.

So, given the fact that the Japanese government is not facing up to its
responsibilities on this matter, not facing up to the reality of the
terrible atrocities that their government and military visited on the people
of East Asia, given the fact that Japan is not acknowledging a shameful part
of its history, in the light of that, do you really think that China is
going to be pleased that Japan is to acquire nuclear tipped ICBM missiles?
Well, if you do, then I suggest you are the proverbial ostrich with its head
buried in the sand.

Of course, we know that the US government has a record of sowing division in
many parts of the world. Look at the Middle East now!! I think 2 years
ago, the US Congress approved a 20 billion dollar military aid package to
Saudi Arabia and, around the same time, the same body approved a 30 billion
dollar military aid package to Israel. Two countries, Israel and Saudi
Arabia, that are technically still at war with one another!! Where's the
sense there? Why not just send 10 billion dollars of military aid to
Israel? HeHe. Divide and conquer dominates the collective thinking of US
Congressmen. Take Taiwan. Throughout the 2000s, when Chen Shui Bian was
"President" of Taiwan, the US congress approved military loans to Taiwan.
These loans were blocked repeatedly by the Taiwanese parliament (I think
between 30 and 40 times all told) because the opposition party, the
Kuomintang, controlled parliament. I mean the US congress doesn't give a
toss about global peace and stability. Rather, it seeks to foster
instability in various regions of the world to lend itself apparent relative
stability at home. You know, the old "prey on and benefit from the
misfortune of others" nugget where they play a big role in creating the
misfortune in the first place.

The Chinese leadership are shrewd. They know that what the US congress
prize more than anything else is money. Money is the key to a Congressman's
heart. US congressmen are openly bribed. The fact that their various
earnings are declared doesn't mean that they are not bribed. They are and
that makes them corrupt. I think the largest foreign purchaser of US
treasuries is China. Oh, Fred, they've beaten Japan into first place there.
HeHe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Treasur...