How can i turn this xml injection into a valid XXE?

I was testing the website example.com and found a form vulnerable to XML Injection. It send the details you insert into that form as xml attachment via email to my email address and also to administrators CMS as email. It works with XSS but my question is, can this also work with XXE? and if yes, what xml code can i inject to achieve to demonstrate the presence of XXE?

The injection point is the following

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?> <content> <firstname>Injection-Point</firstname> <lastname>Test</lastname> <telephone>75674874844</telephone> <state>TT</state> <countryInput></countryInput> <method>Email</method> <authorised>Yes</authorised> <privacy>yes</privacy> </content>

The injection is occurring in <firstname> tag. Can this be turned into a good XXE?

Is a split button valid without proper visual grouping

Split button is basically a button with a default action and several other actions which are shown in a drop-down menu.

While there’s no doubt in how it functions, the issue is with how the default-action and more-actions icon should be highlighted in UI.

I have created basic variations of split buttons in below codepen.

https://codepen.io/paulj05hua/full/PooayrP

In the above, both styles 1 & 2 are properly highlighted as a single group. But with style 3 user might mistake the more-actions arrow as separate button.

So the question is whether style 3 is valid or not ?

PS:

  • style 3 is used by Gmail in the mail list panel for selecting emails

    gmail-split-button-usage

    If this is considered valid, kindly state the reason.

  • There’s no mention of this type of component in material design ( material.io )

Warning: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, function ‘wpss_social_addtoany_js’

I have made an update of the plugins and themes and now it throws me this warning.

Warning: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, function ‘wpss_social_addtoany_js’ not found or invalid function name in /home/html/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 286

Is it valid to administer a SUS questionnaire after a system training session?

We would like to do some tests to determine usability and learnability of a new system we have produced. We have a very short time period, so right now we are only looking at something quick and high-level.

We will be have a few training sessions with new users. In these training sessions they will be taught how to use the new software. (It is a very complex system requiring specific knowledge, and it’s unlikely users would become adept through just the training sessions). They are required to do the training session, so I cannot really test on users who haven’t done the training.

I am thinking about administering a SUS questionnaire at the end of the training sessions. Would this still produce valid results? My understanding is that it’s generally used after usability tests with structured tasks (and not after being trained in the system).

The URL is invalid. It may refer to a nonexistent file or folder, or refer to a valid file or folder that is not in the current Web?

I am trying to upload documents to SharePoint 2010 site and i am getting the following error.

The URL ‘aaa.pdf’ is invalid. It may refer to a nonexistent file or folder, or refer to a valid file or folder that is not in the current Web

How can i fix it ?

How to determine valid handle for given bottom up parser?

I came across following question:

Consider the grammar:

$ E → E + n\text{ | }E × n\text{ | }n$

For a sentence n + n × n, the handles in the right-sentential form of the reduction are
(A) $ n, E + n$ and $ E + n × n$
(B) $ n, E + n$ and $ E + E × n$
(C) $ n, n + n$ and $ n + n × n$
(D) $ n, E + n$ and $ E × n$

Solution given was:

n+n×n    E+n×n  //reduce n to E E×n    //reduce E+n to E E      //reduce E×n to E 

Hence option D

Then I came across following problem:

Consider the following grammar:
$ A\rightarrow A(B)|B$
$ B\rightarrow B*C | id $
$ C\rightarrow (id)$
Which of the following can be the correct handle in bottom up parsing for the given grammar? (A) (id)
(B) id*C
(C) id
(D) none

The given solution was (A)(id)

Doubts

  1. After thinking about the definition of the handle and two problems, I concluded following:

    • If problem asks which are valid handles for given string and grammar, then we have to actually try parsing that string with given grammar and determine which handles are reduced during parsing.

    • But, if no string is given, and just the grammar is given, then following are valid handles:
      (a) right hand side of each production
      (b) those sentential forms which can be derived from start symbol by doing rightmost derivation are valid handles. For example, $ B*(id)$ is a valid handle as we can derive it by doing rightmost derivation as follows: $ S\rightarrow B\rightarrow B*C\rightarrow B*(id)$

  2. As explained in 2nd bullet point of point 1 above, answer of 2nd problem is wrong and both of $ A$ and $ C$ options are correct: both $ (id)$ and $ id$ are valid handles.

Am I correct with both conclusions above?

Is this key exchange algorithm secure and valid?

I’m writing reliable UDP implementation and I want it to be secure. Also, I want to make use of elliptic curve cryptography. I don’t have the proper education to really understand the math behind this kind of cryptography, but I understand how to use it (at least in general).

Given the next preconditions, is this algorithm secure? What steps can be skipped without compromising security?

(opt.) Is it ok for parties to use a single ECDSA key pair for all interactions in a long period of time? I mean do not change this key pair at all and use it to sign any messages.

Preconditions

  • Interaction is going between two parties A and B
  • Both A and B have predefined ECDSA key pair
  • Digital signature also works like a hash

Algorithm

  1. A computes and sends to B her epheremal ECDH public key
  2. B computes the shared epheremal ECDH secret and hashes it with SHA-256, using the key A sent her in step 1
  3. B randomly generates 256-bit static encryption key
  4. B encrypts her ECDSA public key and the static encryption key from step 3 using the epheremal secret from step 2 with AES-256 algorithm
  5. B signs the result from step 4 with her ECDSA private key
  6. B sends to A the result from step 4 alongside with the signature from step 5 and her epheremal ECDH public key
  7. A also computes the shared epheremal ECDH secret and hashes it with SHA-256, using the key B sent her in step 6
  8. A decrypts the result from step 4 using epheremal key from step 7 with AES-256 algorithm
  9. A checks the signature B sent her in step 6 using B‘s ECDSA public key she received in step 8
    • If something goes wrong (the signature is invalid or step 8 lead to corrupted data), A gives up
    • At this point, A has everything she needs to send messages securely
  10. A signs and encrypts her ECDSA public key using AES-256 algorithm with the static encryption key she received in step 8
    • A can also sign and encrypt some payload in this step
  11. A sends to B the result from step 11 with the signature
  12. B decrypts the ciphertext A sent her using AES-256 algorithm and checks the signature
    • If here something goes wrong, B gives up
  13. Now both A and B know ECDSA public keys of each other and the shared encryption key, so they can interact securely and be sure nobody can modify their messages

TaxonomyFieldControl You must specify a valid field value

I have a custom Manage Metadata field which is hooked up on a TermStore which has an Open Submission Policy and the field itself has Allow multiple value + Fill-in choices enabled (Checked).

Yet when I try to create or edit an item and fill-in a new term which I want in the termset, I get the error You must specify a valid field value.

Any ideas?