|
grralph1 wrote: End users are often Faster, Higher, Stronger or Stupid.
Not necessarily - it could just be an old mouse. One of the things uSwitches can do when they get old is "bounce" more, and if the time between successive bounces is larger than the hardware (or driver) "debounce" period, you get two clicks for a single press. (Normally there is a cap or similar to swallow the quick bounces, but as the contact surfaces get dirtier and more worn the bounces can be further apart.)
Switch Bounce and How to Deal with It[^]
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Good point.
I am aware of this as I come from an electronics background.
Plus switch bounce can be an intermittent problem as well, that can come and go, which makes it worse and harder to detect.
However this system was a shared station that is in each outlet.
So all users in each outlet used the same machine for the function that it was designed for.
So in this case it was the super speed of 3 users, at different outlets, if i remember correctly, that were the cause of the issue.
Well I should really rephrase that to;
No not switch bounce, the developer just stuffed up.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
grralph1 wrote: However this system was a shared station that is in each outlet.
So all users in each outlet used the same machine for the function that it was designed for.
grralph1 wrote: Faster, Higher, Stronger or Stupid.
I mean, some of them might be stronger than others.
Pro tip: Maybe some testers should get high too.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed
And the keyboards/mice of today actually are slower because of USB, nevermind the wireless ones and even more latency.
IIRC, a PS2 connection could circumnavigate the planet and still be registered in the computer before a Logitech Unity signal is recognized.
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
grralph1 wrote: System had been running for about 7 years.
This system is almost 4 y/o now. This problem didn't surface until the last year of so, but as stated, it was rare and only produced a minor annoyance for the customers.
grralph1 wrote: Turns out that my double click technique is sh*t.
I practised to get it down from milliseconds to nanoseconds.
Yep got the error.
My experience as well! It should be noted that this web app runs inside of a web browser control in a .NET app installed on their POS touchscreen devices. The users could actually be hitting the button with two fingers almost simultaneously.
grralph1 wrote: End users are often Faster, Higher, Stronger or Stupid.
 And then there is sabotage...around 2 weeks ago, a relatively new user of one of our legacy applications caused an overflow by putting huge numbers into an order screen. The database handled it OK, but the next stage UI did not. Shame on me for not expecting quantities over a billion! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
That last user was either an idiot or crazy.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: That last user was either an idiot or crazy.
Either way, it was considered my bug and had to be patched, clearly a case of not protecting the user from themselves not to mention code that didn't properly validate variable/field type limits in all screens.
I was lazy and simply used a larger datatype. Ideally, I should've triggered Clippy to ask 'Are you really sure you want to order 123,456,789,123 cases of broccoli?'. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Bear in mind that "numbers" like 35e7 are often validated as numeric, but of course represent very large numbers (even though they're relatively short in terms of number of characters, so putting a MaxLength on a text field won't stop it!). They can occur in numeric input when a user mis-types. When testing validation of numeric input, it's always worth testing this case.
Sorry for a late post on this thread, but it might be of interest/use to someone someday! 
(And as for asking "are you really sure..." you can guarantee that at some point the user will click "yes" and then you're still left with the original bug anyway. )
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I've been bitten by the numeric e but usually always with very small numbers meaning I must have forgotten a round somewhere.
Actually, the input fields (in my case) only allow numeric chars plus b/s, and period validated at the keypress event. It's a little extra effort, but it's a good first line of defense against invalid data...of course, the clever ones can still copy/paste so you still have to check again. To be honest, I've never even afaik tried a value with an e in it. I'll have to check it out when I have more time!
DerekTP123 wrote: you can guarantee that at some point the user will click "yes"
Yep, whether they mean to or not...so many users don't even bother to read, they just click 'Yes' to dialogue they see. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: I still wonder wtf people want to double-click in a web browser??? 
Blame Windows Explorer for that.
I know people (non techie and pretty "I don't understand computers, so don't even try to explain me anything") that basically double click all, no matter what or where it is.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed from time to time that JS events can have significant, sometimes measurable, lag times. Since the JavaScript interpreter is single threaded, there is no such thing as pre-emptive multitasking. I vaguely recall encountering a similar issue several years ago, which I resolved by putting the double-postback preventer script in charge of submitting the form.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
Let me prefix this with having no background in the world of security whatsoever, but I did have an idea that I believe could have some merit and I thought I’d see what others thought.
It occurred to me that an OS with a "private key" of my choosing, several algorithmic options to use in conjunction with that key and some specification (length/charset) of the desired output, could have a mode designed to "alter" my input based on those data points. No actual password would be stored, but my password of "password1" could be turned into 180 characters for me by the OS while in what I call "password mode". Unless someone is using my private key, my selected algorithm, and my character set criteria, then nobody could reproduce the same output as me by typing password1.
In my mind, this private key works similar to a cypher (yes I am that far out of my depth) and could be my dogs name or an entire paragraph from my favorite book. The algorithms would need to do all of this in such a way where each subsequent character is an entirely new (but repeatable) character footprint. So, even if you type 11111 for your password, each new instance of 1 has an entirely different burst of (20'ish) characters representing the next instance of the 1 key.
This probably wouldn't change how we would log into an OS, but I do believe everyone using garbled 120+ character passwords overnight would go a long ways towards securing ourselves on individual websites. I also believe it would be extremely helpful to keep my password and change my private key when I find out a wesbite I use has been compromised.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. You essentially invented password hashes, salt and pepper. Again.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Bogatitus wrote: having no background in the world of security whatsoever
So, the good news is that with no background whatsoever, you've basically described how most password systems work. You did munge it a little with asymmetric cryptography (a private key infers a public key), but that's okay.
Maybe you should look into crypto systems; it's a very rich field of study that you apparently have an interest in.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
There are a million things I'd love to dig into if I wasn't already spending 75 hours a week as a 3D modeler for construction company + 30 more doing industry specific hobbyist programming.
Based on your comment though, I guess I am proposing they reinvent the wheel, but encapsulated around the users. Not quite the level of isolation I want, but it does seem like even a Chrome plugin could mostly do this for me as long as it existed for iOS, Android and Windows. Still, would be nice for OS level integration on mobiles so all the various standalone apps could recieve the altered input.
Maybe I am just too ignorant on this topic to understand and I can accept that... Online or in the real world if someone wants to steal something they are going to steal it, all we can do is make it more trouble than its worth. With that said, wouldn't doubling down even on our current protection methods (as proposed) cause some kind of useful distruption?
|
|
|
|
|
Bogatitus wrote: Online or in the real world if someone wants to steal something they are going to steal it, all we can do is make it more trouble than its worth.
There is no 100% security, you just need to make it more difficult to steal from you than from your neighbor 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Just saw this -- too bad I didn't see it when you first posted.
Anyways, the idea you propose sounds like what I've done in my app which allows you to draw a geometric shape and then generates a long (SHA-256 hash-based) password for you.
You can read all about it and get the code here at CP: Users Hate Passwords (We're All Users): Never Memorize a Password Again[^]
I've written the app as a iphone, Android, WinForm and web app.
You can try the web app at the official site (it's all client-side javascript, nothing is saved):
C'YaPass : Never type a password again[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would that work just using both the female plugs
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Yes of course! Why it should not work? It is a splitter and the females are parallel.
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah but it's electrickery to me  - thanks for your help
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
No problem  If it should not work, pass me the explanation why it does not work _and_ your EBAN and I will return you the £1.98
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Now I stand for all what I have write, but please allow me a question: Why one needs such a female to female extension?
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
