I was recently attempting to install PHP using an installer (MSI) I downloaded to my local workstation and copied to one of our servers. When I attempted to run the installer I received the following inscrutable warning:
Thanks, Windows, that’s helpful. I had no idea what was happening, especially since I was logged in as an administrator with full control of the file.
As usual, the web was my friend in solving the problem. Windows 2003 Server has a security feature where executables copied from remote systems are blocked for execution unless allowed by an administrator. The feature appears to have been present for a while (since SP2?), but I don’t recall running into it before. As mentioned above, the file in my case was copied from my workstation over SMB; I don’t know if other transfer methods are also affected. I don’t have a problem with the feature, but I do have a problem with how it’s implemented. An indication in the pop-up of why the file could not be accessed would have resulted in a resolution of seconds not … er … minutes.
The resolution is simple enough, go into the properties for the file and you’ll see at the bottom a security warning and a button that allows you to unblock the file.
Click the “Unblock” button and you can execute the file as you normally would.
I made a change to the filters attached to our profiles in Google Analytics (GA) so that we would capture only relevant traffic. Namely, I was attempting to avoid capturing traffic to our development servers. Unfortunately, instead of a domain-based filter I created one that resulted in GA capturing zero traffic. Fail.
The problem stems from my attempt to use a predefined filter to block out the unwanted traffic. I tried to set up a “include only traffic from the domains that include” filter, thinking this was a filter on the server’s domain. What this filter actually checks against is the visitor’s domain. I guess a little more attention to the “from/to” part of the filter would have made this apparent, but Google doesn’t provide much documentation (or even better, examples) on their filters.
After a few days I noticed the sudden lack of data and realized my error. Turns out what I really wanted was a custom filter with the following settings:
- filter type: include
- fiter field: hostname
- filter pattern: regex for the domain (e.g. www.project2061.org
- case sensitive: no
Even after looking at this again, it’s still not clear to me why these two are different. The descriptive language is almost identical. Google needs to do some work here.
Of course, there are also other solutions to this problem, listed below:
- Use an include to pull in the GA code and only populate the file on the servers where tracking should occur. The only significant problem here would be forgetting to set up the include.
- Create advanced segments in GA that filters out traffic to anything other than the production domains. This would have the benefit of being able to track both production and development server use in the same report. But if there are any significant difference between the two sites then this wouldn’t be all that helpful.
Following up on my earlier post, I’ve had to make some further configuration adjustments to avoid suhosin-related restrictions in one of our custom web applications. This particular application has a function that generates a summary of data from student assessments. The summaries can be generated based on groupings of packets and items. Depending on the filtering parameters selected there can be a fairly large number of packets and items. Not all of the packets necessarily contain the items of interest, but it’s always easier to select all if you want an overall summary of item performance.
I recently noticed the following alert in the system log:
ALERT – configured POST variable limit exceeded – dropped variable ‘included_packet_ids’ (attacker USER_IP_ADDRESS, file REPORT_FILTERING_PAGE)
One of the reasons I use POST variables on this page is to avoid the relatively small data size limit of GET. Suhosin adds additional limits, including in the number of times you can reference an individual variable. Our limit was set at 1000, meaning there were over 1000 packets selected. This points to a need to adjust how the filter “selects all” … but for now I’ve adjusted the suhosin limit upward by modifying the