This really isn't the issue since #1 we have no control over this
product that is used and will continue to be in use. and #2 its the
only way to get into the system that we have to talk to. and #3
Trusting it isn't my call.
On 7/10/07, Dean H. Saxe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you don't know w
Thanks Charlie.
- Original Message
From: Charlie Arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: discussion@acfug.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:32:55 PM
Subject: RE: [ACFUG Discuss] Cert discount code?
DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}
But did you search your archive of ACFUG announcements? :-)
It's
But did you search your archive of ACFUG announcements? :-)
It's ok. I realize some may just delete them. I do not (and I file them in
their own folder).
Anyway, here was at least one comment on the discount from February. I don't
know if it's still active (though I never heard a date associa
I seem to remember someone (perhaps Charlie?) sharing a CF7 Cert discount code
for those who were certified on MX already. Ringing any bells? I haven't been
able to find it in my mail archives.
Thanks,
S
-
Annual Sponsor FigLeaf Sof
Unfortunately, I think your options are fairly limited then.
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Ross
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:32 PM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] speeding up cfexecute
Well to conv
If you don't know what your encryption code is doing, why in the heck
would you ever trust it?
-dhs
Dean H. Saxe, CISSP, CEH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people
what they do not want to hear."
-- George Orwell, 1945
On Jul 10, 2007,
Well to convert it to java would need some reverse engineering of
Perl. Which I can't do.
On 7/10/07, John Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seems weird if you do a timeout and wait for cfexecute to return a result it
takes that much longer to run. Is this truly the same actions in the
background
Yeah, i just didn't think it should be *that* slow.
On 7/10/07, Dean H. Saxe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The difference is Java making a call to execute the runtime binary...
-dhs
Dean H. Saxe, CISSP, CEH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Dissent is the purest form of patriotism."
--Thomas Jefferson
Seems weird if you do a timeout and wait for cfexecute to return a result it
takes that much longer to run. Is this truly the same actions in the
background?
Yep, that would be my next question if it's possible for him to convert this
to Java. Hopefully, it can be..
John
-Original Message-
The difference is Java making a call to execute the runtime binary...
-dhs
Dean H. Saxe, CISSP, CEH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Dissent is the purest form of patriotism."
--Thomas Jefferson
On Jul 10, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Steven Ross wrote:
This is on solaris, so no to the windows questions. Witho
This is on solaris, so no to the windows questions. Without getting
into why we cant do this in Java, I'll just say we can't. Binary was
provided to us for decryption with no instructions on how to use it
otherwise. It is very convoluted.
Doing a time on the binary from the terminal says it takes
Why not rewrite the encryptor/decryptor in Java using JCE/JCA and
call it directly from CF?
-dhs
Dean H. Saxe, CISSP, CEH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not
that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant."
-- Robert F. Kennedy, 1964
That would be the same as what CF does behind the scenes...
Dean H. Saxe, CISSP, CEH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak
minds."
--Einstein
On Jul 10, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Steven Ross wrote:
Do you know if executing it through java would
Can you somehow cache the output? Is there an anti-virus product installed that
scans the executable upon loading?
If this is a windows box, a rude estimate of "OS level" execution time, write a
batch file something like:
ver|time
yourprogram
ver|time
the time command will give you the curren
Do you know if executing it through java would be faster?
On 7/10/07, Steven Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm, that is odd, it is a binary that is used in decryption so there
is no escaping its use. I would prefer not to add in an extra step.
On 7/10/07, John Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm, that is odd, it is a binary that is used in decryption so there
is no escaping its use. I would prefer not to add in an extra step.
On 7/10/07, John Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The timeout always seems to drag out the cfexecute calls. What exactly are
you calling on the command line? T
The timeout always seems to drag out the cfexecute calls. What exactly are
you calling on the command line? There might be another way to make the call
or if all else fails simply pipe the output to a text file and read it in
via cffile (which oddly can be faster than waiting on cfexecute to provid
Yeah we have to, it is returning data.
On 7/10/07, John Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you putting a timeout on the cfexecute call?
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Ross
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:56 AM
To: ACFUG
Are you putting a timeout on the cfexecute call?
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Ross
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:56 AM
To: ACFUG ColdFusion Discussion
Subject: [ACFUG Discuss] speeding up cfexecute
Any way to speed it u
Any way to speed it up? The binary I'm hitting takes about 1/2 a
second to invoke through CF but, only milliseconds to actually return
data.
thx
--
Steven Ross
web application & interface developer
http://www.zerium.com
[mobile] 404-488-4364
[fax] 267-482-4364
--
20 matches
Mail list logo
