My site appears to be hacked?

I recently found some random posts have been made from one of our user’s account without the user’s consent. We checked vividly with the security plugins but didn’t found anything. While we checked our Server Logs we found something like /ajax-index.php?url=http://majoydiego.com/wp-includes/css/dist/components/style.css

This URL contains a PHP payload.

Can anyone help me understand what is this code exactly and how the hacker gets access to my user and able to post? Though I uninstalled all those plugins and tried to secure as much as possible. But I am still worried!!!

Google Search Console cannot read my XML: Sitemap appears to be an HTML page

I’m working on a web application written with AngularJS (v8) and deployed on an apache2 using proxy to forward requests (frontend, api, backoffice).

My problem is that I’m trying to submit the sitemap ({website}/sitemap.xml) on Google, but Google Search Console keep saying that it’s not valid: Google can read the link but it seem to be in HTML

gsc

My sitemap: sitemap

I tried to validate that XML on many website and I didn’t find any error.

I mentioned apache2 because maybe when Google try to fetch the URL, before finding the XML, apache give another page but I cannot prove that. I tried in many ways and the first page that I see when opening the URL is the sitemap and nothing else.

In my angular.json I added the file in the assets as follow:

"assets": ["src/favicon.ico", "src/assets", "src/sitemap.xml"],

What it can be?

Thank you

Query to check if column value appears more than once then apply condition

I have a PostgreSQL query:

SELECT DISTINCT ON ("contract"."contract_id") "contract"."id"  FROM "contract_versions" "contract"  WHERE "contract"."client_id" = 1  GROUP BY "contract"."contract_id", "contract"."id"  ORDER BY "contract"."contract_id", "contract"."change_effective_date" DESC 

I want to add something like if contract_id occurs more than once then change_effective_date >= now()

I tried using:

SELECT DISTINCT ON ("contract"."contract_id") "contract"."id",        COUNT("contract"."contract_id") AS cnt  FROM "contract_versions" "contract"  WHERE "contract"."client_id" = 1  AND CASE WHEN "cnt" > 1 THEN "contract"."change_effective_date" <= now() END  GROUP BY "contract"."contract_id", "contract"."id"  ORDER BY "contract"."contract_id", "contract"."change_effective_date" DESC 

but its throwing an error column “cnt” does not exist

Thanks

“File not found.” appears often while navigating wp-admin

I’ve been experiencing this issue with this specific website quite often. I moved it from a staging domain to the production domain and since it’s been doing this. It did not do this on the staging domain (same server).

  1. I did a find and replace on the database to ensure that the staging domain was replaced with the production domain.
  2. I have flushed the permalinks.
  3. I have increased PHP memory for this site

I can’t point to a specific plugin. I’ve used these plugin before on many sites. Everything is up to date. I have not found a pattern to when it appears. If I click between the Posts, Media and Page tabs often enough it eventually happens. I also happens when interacting with the plugins section of the site.

After it has happened a refresh of the page brings it back.

Here are examples: enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

Rigidbody appears to jitter when placed as a sibling to a First Person camera

In my game, the Player can pick up an object (which gets parented to the first-person camera), or the player can push an object (which is parented to the player, but not their first-person camera). Both mechanics use very similar implementations in regards to moving the objects, yet I get a pretty severe amount of ‘perceived’ jitter from Pushing — the object, as far as I can tell, isn’t actually jittering.

(Side note – wasn’t sure where to upload footage so I used mega which can be used merely to view the footage)

Footage of the push, with visible jitter

Footage of the lift for comparison

Footage of the push but parented to the first-person camera

Footage of push frame-by-frame from the side at 0.50 timescale

Footage of the lift frame-by-frame from the side at 0.50 timescale

The object is moved in FixedUpdate and the camera is moved in LateUpdate. You can see pretty clearly that in the side view, the camera moves after the object. Since the object is parented to the camera on Lift, it moves with it and no change is perceived. However on Push it doesn’t move and thus appears to jitter.

I’m not sure how to fix this. I have tried enabling interpolation on the rigidbody, the jitter occurs even if gravity is disabled and the object is lifted off the ground (e.g., not caused by collision with the floor), and I have tried the following code in LateUpdate to sort of nudge it forwards –

protected void CheckCameraPosition() {     if (m_LastCameraPosition == Vector3.zero)         return;      Vector3 newPosition = m_FPCamera.Transform.position;     if (newPosition == m_LastCameraPosition)         return;      Vector3 newOffset = newPosition - m_LastCameraPosition;     newOffset.y = 0f;     Transform.position += newOffset; } 

But the object still jitters and were I to seriously consider the above code I’d be worried about race conditions since the camera movement is executed in LateUpdate as well.

Possible Scam – reply address appears to be yours

Have received the following email which I believe to be a scam

Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) In Partnership with: Swiss National Fraud Relief Center (NFRC) Case/Reference ID: IE3033900045 We regret to inform you that you have been a victim of identity theft. Your identity and consumer credit file have been compromised and used in an identity theft scheme recently uncovered in Ireland by federal authorities. Your more personal details have been undisclosed in this email for your own security as your email might have been compromised as well. The offenders have since been prosecuted, tried and ordered to pay restitution to victims involved willingly through wire fraud and romance or other scams, or unwillingly through identity theft and hacking. This means victims that had direct contact with the offenders by telephone or email in response to some type of scam and those who are hacked and are unaware of the incident prior to this notification. You have received this notification because this applies to you directly regardless of if you have lived in Ireland or not, that’s where the case was opened and that’s where the hackers were charged. For more detailed information about this case and the settlement pay outs that you are entitled to, immediately contact the Office of International Affairs at the Limerick City District Court by replying to this notification, or by visiting in person at 38 Roxboro Road, Limerick, Ireland between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. If you are visiting in person, set up an appointment prior to your visit by telephone: +353 800 814 250 (toll-free) or by email. If you are unable to make a trip, you will be rendered proper assistance online and on the telephone. Regards, Ilia Price Administrative Clerk

The send address was Ilia Price The reply address was international.affairs@limerick-city.org

Are you able to confirm that is is a scam

Kind Regards Richard Stafford

CNF2 = { φ | φ is a satisfiable CNF-formula in which each variable appears at most 2 times}. Show CNF2 is in P


CNF2 = { φ | φ is a satisfiable CNF-formula in which each variable appears at most 2 times}. Show CNF2 is in P.

I found this solution:

We use the method of resolution to take the variables out one by one. First, observe that if the variable x appears only as x or only as ¬x in the formula, or if it appears only once, we can satisfy whatever clauses it takes part of and thus exclude x and these clauses. On the other hand, if x and ¬x are both clauses for some variable, we know our formula is not satisfiable. So the interesting case is when we have x in one clause, c+, and ¬x in another, c−, such that (c+, c−) 6= (x, ¬x). Call the remaining part of the formula r. We claim that c+ ∧ c− ∧ r is satisfiable if and only if c ∧ r is satisfiable, where c is the disjunction of all literals from c+ and c− that are not x or ¬x. Indeed, given a satisfying assignment of c+ ∧ c− ∧ r, some literal in either c+ or c− has to be satisfied, because we can’t have both x and ¬x be satisfied. Thus, forgetting the assignment of x, we get a satisfying assignment of c ∧ r. Conversely, given a satisfying assignment of c ∧ r, some literal different from x and ¬x will be satisfied in either c+ or c−; the other one can be satisfied by assigning x in an appropriate way. Thus, we have a procedure to decide satisfiability of a CNF2 formula φ efficiently: reduce the number of variables by the methods described above; if there is no contradiction along the way and you get to the empty formula, then φ is satisfiable. Otherwise, it is not.

Why is there not a control about to check if each variable appears at most 2 times?

What happens if a 2nd-level spell appears in (or is added to) a character’s spell list as a 1st-level spell?

In the latest Unearthed Arcana: Class Feature Variants, one of the [many] included additions/changes is the addition of a few spells to the Ranger’s spell list. One of these changes is to add the 2nd-level spell, Aid, to the Ranger’s spell list as a 1st-level spell.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this isn’t just an obvious typo in playtest material, and actually constitutes a serious, intentional design decision:
How would this be adjudicated? Would Rangers be able to cast the Aid spell using only a 1st-level spell slot?