|
Hi Eddy.. Thank's for your reply..
I am doing my degree in St.Xavier's College, Palayamkottai, India.
I am developing a web based application in which i have to display results from popular search engines according to the keyword entered by the user... The number of results to be displayed must be user's choice..
|
|
|
|
|
Founded in 1923, as it reads. So you're going to use an existing search-engine? Google would seem the be the obvious choice there. They've got extensive documentation on how to do these kind of things here[^].
Your part lies in making the call to the site for the correct searchquery, reading back the results, and displaying those that you want - I don't expect you to have any problems as it's a rather basic task.
Good luck 
I are troll
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you could always host google in an iframe. 
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get it. You are doing project "Search engine", so I guess you should build your own (prolly simple) engine, right? Some web crawler that would index data etc. And what you want to do is host 1 search engine in your page? Dude..., that's bravery .
|
|
|
|
|
I am doing my degree in St.Xavier's College, Palayamkottai, India.
I am developing a web based application in which i have to display results from popular search engines according to the keyword entered by the user... The number of results to be displayed must be user's choice..
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is really needed me to proof my little cryptographic scheme because of i have used an own created cryptographic scheme to make secure for the mobile data transaction in a database system, and our lectures, who are professional on this cryptography, said "If it is used any created cryptographic algorithm to make secure for something then it would be done for proper cryptanalysis to prove that the algorithm is not hackable and to proof strength of algorithm first then it is possible to say as secure model. Otherwise it is not considered as secure.
I have heard about that cryptographic scheme is built after the mathematic justification is done but it is already done for programing implementation before the mathematic justification on the scheme/algorithm is done because of that time i had no idea about that all. If it is needed to rebuilt the scheme/algorithm again, it really hard for me to restart new one.
Cryptographic algorithm metric literature (1997), I've found, suggested about a few important metrics such as type, functions, key size, rounds, complexity, attack and strength but If it is new modern metric came out ready, i have not found it yet.
It is really needed justification on the proper cryptanalysis to prove that the scheme/algorithm is not hackable and to proof strength of algorithm as well
General detail of the algorithm follows as listed below.
Type: Symmetric
Functions: Confidentiality and authentication
Key size: 256 bit
Round: 3
Complexity: encryption, decryption and key setup include the expansion, bit operations, modular multiplications and modular exponentiations.
Attack: have not started to test it yet.
Strength: not started.
Additional info
encryption and decryption schemes work on numbers only because of data transaction in the database system uses numbers (not text and any other symbols)
Encryption
Input: 32 bits
Output: 128 bits
what need to do is better? If Any body, who are Phd, Prof and experts on the cryptography and were doing this before, please advice me?
Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
Probably easier to prove its broken. Encrypt some plaintext with your scheme and then feed the results into the NIST random number test suite. If your results aren't random then the scheme is probably weak.
|
|
|
|
|
A little bit clarify about NIST random test suite please?
If the scheme used it for generator as a random generator function in class of java programming language then what need to do? It is already proven random generator?
|
|
|
|
|
Take some text, like an ebook or something, and encrypt it with your scheme. If the encryption is strong, then the encrypted text should look random and come close to passing the NIST test suite. If your encryption scheme is weak, it will leave entropy in the output, which the NIST test may pick up on.
|
|
|
|
|
If the encryption scheme works on only numbers, especially limited inside 32 bits input, then how to test it properly?
|
|
|
|
|
Then you encode the data. Pack 4 8bit ascii characters into each word. Normally you'd compress data before encryption too, but in this case its important that you don't.
If your algorithm takes non-random data, encrypts it, and the result doesn't look random (it has things like high autocorrelation), then the algorithm is most likely seriously broken.
|
|
|
|
|
What you said over can be satisfied as proper test?
|
|
|
|
|
No, not at all. If this test fails, then its a very strong sign that your algorithm is weak. If this test passes then it definitely doesnt prove the algorithm in any way...
|
|
|
|
|
Probably easier to prove its broken. Encrypt some plaintext with your scheme and then feed the results into the NIST random number test suite. If your results aren't random then the scheme is probably weak.
A consistent failure to pass randomness tests would imply cryptographic weaknesses, which would likely be exploitable. On the other hand, it's possible for a scheme to pass any randomness test one might care to throw at it but nonetheless be cryptographically very weak. Given the availability of strong cryptographic methods, I don't see much point to using weak ones unless one is operating under severe hardware constraints.
Of course, it may well be that the application requirements don't quite match any existing security protocol. If that is the case, I would suggest building a protocol using existing encryption algorithms. Under that scenario, you may be able to prove that the only way to crack the protocol is to crack one of the underlying algorithms. Developing a secure protocol will often be tricky, even given secure algorithms, but with care you may be able to produce a protocol that can be shown to be as secure as the algorithms at its core.
|
|
|
|
|
What would the postfix expressions for the following statements;
a – (b / c * d )
a / b / c – ( d + e ) * f
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
Please I need help in explaining the meaning of the following statements in data structures;
getTop(stackTop)
push(stackTop)
please help.
Thanks!
ALOYSIUS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
getTop(stackTop) => probably a method for getting the top element in a Stack.
push(stackTop) => probably a method for pushing an element to top of a Stack.
|
|
|
|
|
How does an ATM work? Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
olsion wrote: How does an ATM work?
Which ATM? Asynchronous Transfer Mode, Automated Teller Machine?
If it's Automated Teller Machine, then you stand beside the machine - it's usually (but not always) located in a wall. Try not to stand behind it because:
a) It makes it really hard to stick your card in
b) You can't really see the keys to press
and
c) If the ATM is located in a wall, you'll have to knock an inconvenient hole in the wall to stick your arms through.
Once you've positioned yourself on the right side of the ATM, and are within reaching distance (obviously you don't want to have to throw the card at it and hope that it slides into the card reader), insert your card into the card reader slot, follow the instructions onscreen, enter your PIN and perform the operation of your choice. The operation should be related to the ATM, it's unadvisable to perform an appendectomy beside the ATM, for instance.
The PIN here refers to a Personal Identity Number that will have been issued to you by your bank. Physically sticking Pins into the ATM will do nothing for it - it does not need acupuncture, it does not respect voodoo.
Please choose the correct slot for the card when you enter it. The mouth of the person standing behind you does not count as a card reader. The receipts tray does not constitute the card reader, nor does the rubbish bin near by.
Thus ends your ATM lesson for today.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys
|
|
|
|
|
That was a good one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yusuf wrote: He would like to offer a book deal for "ATM for dummies"
I'll be happy to write one if he'll give me a plausible reason for drive-up ATMs that have Braille keypads.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
